It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Core of Earth found to be as hot as the Sun - Hollow Earth theory

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
I don't dispel the theory that the earth is filled with molten "anything" because I might believe the earth is hollow. I dispel the molten iron theory because it is absolutely "Insane".


So where does this come from then?



You should really do some research before you type.


It takes a rather long time for heat to move out of the earth. This occurs through both "convective" transport of heat within the earth's liquid outer core and solid mantle and slower "conductive" transport of heat through nonconvecting boundary layers, such as the earth's plates at the surface. As a result, much of the planet's primordial heat, from when the earth first accreted and developed its core, has been retained...

...In sum, there was no shortage of heat in the early earth, and the planet's inability to cool off quickly results in the continued high temperatures of the Earth's interior. In effect, not only do the earth's plates act as a blanket on the interior, but not even convective heat transport in the solid mantle provides a particularly efficient mechanism for heat loss. The planet does lose some heat through the processes that drive plate tectonics, especially at mid-ocean ridges. For comparison, smaller bodies such as Mars and the Moon show little evidence for recent tectonic activity or volcanism.


www.scientificamerican.com...

www.scientificamerican.com...




posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
If you re-read my post I describe plasma as a PHASE OF MATTER


My apologies sir. Got a little carried away with all the Einsteins in this thread.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

I don't dispel the theory that the earth is filled with molten "anything" because I might believe the earth is hollow. I dispel the molten iron theory because it is absolutely "Insane". If it were filled with anything that temperature, through time, that temperature would have migrated to the surface, and it has had 4 billion years to do it. And as you can see, it hasn't. Sure, there are hot spots called volcanoes but that in no way is a reflection of a constant condition within the Earth. You would logically expect molten IRON to come out of the Volcanoes, but it doesn't! It is super heated rock. And I believe it is the result of extreme compression and a chemical reaction, locally, nothing more. And, it has been said in the past that a pimple on a persons face does not mean that people are filled with pimple juice.


Right. So you know nothing about plate tectonics, subduction, vulcanism and basic geology them? Just checking.
Yes, I am fully aware of those "Theories", and have even studied them. But that does not mean I agree with them.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



You should really do some research before you type.
Are you saying I should just believe everything I'm taught? I have done the research, and I do not agree with it. I will not parrot a theory I do not believe in.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


No, I asked you a question.

There is a big difference in not believing everything you're taught, and outright ignorance of known science.






edit on 4/29/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


No, I asked you a question.

There is a big difference in not believing everything you're taught, and outright ignorance of known science.






edit on 4/29/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Okay, here is your answer as explained to me by a Free Mason.

Deep in the crust of the planet in localized areas you have deposits of Sodium metal salts. Some of these deposits are quite large while others not so. They are at varying depths but even the shallow ones have a great deal of compression caused by gravity (Another unsubstantiated theory). It may take a thousand years in some cases for the "Water" to get down to them. Sometimes as in the Pacific and the Hawaiian Island chain, water is constantly being introduced to this deposit which feeds the chemical reaction .

When water is present there is a great deal of pressure built up, but deep in the crust their is nowhere for the pressure to go so temperatures increase to the point where the surrounding rocks are melted and excreted through fractures and continue out to the surface, explosively.







Im not ignorant of "Known" science. And before you go there, Sodium is a naturally occurring element in the crust.

Good day to you!



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by robbystarbuck
 


As much as I find the theory fascinating and want it to be true I don't see much supporting evidence. I'm no scientist or anything but if there was a sun inside earth with people living in it wouldn't the heat from it just just burn them. Considering we feel heat from our sun which is way further I see no logical way this could work.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Having a lifelong interest in astronomy, I'll just touch on the inner sun idea. Unfortunately, the entire Earth itself contains nowhere near the mass to begin, let alone sustain, a fusion reaction, a necessity for star formation. If this is meant to say the "central star" is equivalent to our own sun, it must be noted that the temperature at the center of the sun is approximately 27,000,000 degrees F, which pretty much precludes such an object being within our planet. Such a small "star" wouldn't have enough volume, let alone surface area, for the heat to dissipate by the time it reached the exterior, and the Earth would never have existed in the first place. Either that, or we'd consider 26,000,000 degrees F a cool day. My ice cream would melt!



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Yes, I am fully aware of those "Theories", and have even studied them. But that does not mean I agree with them.


Then you know that what you stated is total rubbish! Magma is iron not from the Earth's core, it's from subduction and consists of the lighter rocks that were taken down below the surface where they melted. I've just come back from Oregon where there are a massive series of volcanoes. I suppose that they're powered by woo are they?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


Sorry not buying it.

This is a well researched and studied area of science with plenty of evidence.

If there was no molten outer core there would be no geomagnetic field, no atmosphere.

The planet would not hold life, much like all the other planets in our solar system.


Without the outer core, life on Earth would be very different. Convection of liquid metals in the outer core creates the Earth's magnetic field.[6][7] This magnetic field extends outward from the Earth for several thousand kilometers, and creates a protective bubble around the Earth that deflects the solar wind. Without this field, a larger proportion of the solar wind would directly strike the Earth's atmosphere. The presumed effect would be to strip the Earth's atmosphere away slowly. This is hypothesized to have happened to the Martian atmosphere, rendering the planet incapable of supporting life.[8]


en.wikipedia.org...

Even if there was no physical evidence of a molten core, that would be the inevitable conclusion simply because the physics of the planet dictate it.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
The earth is hollow. I can confirm this..



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Deep in the crust of the planet in localized areas you have deposits of Sodium metal salts. Some of these deposits are quite large while others not so.


Table salt is a 'sodium metal salt'.

Ever notice it getting hot enough to melt rock when it's added to water?

Me either.

Metallic sodium does this, not salts. And there is no free metallic sodium in nature.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Deep in the crust of the planet in localized areas you have deposits of Sodium metal salts. Some of these deposits are quite large while others not so.


Table salt is a 'sodium metal salt'.

Ever notice it getting hot enough to melt rock when it's added to water?

Me either.

Metallic sodium does this, not salts. And there is no free metallic sodium in nature.
Are you another who has traveled deep within this planet to confirm no such deposits exist? It amazes me how many many have.


Sodium is a very versatile element which can be found in various points both on Earth, as well as in space. The sun, as well as other stars, contain large amounts of this element.


I find this to be a bit hypocritical

Sodium can be found on Earth in many minerals, as well as in the crust of the planet. Sodium is the fourth most abundant element on Earth. Approximately 2.6 percent of the Earth’s crust is made of sodium. However, sodium is not found freely in the natural world. Rather, pure sodium is processed from sodium chloride in a factory.
science.yourdictionary.com...

It makes up approximately 2.6 % of the crust of the planet, but is not found in the natural world? Something unnatural going on? Again, anything over a mile deep is conjecture and theory.

You believe pure iron is present within the core of the planet, why not pure sodium?

edit on 30-4-2013 by All Seeing Eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Also, one would expect if Volcanoes were related to a chemical reaction rather than the "Pimple" theory, one might find the chemical breakdown interesting, of Magma. Well low and behold, look what is found in magma.


What is Magma Made Of?

Magma is primarily made up of elements like oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, magnesium, titanium, calcium, sodium, potassium and phosphorous.
Read more at Buzzle: www.buzzle.com...
That sure looks like the soup of a chemical reaction, not friction, or pimple juice.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Sorry not buying it.
You might find this interesting, I'm not really interested in your personal purchasing habits. And even more important than that, Im not selling anything! You want to consider other options, other "scientific" possibilities, that is you choice. Or, you can remain safely where you are, intellectually. Others who still have a free mind are encouraged to use it. That, is their choice!



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Also, one would expect if Volcanoes were related to a chemical reaction rather than the "Pimple" theory, one might find the chemical breakdown interesting, of Magma. Well low and behold, look what is found in magma.


What is Magma Made Of?

Magma is primarily made up of elements like oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, magnesium, titanium, calcium, sodium, potassium and phosphorous.
Read more at Buzzle: www.buzzle.com...
That sure looks like the soup of a chemical reaction, not friction, or pimple juice.


Interesting that you ignore the rest of the article which states, quite clearly, that it's to do with deep pressure, high heat and absolutely nothing to do with a chemical reaction. Try again.



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
You might find this interesting, I'm not really interested in your personal purchasing habits. And even more important than that, Im not selling anything! You want to consider other options, other "scientific" possibilities, that is you choice. Or, you can remain safely where you are, intellectually. Others who still have a free mind are encouraged to use it. That, is their choice!


But dude it has nothing to do with having a free mind, what you are claiming is nonsense.

How do you explain the magnetic field?


A strong magnetic field inside the outer core means there is a lot of convection and thus a lot of heat being produced, which scientists would need to account for, Buffett said. The presumed sources of energy are the residual heat from 4 billion years ago when the planet was hot and molten, release of gravitational energy as heavy elements sink to the bottom of the liquid core, and radioactive decay of long-lived elements such as potassium, uranium and thorium.

A weak field – 5 Gauss, for example – would imply that little heat is being supplied by radioactive decay, while a strong field, on the order of 100 Gauss, would imply a large contribution from radioactive decay...

...."A measurement of the magnetic field tells us what the energy requirements are and what the sources of heat are," Buffett said....

....The cooling Earth originally captured its magnetic field from the planetary disk in which the solar system formed. That field would have disappeared within 10,000 years if not for the planet's internal dynamo, which regenerates the field thanks to heat produced inside the planet. The heat makes the liquid outer core boil, or "convect," and as the conducting metals rise and then sink through the existing magnetic field, they create electrical currents that maintain the magnetic field. This roiling dynamo produces a slowly shifting magnetic field at the surface.


First measurement of magnetic field in Earth's core

We know the outer core is hot molten steel/nickle, what is not fully known is how. So how do you explain the magnetic field in the hollow Earth hypothesis?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Are you another who has traveled deep within this planet to confirm no such deposits exist? It amazes me how many many have.


I have some understanding of chemistry, which you do not appear to share.





However, sodium is not found freely in the natural world. Rather, pure sodium is processed from sodium chloride in a factory.


It makes up approximately 2.6 % of the crust of the planet, but is not found in the natural world? Something unnatural going on? Again, anything over a mile deep is conjecture and theory.


They know something about chemistry you do not. Hint: You won't find any free alkali metals or halogens in nature. This sort of obviates your lumps of sodium theory. (Why not potassium? Cesium?) The reason is this little thing called reactivity. It has to do with electronegativity. I don't need to see electronegativity to understand its effects.



You believe pure iron is present within the core of the planet, why not pure sodium?


Because pure sodium is quite a bit more reactive than pure iron.

BTW, weren't you real sure it was 'sodium salts' a minute ago?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
That sure looks like the soup of a chemical reaction, not friction, or pimple juice.


Why? What about it looks different to you than other molten rock?



posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
You believe pure iron is present within the core of the planet, why not pure sodium?


Nobody has said it is pure iron.

It's an alloy of mostly iron and nickle, but there are also may other elements present, gold, platinum, etc.

Why so much iron? Density mate, iron sank to the Earths center due to it's density, and the centrifugal force of the Earths spin. The process is called planetary differentiation, dense matter sinks to the center and less dense materials rise to the surface. Iron, being the most common element in the Earth, is bound to make up most of the outer core.


edit on 4/30/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join