The Earth's Core is Cube-shaped?

Originally posted by Frenchcon1
The core is round as the Earth is round; because of gravity acting upon it from the Sun.

End of.

Idiots like this amaze me. Here are scientists giving evidence, and this guy comes out of left field saying "Oh it's gotta be round"

Sounds like pre-copernican thinking to me.


Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Mod Note: Civility and Decorum are Required - Please Review This Link



[edit on 13-2-2008 by Jbird]

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Hoagland, as crazy as he sounds to many including me at times, is onto something with his hyperdimensional physics. I wonder if those points of the cube are at 33.5 degrees or whatever the number is.

I would ask the reader to look at the hexagon on Saturns pole(s?). We are about to make some pretty giant leaps if we can avoid destroying ourselves.

Peace

The hexagon on Saturns pole is due to Cymatics. That's a pretty easy one there. Just check out the "Vowel A in sand" about half way down that page.

Beechcoma you have been one of my all times faves. Dinnstar posted up tho so now I'm snowed.
I'm not smart, overly schooled, like you two.
However, the chap that correctly premonished the liftoff collapse of the english flight with great mortality on c2c has been documented. He also said a huge orb would make way out of antarctica causing huge problems. Noory shoved him off due to little new news. BUT...there is no question of his correct prognosis.

Originally posted by novrod
Our planet is not round. It's the result of a billion years reshaping process.

Can anyone say our planet has only been spheric?

Also, I think the idea of crystallization is not that awkward. Since the planet started to cool down the nucleus, if it is mainly composed of iron, may assume an iron crystal shape.

www.webelements.com...

This is one of the most profound statements i have ever read on ATS. Congratulations, sir, and thank you.

When we consider materials, we consider them primarily from our point of reference. That is, what their properties are on the scale we are at, within the same levels of pressure (in all its varying forms), temperatures, densities, etc. However, in nano's we have found that on a much smaller scale elements take on entirely different properties.

The concept that the pressures exerted on our core could cause it to form a rigid, crystalline shape is spot on. Thinking along these contexts could give some outstanding insights into other planetary phenomena, even the wierd polar activity of Saturn.

Originally posted by indierockalien
I don't see how they can honestly be sure of any of this, considering nobody can actually see the core. At this point, it's all just theory based on experiments and measurements that may or may not be accurate.

Yep, just like the theory of black holes, and the time/space continuum, and hey even Atoms!

Do you even realize how science operates? ON THEORIES!!!

reply to post by Quazga


THis is something that more scientists should understand. I don't mean just read, but understand.

Using your theory (no matter how well you have proven it to yourself using your own standards of proof) to ridicule another person for their theory would seem to be a perversion of what science truly is.

Sphere?, lol, what about plato saying the moon was steered here?
MOON

I like their attempt to establish a new theory in modern science but it wouldn't make sense according to how we have come to know about how planets form.

With the swirling of the core and the Earth spinning, it would be very ridiculous for the core to actually be cube-like shaped.

It's sort of like having a clay spinner running (Earth's core) and your hands (Outer Earth) running against the clay in a sphere type form but ending up with a cube somehow.

It wouldn't make sense.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Sphere?, lol, what about plato saying the moon was steered here?
MOON

can you direct me to a source for that, by any chance?

Everyone knows the Earth is hollow, with a internal sun!

Right?

How can this possibly be right?

Wow, thanks to all for the clarification that they are referring to the cube shaped arrangement of the atoms and not the shape of the whole core.

I was duped by the graphic which is totally misleading. Had me going there.

Originally posted by Masisoar
I like their attempt to establish a new theory in modern science but it wouldn't make sense according to how we have come to know about how planets form.

With the swirling of the core and the Earth spinning, it would be very ridiculous for the core to actually be cube-like shaped.

It's sort of like having a clay spinner running (Earth's core) and your hands (Outer Earth) running against the clay in a sphere type form but ending up with a cube somehow.

It wouldn't make sense.

Actually given the fact that it is under immense pressure and that the crystalized form of iron is the cube, it would make *perfect* sense.

I don't understand how you don't see that.

Originally posted by Hal9000
Wow, thanks to all for the clarification that they are referring to the cube shaped arrangement of the atoms and not the shape of the whole core.

I was duped by the graphic which is totally misleading. Had me going there.

Uhm... that's exactly what they are saying. That the core itself is a cube. It is because of the atomic structure of Iron under such pressure that would allow this to occur. Not just at the atomic level, but at the macro as well.

Hard to believe, impossible in my oppinion. Gravity is equally distributed from all sides of an object, thus only a sphere can be created. The earth's mantle and outer core has been assumed to be moving in a circular current, a square will cause unequal pressure and thus specific sesmic activities which people have not seen. Think about the basics, if gravity pulls from all sides, then mass should be equally distributed on the "core" creating multiple concentric layers.
By the way, how do you know that iron will exist as a cube under immense pressure, have you tried such an experiment?

[edit on 2/11/2008 by die_another_day]

reply to post by Quazga

I don't think so. I don't see anything in the article that states the core is cube shaped. However it does say...

The body-centered cubic crystal structure forms a cube with atoms in each corner and a further atom in the middle of this cube. It is oriented in such a way that its great diagonal is directed along the earth’s axis of rotation, which makes it possible for the iron to evince sound propagations with the velocities observed.

Rubik's Cube In Center Of Earth? Computer Simulations Support New Model Of Earth's Core

Here is another article based on the same findings that states the core is spherical.

Earth, like all planets in the solar system, has an inner most core, in the shape of a sphere measuring about 1,200 kilometers, consisting of a solid mass of iron, responsible for generating our planet's powerful magnetic field.

[snip]

Swedish researchers, from the Uppsala University, argue that the difference between direction-dependent speed rates, equal to about 12 percent, is determined by a body-centered cubic crystal structure which experiences high degrees of symmetry and elastic anisotropy, properties that depend on direction, even though it experiences extremely high temperatures.

Scientists Present New Theory for Earth's Iron Core

They also don't have a misleading graphic with a Rubik's cube in the middle of the Earth.

Originally posted by Frenchcon1
The core is round as the Earth is round; because of gravity acting upon it from the Sun.

End of.

Aigh, the force of gravity, heat, and the fast spinning would turn the core into a more olval shape then anything (bowed in the center) just as the Earth is round, and Bowed at the center due to the same forces. If the core is square, why is it the rest of the world is not?

I say.... poor science on this one!

I love this. Everyone chiming in with their thoughts. Some getting upset at othes for percieved mendacity. Pure beauty. Like a little microcosm of academia.

Your guesses are as good as theirs, I suppose.

But, i would say that once locked in a rigid crystalline shape (especially if the individual minerals were parsed by layer/locality/region) you could begin to see some VERY strange effects. We have no clue what properties an iron "glass" would have at that scale, under those conditions. Perhaps its primary property is that it can appear to be spherical when buried in the middle of an Earth size, Earthly composed mantle and crust? Perhaps it would have this property regardless of it outer shell of Earth?

But the speculation sure does make for some interesting conversation. Too bad it is so late. I would brew up a cup of Starbucks Breakfast Blend.

just my 2 cents but this article sound bogus to me!

i'm in the final stages of completing my bachelors of science in geophysics, and i've studied many data sets of of p-waves and s-waves propagating through the earth interior.

the boundary layers between the inner core and the outer core (rock densitys) is fairly uncertian but im pretty sure that they do not form a cubic shape!

also; i have alot of notes of the shape of the earth, however they are all packed away somewhere. if i find the energy to look through them i will share the information. very mathematical.......)

cheers

Originally posted by Quazga


Actually given the fact that it is under immense pressure and that the crystalized form of iron is the cube, it would make *perfect* sense.

I don't understand how you don't see that.

The core is not in the shape of a cube. It doesn't take a genius to realize that given the information about the geophysics of the Earth.

My immediate thought is that anything that has spun, millenia after millenia, would resort to the form that allows least resistance when spinning. Surely the 'path of least resistance' would be to form a sphere. A cube just wouldn't spin as comfortably or smoothly. Add to this that gravity attracts equally in all directions and it just seems by far the most logical for the Earth's core to be spherical.

I'm glad Scientists are really starting to think outside of the box (excuse the pun) but this theory doesn't hold much water with me (excuse the pun, again).