The Earth's Core is Cube-shaped?

reply to post by Beachcoma


The fact here is NO ONE can really how the earth's core look like no one can digg deep enough to find out, we can only assume, what ever happened to the hollow earth theory as well, sometimes it all just becomes all a little to confusing and we just do not know what to believe.

I think what it really means is the core is a sphere comprised of iron cubes. The graphics on the source article really threw me off.

Maybe this is a better representation according to this theoretical model:

LEGO Sphere

Good model Beachcoma

Considering "all possibilities" we talked about here I think we may conclude nobody can say how things are for sure.

Is the core hollow? Is the nucleus spheric? Is it an Iron crystal shape?

As a scientist there is only one way to figure it out. Verify the hypothesis one by one. That's what I do when assessing my genetics hypothesis and I do get astonishing surprises.

1 - Is the core hollow?

If anyone can at list check it, like on the thread Hollow Earth , I'll be the first to congratulate them. A yes or no response would be great.

2 - Is it spheric?

That would be the more predictable hypothesis but we still don't know how to verify it.

3 - Is it crystal shaped?

This would explain many things and I bet it would thrill almost all the ATS members but I have no knowledge how to verify that. Maybe the Swedish group can enlighten us with something more then theories.

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I think what it really means is the core is a sphere comprised of iron cubes. The graphics on the source article really threw me off.

Maybe this is a better representation according to this theoretical model:

LEGO Sphere

It's pretty simple to make a cube with maliable spheres.

Get a kids bubble blowing goodie, blow six bubbles, the point where they meet will be a near perfect cube.

The surrounding forces take the path of least resistance, resulting in a cube.

What ya think?

reply to post by juggaloco

Yes there is a way to tell what is deep inside the Earth. Scientists can analyze the structure by determining how earthquake waves propagate through the mantle, as nzldude started to tell us about. To get an idea what he means the graphic from Wikipedia shows a simplified diagram.



From Wikipedia article: Structure of the Earth

I read a little about this in some FOIA documents about analyzing earthquake data in different parts of the World and how they had the capability to determine if a seismic event was natural or from some underground nuclear test. There is no direct method of telling what is under our feet, but one thing is conclusive. The core is spherical and it is certainly not hollow.

We are only talking about phenomena we THINK to dominate, basic crystallography.

I don't think people ever considered the hypothesis of having a gigantic crystal.

If Earth is not hollow the inner core filled with iron will be under an enormous pressure. Something we have no idea how it can influence atoms properties.

very interesting. Reminds me of a show I watched recently, maybe Doctor Who, where an alien spaceship was at the center of Earth. Could this be a Borg cube?

Mod Note: Stay on Topic– Please Review This Link.


[edit on 13-2-2008 by Jbird]

Originally posted by Hal9000
reply to post by juggaloco

 

Yes there is a way to tell what is deep inside the Earth. Scientists can analyze the structure by determining how earthquake waves propagate through the mantle, as nzldude started to tell us about. To get an idea what he means the graphic from Wikipedia shows a simplified diagram.



From Wikipedia article: Structure of the Earth

I read a little about this in some FOIA documents about analyzing earthquake data in different parts of the World and how they had the capability to determine if a seismic event was natural or from some underground nuclear test. There is no direct method of telling what is under our feet, but one thing is conclusive. The core is spherical and it is certainly not hollow.

.


Hal, very good post. However, i would once again posit that when you change scale you change properties. For example, consider the emerging world of plasmonics on the nanoscale.

Further, without knowing the true make up of our core (everything thus far is only a postulate) we can only guess at what its properties may be.

ok well how come for like the past 20 years everyone said it was circular?

Because of the same reason Earth was flat for centuries and it was also the center of the universe.

People are afraid of thinking differently.

The most advanced science, looking as if it was magic, is a taboo.

For those of you that are saying that the core of the Earth is NOT a sphere, what exactly are you saying? That you think it is a cube as in the article? That it is hollow as others have said? I don't know what it is you are getting at.

All I know is that by analyzing seismic data it is possible to theorize the structure of the earth. This data supports the current theory and says that it is a sphere.

If you think otherwise, then please state your theory and provide scientific data to support your claim. Otherwise, it sounds that you just like going against current theory and if the current theory said the core was a cube, you guys would be saying, "naw the core is a sphere".

You know what, if the core is cubed, we'll be dead by now.

The early man thought he would fall of the earth if he would sail to the "end" of the world..maybe earth was a cube back then... cool.

reply to post by Hal9000



Hal, i have asked you for input on the same subject once or twice. In case you missed it, scroll up.

In materials science, scale can have as much to do with it as molecules.

I am not saying that the cube theory is correct. I am just red-hatting here.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Hal, i have asked you for input on the same subject once or twice. In case you missed it, scroll up.

Do you mean this?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Hal, very good post. However, i would once again posit that when you change scale you change properties. For example, consider the emerging world of plasmonics on the nanoscale.

Further, without knowing the true make up of our core (everything thus far is only a postulate) we can only guess at what its properties may be.

Sorry I didn't know that was a question. (cool avatar BTW) It sounded more like a statement to me.

First of all I have no idea what plasmonics are, and have know idea what they would do at the nanoscale. You refer to properties, but I don't see the relevance. Matter is matter and in a zero G atmosphere it accumulates into a sphere. When other elements are involved, the heavier elements sink, while the lighter elements float. Wave propagation data shows that the structure of the earth has layers. They know this because the waves bend like light in water when it encounters a change in matter and the layers can be determined. Those layers are of somewhat uniform depth from the outer crust and are therefore also spherical in shape. Each layer follows suit until you reach the core where they theorize the density to be mostly iron and is also in the shape of a sphere. This is the the standard theory, which makes total sense to me. However I would be interested in reading another, but unless you tell me what it is, how am I supposed to know?

Perhaps if you would explain what plasmonics are and what properties it might have and how that would have an effect on the shape of the core, whatever shape that might be, I might have a clue as to what you are talking about, hence my previous question.

Take no offense to my post, I really don't know what you are talking about. I looked up and found Plasmon but there is no connection to this topic.

Hal, let me assure you that i take no offense and mean none. As well, let me present the caveat that i am nothing close to being a physicist nor am i involved any more in nanotech than just less than casual research.

Having said that, i have a few threads here already on nanotech. Relevant to this thread (and plasmonics) is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

"Plasmonics" are part of the key to this technology (add in photons, phonons, and a whole array of nonsubstantial "particles'). The key is scale. At the nanoscale matter can exhibit completely different properties. Truly, nanotech seeks to manipulate subquantum functions on a scale that is only a few atoms in size.

To draw an analogy: would you agree that Gold is yellow and brilliant in color (as a general rule)? This is an often described property of Gold. However, when in its monoatomic form it looks more like "Colombian Gold" (LOL...i crack myself up). It is a white powder. So, the presumed properties of gold do not always hold up.

The same can be said of "metamaterials".

For reference and study:

www.avanex.com...

www.rsoftinc.com...

www.bostonmicromachines.com...

www.blueskyresearch.com...

You need to remember that often plasmons and photons are "interchangable". Light is EM radiation, of sorts, and is in roughly the same frequency range (FTL, right?). So when discussing plasmonics, you cannot leave out photonics.

I really need a webhosting service. I have a TON of .pdf's to share, and hate having to go to an upload space to share it. However, if you are interested in this field, let me know and we will work on getting it in your hands. It is rare that someone takes me up on that offer, and even more rare that they return with any information gained from it. But i would love to have some interplay.

I will leave you with an excerpt from an email from an "e-colleague" of mine:

As you know collective oscillations of free electrons are the interaction of light with surface plasmons. Photonics is the study of the application f light. in many wy & ue the tw are intertwined. photonics is further along in the real world. Several thousand centers worldwide are involved in it. Oddly the literature is just beginning to be produced in earnest. Photonics is being used in cameras, mobile phone cameras, lasers to increase LED efficiency, making optical data work better, broadband mirrors, disk laser fibers, optical tweezors(probably commercially in future 2 to 10 yrs), and the list goes on & on.

Many claim photonics will have the impact on society that electronics has. Medicine is one area it will potentially change our lives, imaging of geophysical data and in computing. So within your field of communications we can rest assured photonics should play a big role. Of course you know all about the photovoltaic cells and hydrogen applications.

Since we look to future I think optical tweezors wil be a big aspect. These will aid medicine as welll as materials science and even chemistry. The tweezors are capable of trapping an object by using focused light beams. This will allow particles to be trapped in 3-d. Here we have two conditions...radiation pressure and the other is gradient pressure. It will enable light to not only trap but also move things from nanometer to micrometer scale. Once again as you read me expound on...we are talikng the weird area between classical and quantum worlds.

In medicine the focus is on biophotonics. This will include both imaging and treatment. One big move that's successful is two-photon photochemistry in treatment of eye problems. This involves a lot of UV manipuation and the such. The ability to focus the light beyond healthy tissue to diseased membranes and cells is a good thing.

he is so much more clear than i am in the explanation. Perhaps I need to go back to school?

Now that i have shared that information, let me tie it in to this topic:

it is all scale. I cannot say that at this particular scale we would see something of much variance. However, the logic is solid. Physical properties are likely not the same near an event horizon, either.

I don't proclaim similar behaviors. I DO proclaim that it is worth further thought.

BTW, thanks about the avatar. I sat around one night trying to figure out what was a good image depicting my screenname. I made about 10 or so before i settled on this one (even though there are still a few minor flaws). I stayed away from branding the ATS site. I am not paid to advertise.

I would like to hear from someone competent regarding the relationship of compression and heat, and it's effect on the formation of solid crystal structures beneath molten cores.

What I am suggesting is that with sufficient compression by going "deep" enough into a celestial body. That the core may become solid, maybe even cold even though it is immersed in a molten environment. Remember that heat is related to excitement at a mollecular level. With sufficient gravitic compression, the motion is inhibited. Solids form when the molecules become less energetic.

Beyond that, I wonder if we know with any certainty that the core of the sun is not ice cold, with the heat transferred to the outer reaches because the inside is incapable of becoming energetic enough to preserve the heat.

If anyone knows, I would love to hear some feedback!

reply to post by Cyberbian


Yeah, you and me both. You have formed some very valid and interesting questions.

Good job!!!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks for the info furry, the thread on anti gravity looks interesting. However I still don't see the connection to the shape of the core of the earth. Maybe your answer is in the the info you provided and I will look through it when I have time.

Regards.