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

reply to post by Bedlam

Earlier I stated I believed it was due to great pressure and a chemical reaction. Sodium may play a role.

reply to post by ANOK

The process is called planetary differentiation, dense matter sinks to the center and less dense materials rise to the surface.

So now your saying iron because its the heaviest element? By that logic the core of the planet is comprised of Mercury, lead, and uranium.

As far as the gravity, and electromagnetic effects felt on this planet, Im up in the air on. Somehow everyone forgets that this ball of a planet we reside on, resides in a ocean of vacum and no gravity. The norm is vacum and non gravity. This planet, and all other planets are the exception.

If you take a bar magnet and stretch it, and swell it in its middle to form a hollow sphere, and then bond it where it re meets itself. would it not still be a bar magnet? And possess the same characteristics it did before? Would the flow not still run from the south to the north ends?

Now before I answer any more questions that you folks can research for yourselves, explain to me how your "Science" explains the force that keeps all planets in their respective orbits around the Sun.

As far as gravity, or the pulling, or pushing of objects towards the surface of the planet is concerned, I suspect the Van Allen Radiation Belt may play a role.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


..... I suspect that not only is physics a closed book to you, but you haven't even read the title.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

..... I suspect that not only is physics a closed book to you, but you haven't even read the title.

Closed book, or closed box. Until the answers are provided to my questions I will not give credence to unsubstantiated theories. I will not parrot misinformation.

Now a book for you to consider. www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

..... I suspect that not only is physics a closed book to you, but you haven't even read the title.

Closed book, or closed box. Until the answers are provided to my questions I will not give credence to unsubstantiated theories. I will not parrot misinformation.

Now a book for you to consider. www.amazon.com...

"Misinformation"? I beg your pardon? So you regard yourself as being so much better informed as everyone else so that you can dismiss centuries of observation, experimentation, testing and science? You are either astoundingly arrogant or breathtakingly badly informed.
Or you're just pulling our collective chains.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

..... I suspect that not only is physics a closed book to you, but you haven't even read the title.

Closed book, or closed box. Until the answers are provided to my questions I will not give credence to unsubstantiated theories. I will not parrot misinformation.

Now a book for you to consider. www.amazon.com...

"Misinformation"? I beg your pardon? So you regard yourself as being so much better informed as everyone else so that you can dismiss centuries of observation, experimentation, testing and science? You are either astoundingly arrogant or breathtakingly badly informed.
Or you're just pulling our collective chains.

What is so difficult to understand? I reject the earth being filled with molten anything! And any theory that rely s on it, is false in my book.

I have seen the test results you mention, and believe it or not, they can be read in an entirely different direction. I guess it all depends on how much "Grant" money can be made, what direction you take.

By deciding to use my own mind and venture away from traditional "Flat Earth" thinking, I am astoundingly arrogant? It is arrogant to stand on a gravitational theory that ends with "we don't know" and not be willing to accept that. A honest and humble scientist will tell the truth. They don't know. And neither do you. Nor do I. But I do have the guts to stand up to your ridicule, insults, dishonesty. I will admit what I believe.

But I will not beg your pardon. There is no logical reason a true scientist would dispel any idea, train of thought. As Albert Einstein quoted "The only thing that interferes with my learning, is my education." You, and your years of "Science" have proven him correct. So when it comes to science I will take Albert's advice.

Observation: Mars has extinct Volcanoes with no active Volcanoes. No substantial amounts of water present.
Observation: Earth has extinct, inactive and active Volcanoes. Vast amounts of water present.

The important part of "Science" is not what it teaches, but what it hides.
Question: If the earth is in fact not filled with some mysterious molten mixture, then what does exist? Is this what frightens you? If you are not ready to truly explore the unknown, then their is no reason for you to be here, walk away. If your mind is so closed by a educational system that it will not allow you to consider other possibilities, then walk away. If you view "Science" as the end all religion, then walk away.

So why do you come to a "conspiracy" site teaching the rigid rules of science? Why are you here? Exploration of the unknown, or enforcement of a paradigm? So far your position here at this "Conspiracy" site, is illogical. I have received your message, but I don't have to shoot you.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Mars is smaller, colder and drier than Earth and its plate tectonics seem to have frozen completely. I fail to see your point. As for your theory that volcanoes are the result of some sort of chemical reaction, can I ask what on earth causes these reactions, and why (by a strange co-incidence) a lot of volcanoes can be found in arcs of volcanic mountain ranges that just happen to sit next to subduction zones?

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
So now your saying iron because its the heaviest element? By that logic the core of the planet is comprised of Mercury, lead, and uranium.

No, iron is not the heaviest element, it's the most abundant element. Centrifugal spin causes the heavier objects to fall to the center, iron is the most common element, not the heaviest, so it is logical the core would be mostly iron. The outer core also contains other metals like nickle, gold and platinum, there is just a lot less of them.

Did you even read my last reply? This was all explained already, and it's really not that difficult to understand.

As far as the gravity, and electromagnetic effects felt on this planet, Im up in the air on. Somehow everyone forgets that this ball of a planet we reside on, resides in a ocean of vacum and no gravity. The norm is vacum and non gravity. This planet, and all other planets are the exception.

Who mentioned gravity? I was talking about the magnetic field, not gravity.

If you take a bar magnet and stretch it, and swell it in its middle to form a hollow sphere, and then bond it where it re meets itself. would it not still be a bar magnet? And possess the same characteristics it did before? Would the flow not still run from the south to the north ends?

Huh? I fail to see what point you are making? You think the Earth has a bar magnet in it?

Now before I answer any more questions that you folks can research for yourselves, explain to me how your "Science" explains the force that keeps all planets in their respective orbits around the Sun.

You haven't even answered the first question I asked you.

BTW it's gravity and inertia.

As far as gravity, or the pulling, or pushing of objects towards the surface of the planet is concerned, I suspect the Van Allen Radiation Belt may play a role.

Again with gravity? No, gravity is a product of mass, the Van Allen belt has nothing to do with it. The VA belt is energetically charged particles, plasma in fact. The magnetic field, created by the Earths spin and it's molten outer core, is what holds the VA belt in place.

BTW the question you didn't answer...

Now how about you explain the magnetic field of the Earth, if there is no molten core that creates it?

The Earth's magnetic field is similar to that of a bar magnet tilted 11 degrees from the spin axis of the Earth. The problem with that picture is that the Curie temperature of iron is about 770 C . The Earth's core is hotter than that and therefore not magnetic. So how did the Earth get its magnetic field?

Magnetic fields surround electric currents, so we surmise that circulating electic currents in the Earth's molten metalic core are the origin of the magnetic field. A current loop gives a field similar to that of the earth. The magnetic field magnitude measured at the surface of the Earth is about half a Gauss and dips toward the Earth in the northern hemisphere. The magnitude varies over the surface of the Earth in the range 0.3 to 0.6 Gauss.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

So c'mom mate explain the magnetic field without the liquid core.

reply to post by ANOK

No, iron is not the heaviest element, it's the most abundant element. Centrifugal spin causes the heavier objects to fall to the center, iron is the most common element, not the heaviest, so it is logical the core would be mostly iron.

So now your saying the earth is a centrifuge that works in opposite?

Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee") is the apparent outward force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation.

Now, your saying all the heavier elements are to be found on the outer surface of the planet, and the lighter ones at the center. Well well now. Your plot thickens.
Ever ride a Centrifuge?


Your two word explanation is insufficient. Gravity holds all the planets in their orbits, and Inertia? Lets see, gravity pulls in your mind so, all planets must pull at each other, eventually all crashing into the sun. Oh, but what keeps this from happening is all planets have inertia that fights against this attractive force? But wait, theirs more. All planets have a centrifugal force that pushed them all away from the sun, regardless of their individual mass. And this explains how planets all over the solar system, at different distances, different densities, can orbit the sun? Do all the planets gravities work in unison, or do they work individually against the gravity of the sun? Just curious. Ill keep my nickle!

And as far as answering your question, I did. I cant help it if your not in a intellectual position to comprehend it. Good luck with all that.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg
Im going to start by quoting Old Albert again

“Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.”

He is quite the thinker, me thinks.
No matter what the problem is, or condition, or answer you look for, you will never find it using the same method, or level, of intelligence that created it, or posed it, in the first place. Riddle me this, why did Albert Einstein say the following:

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

Interesting, coming from one of the most renowned intellectuals to grace the face of this (outer) earth. thinkexist.com... Continue your laughter, its thought provoking.
Now you ask what causes mountains in "Subduction Zones". Keeping the laughter of the gods in mind, I tend to consider the expanding earth theory in mind when looking at this subject.
In the expanding earth theory it does not addressed the forces that mound up mountains, plus, the great amount of water, which I suspect has great deal to do with the formation of mountain ranges. To compare you must look at mars as a before, and earth as the after.
There are continental plates that are natural and are only separated by fissures or fractures. They are present on mars but due to the absence of oceans those fissures are not forced apart by Hydrological forces. As water is applied to the face of Mars, the water will enter those fractures and actually start pushing them apart as the amount of water increases. Water will seek its own level, even against the weight of the those continents. Eventually, the weight of the water will compress the underlying crust to a point where the slightest chemical reaction will cause heat to build up to a explosive point, but due to the fact that it is so deep in the crust, the venting of the explosion is held in place until a fracture vents the extreme pressure to the surface.
Eventually, due to the squeezing effect of the weight of the water, the planet will expand. And this is where it gets interesting. As the planet expands, (mostly where the water resides), the continents begin to move, but not all over the planet at the same time. Something like painting a scene on a balloon. As you inflate the balloon, the drawing will crack and separate at points where the paint was weak. But some continents are deeper and heavier than others and the lighter ones, or portions of the sea bed can be forced into and onto one another. The continents do not subduct under each other, they ride above and mountain ranges are the result of the impact. The continents, or masses of crust crashing into each other. The additional weight of mountain ranges can produce even more pressure leading to the heat build up, and eventual volcano, but it is not a guarantee it will happen. The variable seems to be waters ability to enter the mix.
Continents do not subduct. They can crash into each other, they can expand or compress, but they can not ride on top of each other. In order to understand and comprehend this inability you must have a working knowledge of the hollow earth theory. In that theory there are actually two crusts, an inner and outer. Each move independently of the other, except at the poles. These areas seem to be rigid and non expanding. The Central Sun is not a solar sun, nor does it have the temperature of the solar sun. It is a unique phenomenon that is sometimes referred to as the "Smoky God" as is their is a book of the same name. It is thought that this smoky god is the point that the inner gravity emits from, in a pushing direction, away from this ball of light. And our outer gravity is also a pushing gravity from point some 4000 miles in space, which by the way, the Van Allen Radiation belt happens to be. So you are left with a twin crust that is pushing on each other to begin with. The addition of water in excessive amounts causes a imbalance and thinning and expanding of the crust as the result.
One thing that is interesting about the theory is, if our planet is solid, or even filled with a molten substance, there can be no expansion. I don't believe you can easily expand a solid rubber ball, or a solid planet. The internal vacum that would be generated would work against the expansion. So we are left with, the planet is hollow and expanding, or it is solid and not expanding. If there were any subduction going on our original continents would have been subducted millions of years ago, and we would be living on volcanic ash, but we don't.
So you decide for yourself what God, Gods you believe in, and what theories you believe in. Those Gods Albert was talking about can laugh all they want. In the end when our planets crust becomes too thin we shall see whos

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Thank you for giving me a great laugh. Now I know that you're trying to amuse us all. Nicely done!

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

Thank you for giving me a great laugh. Now I know that you're trying to amuse us all. Nicely done!

But Im not the one who was shipwrecked.



Now you make me laugh

Nicely done!

I try my best, with what the "Gods" have given me Thank you.