legacycentral bbs

Is it molten metal? Is it a cavernous underground world? Does molten metal generate the Earth's magnetic field?

Its a solid metal core surrounded by a molten metal shell.

Tectonic plates above that, right? And the molemen live above that level.

Then there's the Morlocks and, on top, the eloi.

The earth is actually hollow and we live on the inside of the outer shell. The center is solid rock and the stars are reflections of minerals.

Steve

I've read and seen the same stuff as probably most others have but it isn't truly known what lies at the center. We've obviously never drilled too deep into the mantle, if at all. It's all a theory what lies there but there's been experiments that show that a rapidly coursing metal sphere can create a magnetic field like the Earth has. We don't know for sure how deep lava veins run.

well...speaking from ESS 101...rocks for jocks....

The core is made of iron nickel and yes the inner core is solid and the outer core is molten and rotates slowly which does create the magnetic field, and the magnetic field actually switchs ever so slowly because of that rotation. so at one point in time magnetic north was near the south pole, you can tell cuz of the way the magnetic rocks that come up from midocean spreading ridges all "point" towards magnetic north, and as they are older, they're in stripes from when the magnetic poles switched...and if you're still reading this...you need help

Tleg93 wrote:I've read and seen the same stuff as probably most others have but it isn't truly known what lies at the center. We've obviously never drilled too deep into the mantle, if at all. It's all a theory what lies there but there's been experiments that show that a rapidly coursing metal sphere can create a magnetic field like the Earth has. We don't know for sure how deep lava veins run.

Well actually, we know the earths core is solid because of seismic soundings.

I don't believe that 'know' is the proper word. We suspect that it is solid, yes, but we don't know. I just got done watching a show on TLC about the Earth's core and they were saying that it is not yet truly known what the core consists of. I realize from having geology, chemistry and Astronomy that the current theory is that during the formation of the earth the heavier elements sunk to the bottom and the lighter ones rose to the top due to gravitational and and electromagnetic forces acting on the elements. My point is (besides the fact that I was trying to spice up the ashtray) that it really isn't 'known' so much as it's supported by experimentation. I personally believe that there is a solid core of metal at the center but whether or not the outer is liquid or not is debatable.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior/


Anyway, for what it's worth, this site challenges the known data.


http://nuclearplanet.com/

There is also evidence to show that the earth is hollow, and that we live on the surface of the interior edge, and all of space is contained within this finite space. In fact, its almost impossible to prove this isnt true, from a mathematical standpoint.

But at some point, good ole' human logic has to come in and realise that just because something is possible, it doesnt mean it is plausible. Occam's Razor is a very, very useful tool.

Yes, its possible for almost anything to be at the center of the earth, including a giant natural nuclear reactor, but is that really a better hypothesis? Why choose the barely experimentally supported, extremely complex hypothesis when a much simpler, much more support theory exists? Just because the first one is cooler?

In my time, I've met a few Ph.D's who are totally off their rocker. People who get their doctorate just because they have something to prove. They have these outlandish ideas and want to be the next Galileo, being the only one who is right. There was a PhD who had a restraining order put on him at UBC after he used contact cement to plaster his thesis abstract all over the science buildings when the senior professors refused to listen to his ideas about combining quatum and classical physics.

There are a lot of ways to prove things you believe in, regardless of whether they are actually true or not. I am definitely not one to ignore an idea because it goes against accepted convention, but when it comes down to things which are basically obvious to any scientifically minded person, I dont really see the need to give wild theories any more consideration than I would a science fiction novel.

Yea, it would be pretty neat if the earth functioned as a giant nuclear reactor, without a doubt fission happens at the core of the earth, there would be quite a bit of uranium down there, given its density... but not enough to really contribute to the mechanics of the earth. The heat in the core and mantel are residual from the formation of the solar system in part, and a large fraction from tidal friction caused by the moon and the sun.

I appreciate what you're trying to do with this thread, but I think an area of science which is under more active debate, where we really dont know whats going on, and there are multiple views which appear valid would be more interesting.

Hmmm, ok, not to refute what you're saying but you can't claim it's settled science yet. The deep earth is still a topic of considerable research and experimentation.

But moving forward, I agree that it isn't exactly the hottest topic right now...no pun intended.

If you have another idea, shoot. I love open debate on scientific theories. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to learn something. How about reasons why the Earth's magnetic field has shown a drastic reduction over the last century. Is a reversal coming? It's been claimed by some (including the ancient Chinese) that magnetic fields encourage vigor in biological life. Here's a link.

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2 ... ole_Shift/

There's data on all this from more reputable sources but this site contains many of the arguments and counter arguments. Besides, it may be related to things going on at the core.

Edit: It is a cool site though, check it out.

I have no doubt that the earth's magnetic field rotates over time, and that we're due for a shift, I believe it happens ever 4 or 40 million years or something. Often coincides with small extinctions as the amount of radiation deflected is greatly reduced.

Tleg93 wrote:

Anyway, for what it's worth, this site challenges the known data.


http://nuclearplanet.com/

Haha ha, oh, man. Just because he has some crazy theory doesn't mean he can throw out all the data that proves him wrong.

The core was the first internal structural element to be identified. It was discovered in 1906 by R.D. Oldham, from his study of earthquake records, and it helped to explain Newton's calculation of the Earth's density. The outer core is presumed to be liquid because it does not transmit shear (S) waves and because the velocity of compressional (P) waves that pass through it is sharply reduced. The inner core is considered to be solid because of the behavior of P and S waves passing through it.

I'd say there isn't really any other explanation.

Splinter wrote:Its a solid metal core surrounded by a molten metal shell.

Are you sure it isn't milk chocolate surronded by a candy coated shell?

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

no it's actually molten milk chocolate with a sugary wafer on the inside, the m&m theory was disproved by da vinci

Jimmy Hoffa

mmmm... Earth

Redlined wrote:Jimmy Hoffa

+1

There is a bar there run by Peter Griffin.

That's right. I saw it on TV, TV doesn't lie.

You guys should all know the answer to this question...

It's ectoplasma that was formed by all the pissed off people in the world.

Chuck Norris lies at the center of the earth.

Yukonart wrote:Chuck Norris lies at the center of the earth.

And his roundhouse kicks keep the earth spinning.

His belt buckles cause the EMF.

I thought Bruce Lee was down there...