Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: common_sense_seeker on 22/04/2009 18:04:50
-
It would explain the geomagnetic field more easily. The outer fluid core would flow through the center from north to south. Geomagnetic pole reversals could be explained by the wobble of the inner core relative to the fluid outer core. I even have an idea that is composed of tightly packed neutrons and of a super-high density. It would imply that the sun's inner core was similar in shape and density. It would solve the missing mass problem, due to the fact that it would mean that the mass values from the Cavendish experiment would be severely underestimated. He made a massive assumption in declaring that the entire Earth was composed of the same stuff as lead balls! He's only guessing! Now we have a situation where a quantum theory of gravity appears unobtainable. No wonder!
It's simple psychology when you think about it! lol!
-
"He made a massive assumption in declaring that the entire Earth was composed of the same stuff as lead balls! "
Don't talk balls.
-
A donut? How exactly do you think it looks like? How thick is this donut?
-
"He made a massive assumption in declaring that the entire Earth was composed of the same stuff as lead balls! "
Don't talk balls.
He's assumed it's similarly baryonic, i.e. made of neutrons and protons. But baryonic matter is mainly empty space due to the distance of the electron bonds between nucleii. Simple 'neutronium' wouldn't have this limiation and could be thousands of times more dense than everyday matter. If matter is more dense than the incoming gravitational field particle flux density, then Newton's law doesn't apply. This is because some of the matter doesn't interact with the incomin gravitons.
-
A donut? How exactly do you think it looks like? How think is this donut?
http://prodev.iris.edu/OnePagers/ishii.pdf check this out. An innermost inner core has been discovered. I think that they have just found the hole running down the middle! It explains the geomagnetic field and pole reversals! http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-02z.html
-
You seem pretty enthusiastic about this idea...
-
"He made a massive assumption in declaring that the entire Earth was composed of the same stuff as lead balls! "
Don't talk balls.
I've thought about it a bit more. Cavendish was correct in his assumptions. I think that the calculated density of the Earth is correct. It is the subsequent calculation of the mass of the Sun which has the potential to be an underestimate. The gravitational field potential of a body can be determined from the number of it's fundamental particles i.e. it's mass. BUT the force experienced by a body in a gravitational field potential has to be determined from the number and spacing of the fundamental particles i.e. it's density. Newton's big mistake is assuming that a body can be considered a point mass. This is okay when considering a planet or Sun as the radiating body of a gravitational field. BUT when particles are considered as the force carrier, then the direct interaction of these with the subject mass has to be modelled. This depends on the relative densities of the field and the object mass. If the object density is higher than the incoming gravitons, then the acceleration of that object will be lower than anticipated, due to the fact that not all mass particles interact with the gravity field at a particular moment in time.(It's a tricky concept to get your head around)
-
You seem pretty enthusiastic about this idea...
It's because I have used a 'jigsaw-like' method of modelling reality. This idea of a super-high density core which is doughnut shaped can explain the ice age cycle mystery of 100,000 years. It is the core's irregular shape which presents a slightly increasing cross-sectional area to the Sun's gravity field every 100,000 years, which relates to the inclination of the earth's orbit. This is the drift above and below the Sun's ecliptic plane (it's equatorial plane is a simpler idea). This difference causes a significant difference in the earth's tidal effects. It is the extra mixing with the cold ocean bottoms which causes the global temperature drop. (again this is a tricky concept to convey)
-
There is nothing whatsoever in any of the links you have posted that suggests there is a doughnut shaped inner core. Indeed quite the opposite.Here, taken from your Space Daily link "An odd, previously unknown sphere, some 360 miles in diameter, has been found at the bottom of the Earth."
Even without considering the other problems with your speculations the absence of any evidence for a doughnut shaped core should end this thread right here.
-
There is nothing whatsoever in any of the links you have posted that suggests there is a doughnut shaped inner core. Indeed quite the opposite.Here, taken from your Space Daily link "An odd, previously unknown sphere, some 360 miles in diameter, has been found at the bottom of the Earth."
Even without considering the other problems with your speculations the absence of any evidence for a doughnut shaped core should end this thread right here.
There's TWO propositions that I'm making. The 'doughnut' or toroidal shape of the inner core is a guess that has the potential to solve many unresolved modelling problems of the Earth's interior. The other main point is that the material of the discovered innermost inner core could be totally unique i.e. tightly packed neutrons of super-high density. When this is considered w.r.t to gravitons being the force carrier, there is a potential problem with Netwon's law of attracting bodies. I believe that Einstein's 'rubber sheet' analogy is actually incorrect and too simplistic, due to the fact that it fails to model the spacing of the mass particles of a secondary object i.e. it's density. The reason a quantum theory of gravity is unachievable in modern day physics is because Newton and Einstein didn't think in terms of 'gravitons' from the beginning. The mathematics evoked from these early stages of work is simply wrong. Newton himself expressed his concerns that he didn't have a mechanism for the gravity effect.
-
There's TWO propositions that I'm making. The 'doughnut' or toroidal shape of the inner core is a guess that has the potential to solve many unresolved modelling problems of the Earth's interior..
Fine. The research in no way supports your speculation for a toroidal core.
The research in no way speaks of a superdense material consisting of closely packed neutrons. Indeed the data indicate that the interior could not consist of such superdense material.
In summary, the research you are quoting offers nothing in support of your speculation that the inner core is toroidal and it refutes your contention that it consists of ultra dense, packed neutrons.
We are then left with nothing more that your own unsubstantiated speculations. Let's look at them.
1. Which unresolved modelling problems are you referring to?
2. How does a toroidal inner core address these? Let's see the math please.
3. You say "I believe that Einstein's 'rubber sheet' analogy is actually incorrect and too simplistic." Guess what. That's because it is an analogy. It's to help people who can't handle the math. Forget his rubber sheet, what wrong with his math?
-
There's TWO propositions that I'm making. The 'doughnut' or toroidal shape of the inner core is a guess that has the potential to solve many unresolved modelling problems of the Earth's interior..
Fine. The research in no way supports your speculation for a toroidal core.
The research in no way speaks of a superdense material consisting of closely packed neutrons. Indeed the data indicate that the interior could not consist of such superdense material.
In summary, the research you are quoting offers nothing in support of your speculation that the inner core is toroidal and it refutes your contention that it consists of ultra dense, packed neutrons.
We are then left with nothing more that your own unsubstantiated speculations. Let's look at them.
1. Which unresolved modelling problems are you referring to?
2. How does a toroidal inner core address these? Let's see the math please.
3. You say "I believe that Einstein's 'rubber sheet' analogy is actually incorrect and too simplistic." Guess what. That's because it is an analogy. It's to help people who can't handle the math. Forget his rubber sheet, what wrong with his math?
I've come to realise that the the toroidal inner core idea is more appropriate for the Sun; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm. The work on the innermost inner core is too recent to rule out the possibility of a super-high density material. The unresolved modelling that I'm interested in is the 100,000 year ice age cycle. THIS IS A TOTAL MYSTERY! It's one of the most basic elements of our climate, and we cannot resolve the issue with regard to the Earth's eccentricity cycle. I believe there is a tidal explanation linked to the inclination cycle. The gravitational difference of the Earth's position above the Sun's ecliptic would have to be exaggerated for the idea to work. That's why I'm thinking laterally. The obvious other reason is that we don't have a QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY. Put these two issues together and there is room for a resolution. It requires a lot of faith and thinking in pictures.
If you can consider this simple thought experiment: We all know that dropping a bunch of keys and a ball of paper at the same time will result in both of them falling at the same rate. Why exactly is this? A particle or quantum theory of gravity would explain this effect because the density of the gravitons emerging from the classroom floor is so great that all the matter particles in both the keys and paper interact with a graviton within a given unit of time. Each matter particle is given the same amount of force by the graviton, and so all objects will accelerate at the same rate. Now, if you consider a ball of tightly packed neutrons, some of these matter particles won't interact with the emerging gravitons in a given unit of time. This is because they are much more dense than even the gravitational field itself. This would have the effect of the neutron ball 'hanging in the air' momentarily because of it's inertia. A lot of it's matter particles aren't being directly forced by the gravitons and so act to slow the neutron ball in it's initial movement. This is the scenario which falsifies Newton's simple law of gravitational attraction when particle force carriers are considered. i.e. a mechanism, which Newton didn't have.
-
There's TWO propositions that I'm making. The 'doughnut' or toroidal shape of the inner core is a guess that has the potential to solve many unresolved modelling problems of the Earth's interior..
Fine. The research in no way supports your speculation for a toroidal core.
The research in no way speaks of a superdense material consisting of closely packed neutrons. Indeed the data indicate that the interior could not consist of such superdense material.
In summary, the research you are quoting offers nothing in support of your speculation that the inner core is toroidal and it refutes your contention that it consists of ultra dense, packed neutrons.
We are then left with nothing more that your own unsubstantiated speculations. Let's look at them.
1. Which unresolved modelling problems are you referring to?
2. How does a toroidal inner core address these? Let's see the math please.
3. You say "I believe that Einstein's 'rubber sheet' analogy is actually incorrect and too simplistic." Guess what. That's because it is an analogy. It's to help people who can't handle the math. Forget his rubber sheet, what wrong with his math?
I've decided that the Sun is a more likely possibilty; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm. It's still too early to rule out a super-high density for the earth's innermost inner core. The 100,000 year ice age cycle is still A TOTAL MYSTERY. I have a working hypothesis that the tidal increase due to the earth's inclination cycle is a likely alternative to the eccentricity cycle. (you have to have a background knowledge to know what I'm talking about). This is why I'm thinking laterally.
Consider this simple thought experiment scenario; we all know that a bunch of keys and a ball of paper fall at the same rate. But why exactly is this? If a particle or quantum theory of gravity is used, one can imagine that because the density of emerging gravitons is so high that all the matter particles interact with one in a given unit of time. This is why all objects are accelerated at the same rate, despite their weight. Now consider a ball of neutrons; it will 'hang in the air' momentarily, because not all it's matter partciles interact with the incoming gravitons. This is because it is more dense than the gravity field itself. Due to inertia, this extra unacelerated matter acts as a drag to it's initial motion. This picturing of events falsifies Newton's law of gravitational attraction. He didn't even have a mechanism for the effect remember.
-
I've come to realise that the the toroidal inner core idea is more appropriate for the Sun; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm. The work on the innermost inner core is too recent to rule out the possibility of a super-high density material.
No. You are mistaken. There is no indication from prior seismic or modelling studies that there is any super-high density material at the core of the planet. This latest research modifies earlier understanding to a small degree, but also excludes the possibility of super-high density material.
To repeat, as clearly as I can, your own cited material falsifies your hypothesis. This - along with other actions - calls into question your entire approach and suggests you are indulging in pseudo science.
1. You did made a false claim about the conlcusion of some valid research.
2. You did not understand that the research demonstrated that your idea was false.
3. When this was pointed out you repeat the misinterpretation while simultaneously switching the goal posts entirely.
The unresolved modelling that I'm interested in is the 100,000 year ice age cycle. THIS IS A TOTAL MYSTERY! It's one of the most basic elements of our climate, and we cannot resolve the issue with regard to the Earth's eccentricity cycle.
The Milankovich cycles character and causes are very well understood. To claim it is a total mystery is either revealing your depth of ignorance on this subject, or is an outright lie.
I would accept that there are details relating to this that can be refined. Perhaps you can point to specifics that concern you.
I believe there is a tidal explanation linked to the inclination cycle. The gravitational difference of the Earth's position above the Sun's ecliptic would have to be exaggerated for the idea to work. That's why I'm thinking laterally. The obvious other reason is that we don't have a QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY. Put these two issues together and there is room for a resolution. It requires a lot of faith and thinking in pictures.
This has all the appearance of meaningless arm waving. Do you want to be specific.
If you can consider this simple thought experiment: ..........yah de yah de yah
This has nothing to do with the character of the Earth's core.
Would you also confirm that you can't do the math on any of this?
-
I've come to realise that the the toroidal inner core idea is more appropriate for the Sun; http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm. The work on the innermost inner core is too recent to rule out the possibility of a super-high density material.
No. You are mistaken. There is no indication from prior seismic or modelling studies that there is any super-high density material at the core of the planet. This latest research modifies earlier understanding to a small degree, but also excludes the possibility of super-high density material.
To repeat, as clearly as I can, your own cited material falsifies your hypothesis. This - along with other actions - calls into question your entire approach and suggests you are indulging in pseudo science.
1. You did made a false claim about the conlcusion of some valid research.
2. You did not understand that the research demonstrated that your idea was false.
3. When this was pointed out you repeat the misinterpretation while simultaneously switching the goal posts entirely.
The unresolved modelling that I'm interested in is the 100,000 year ice age cycle. THIS IS A TOTAL MYSTERY! It's one of the most basic elements of our climate, and we cannot resolve the issue with regard to the Earth's eccentricity cycle.
The Milankovich cycles character and causes are very well understood. To claim it is a total mystery is either revealing your depth of ignorance on this subject, or is an outright lie.
I would accept that there are details relating to this that can be refined. Perhaps you can point to specifics that concern you.
I believe there is a tidal explanation linked to the inclination cycle. The gravitational difference of the Earth's position above the Sun's ecliptic would have to be exaggerated for the idea to work. That's why I'm thinking laterally. The obvious other reason is that we don't have a QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY. Put these two issues together and there is room for a resolution. It requires a lot of faith and thinking in pictures.
This has all the appearance of meaningless arm waving. Do you want to be specific.
If you can consider this simple thought experiment: ..........yah de yah de yah
This has nothing to do with the character of the Earth's core.
Would you also confirm that you can't do the math on any of this?
No, I don't agree with your opinions at all. I re-read the article and it quite clear that the professor thinks that this new innermost inner core could be the seed of the planets formation. The clue is in the title! Everyone knows that a planet can't result from the coalescing of ordinary lumps of rock, for example. The idea of a super-high gravitationally attracting innermost core that is a remnant from the earlist material of the universe is exactly the kind of thing he is thinking of.
Your knowledge of the problems surrounding 100,000 year glacial cycle simply isn't as good as mine. I've been reading the research papers for months and discussing it in another forum.
People who keep repeating "where's the math proof" simply don't have the mental facility to realise that I'm making a case for a quantum theory of gravity. This means that conventional math isn't necessarily right. i.e. Newton's law of gravitation. It's a very tricky subject which I'm still finalising.
Edit - it's possible that the innermost core isn't toroidal but is still oblate shaped.
-
No, I don't agree with your opinions at all.
I have expressed no opinions. I have made statements that are fully validated by observation of your posts, reading of your citations, or referring to the vast body of published work in these fields.
I re-read the article and it quite clear that the professor thinks that this new innermost inner core could be the seed of the planets formation.
Which has nothing whatsover to do with your claim a) that the innermost core is toroidal and b)that this research claims it is toroidal.
Moreover, you appear to have only accessed the news article on this research, not the research itself. That makes it difficult to take seriously anything your are saying.
Everyone knows that a planet can't result from the coalescing of ordinary lumps of rock, for example.
This is either profound ignorance or a blatant lie. Any astronomy textbook you care to consult, plus thousands of peer reviewed research papers explain, establish and expand the fact that planets do result from coalescing ordinary lumps of rock.
Making nonsense statements of the kind you made here completely destroys your credibility.
The idea of a super-high gravitationally attracting innermost core that is a remnant from the earlist material of the universe is exactly the kind of thing he is thinking of.
So now you also claim to be a mind reader. There is nothing, I repeat nothing in anything he has published that even suggests this is what he is thinking of. This is either a total misinterpretation on your part, spinning fantasy out of vague imaginings, or it is a lie.
Your knowledge of the problems surrounding 100,000 year glacial cycle simply isn't as good as mine. I've been reading the research papers for months and discussing it in another forum.
Please don't be any more foolish that you have to be. I have probably been studying glacial cycles on and off for as many decades as you have months.
Moreover, study does not only require reading research papers, you have to understand them. Based upon your gross misinterepretation of the work that began this discussion (the Earth's inner core)you have no skills in this area whatsoever.
People who keep repeating "where's the math proof".....
I am not asking for proof, I am asking for a provisional expression of your concept in mathematical format.
This means that conventional math isn't necessarily right. i.e. Newton's law of gravitation.
So, present your ideas in unconvetional math, or concede that you have no idea what you are talking about.
-
What's your opinion on this report: http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/nature.html of Muller & MacDonald 'Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle: eccentricity or orbital inclination?'
-
What's your opinion on this report: http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/nature.html of Muller & MacDonald 'Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle: eccentricity or orbital inclination?'
(My discussion forum is: www.youforum.co.uk/believersingravityshielding)
I am studying the document now. While I am doing so can you explain why you would make an emotional statment such as "The unresolved modelling that I'm interested in is the 100,000 year ice age cycle. THIS IS A TOTAL MYSTERY!"
Anyone who has been "reading the research papers for months and discussing it in another forum" and has the appropriate "mental facility" would know that it is not considered to be a mystery. So, why would you make such an inaccurate, biased, emotive remark? Are you hoping to persuade by force of your personality and conviction? I'm interested, so do tell.
-
There's SIX major problems with the Milankovitch cycle explanation of the ice ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle.
My theory solves them all.
-
I don't see how a toroid shape would be stable under such extremes of pressure and temperature - unless it were spinning at an unrealistic rate, considering the high levels of drag down there. As a sphere is the most stable configuration, I'd go for that.
-
I don't see how a toroid shape would be stable under such extremes of pressure and temperature - unless it were spinning at an unrealistic rate, considering the high levels of drag down there. As a sphere is the most stable configuration, I'd go for that.
It would have to made of 'near maximum density matter'. It's shape is a result of the evolution of it's creation. (That's another story)
-
What is the evidence that the pressure inside is great enough to produce this fancy sate of matter? That "other Story" needs some substantiation, I feel.
-
I'm hoping to develop the explanation in my discussion forum: www.youforum.co.uk/believersingravityshielding
My 'quantum theory of creation' still needs expanding on. It's just a matter of time available. I'll be filling it in with the next couple of weeks.
-
Stop spamming your forum now, thanks. You can put it in your profile, if anyone is interested they will find it there.
-
"My 'quantum theory of creation' still needs expanding on. It's just a matter of time available. I'll be filling it in with the next couple of weeks."
No, it needs rubbing out and starting again; or just rubbing out.
-
My latest reckoning is that the innermost core of the earth is most likely close to spherical. The inner core of the sun though is most likely asymmetric, perhaps 'american football' or 'rugby ball' shaped.
-
My latest reckoning is that the innermost core of the earth is most likely close to spherical. The inner core of the sun though is most likely asymmetric, perhaps 'american football' or 'rugby ball' shaped.
Well that is a relief. So we may wholly discard your original post which opened this thread. The Earth's core is not a toroid. We are agreed on that.
Several points I raised while disputing your claim went completely unanswered. It was almost as if you changed the subject when challenged. I'm sure that was just an appearance and that you overlooked these points in haste. Let us return to some of them, starting here.
Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 28/04/2009 11:34:12Everyone knows that a planet can't result from the coalescing of ordinary lumps of rock, for example.
I responded with these words.
This is either profound ignorance or a blatant lie. Any astronomy textbook you care to consult, plus thousands of peer reviewed research papers explain, establish and expand the fact that planets do result from coalescing ordinary lumps of rock.
Would you be prepared to retract this statement? It has an equally poor foundation as your toroidal core idea and you have rightly abandoned it. Will you let this one go also? Then we might be able to make some progress.
-
My latest reckoning is that the innermost core of the earth is most likely close to spherical. The inner core of the sun though is most likely asymmetric, perhaps 'american football' or 'rugby ball' shaped.
Well that is a relief. So we may wholly discard your original post which opened this thread. The Earth's core is not a toroid. We are agreed on that.
Several points I raised while disputing your claim went completely unanswered. It was almost as if you changed the subject when challenged. I'm sure that was just an appearance and that you overlooked these points in haste. Let us return to some of them, starting here.
Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 28/04/2009 11:34:12Everyone knows that a planet can't result from the coalescing of ordinary lumps of rock, for example.
I responded with these words.
This is either profound ignorance or a blatant lie. Any astronomy textbook you care to consult, plus thousands of peer reviewed research papers explain, establish and expand the fact that planets do result from coalescing ordinary lumps of rock.
Would you be prepared to retract this statement? It has an equally poor foundation as your toroidal core idea and you have rightly abandoned it. Will you let this one go also? Then we might be able to make some progress.
The toroidal concept was worth pursuing, I believe. This is what I used to do as a job for the MoD; feasiblity studies for new ideas. I knew the center of the earth was a long shot, but it has shown that there is still a possiblity of an asymmetric inner core of the sun.
The notion of rocks coalescing in space to form planets is very contentious. I remember seeing a NASA experiment aboard the shuttle where rocks were fired at one another to see it they stuck together! Not surprisingly, non of them did! Where are your links to the references which make this claim?
-
"The notion of rocks coalescing in space to form planets is very contentious."
No it isn't.
BTW, would the MOD pay me to do a feasibility study on the idea that the earth's core is shaped like an enormous model of Kate Winslet?
-
Did the pressures that NASA were using compare even remotely with the pressures at the centre of a planetary mass of rocks?
I could ask why the rocks would not coalesc. After all, the forces would be enough to crack them - the energy from the initial impacts and cracking would raise the temperature and Bob's your Uncle.
-
Also there's the fact that gravity isn't a very strong force. 2 small rocks atract eachother so slightly that it's hard to measure but if you have a whole planet's worth of rocks atracting one another it's a different story.
-
Also there's the fact that gravity isn't a very strong force. 2 small rocks atract eachother so slightly that it's hard to measure but if you have a whole planet's worth of rocks atracting one another it's a different story.
But how did the planet form in the first place!!!!!
-
It formed from a whole planets' worth of smaller rocks attracting one another.
What did you think I meant?
-
There must be some essential difference between a stable group of asteroids, on their own established orbits around the Sun and a load of rocks which can form a single mass. There has to be some mechanism to dissipate energy, so that they settle down together in one orbital position. They need to have a relatively high probability of collisions to account for this energy loss. Would there be a better chance if the rocks were, in fact, dust particles with the same total mass?
-
It formed from a whole planets' worth of smaller rocks attracting one another.
What did you think I meant?
lol
-
There must be some essential difference between a stable group of asteroids, on their own established orbits around the Sun and a load of rocks which can form a single mass. There has to be some mechanism to dissipate energy, so that they settle down together in one orbital position. They need to have a relatively high probability of collisions to account for this energy loss. Would there be a better chance if the rocks were, in fact, dust particles with the same total mass?
That's the first intelligent thing I've heard you say.
-
I'm not agreeing with any of YOUR old rubbish though. There is a conventional reason - I suggested it. We don't need to stray into the realms of fantasy yet.
-
I'm not agreeing with any of YOUR old rubbish though. There is a conventional reason - I suggested it. We don't need to stray into the realms of fantasy yet.
Where should dust stick together anymore than rocks? I prefer the idea of a seed which stimulates the gravitational process. Similar to the seed needed for the formation of raindrops. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-02z.html
-
The fact that raindrops need a seed is related to surface tension. Please let us know what the correspondin effect in your idea is.
-
Where should dust stick together anymore than rocks?
The probability of collisions would be higher to start the GPE Loss process. Then, because it can pack more densely and, with smaller spacing, the net pressure would be higher and more thermal energy would reaultand increase the rate of fusing process. Do you have any idea of the actual quantities necessary for this to happen, btw? A handfull of dust isn't enough! You need enough GPE to convert to internal energy which corresponds to temperatures of tens of kK in the middle.
-
The notion of rocks coalescing in space to form planets is very contentious.
It isn't. It is an accepted mechanism for terrestrial planet formation.
Where are your links to the references which make this claim? (the claim that rocks stick together to form planetesimals)
Goldreich, Peter; Ward, William R. The Formation of Planetesimals, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 183, pp. 1051-1062 (1973)
Johansen, Anders et al, Rapid planetesimal formation in turbulent circumstellar disks, Nature, Volume 448, Issue 7157, pp. 1022-1025 (2007).
Youdin, Andrew N.; Shu, Frank H., Planetesimal Formation by Gravitational InstabilityThe Astrophysical Journal, Volume 580, Issue 1, pp. 494-505.
I can provide further references, running into the hundreds, that all say essentially the same thing. There is certainly dispute over some of the details, but the broad acceptance of the principle has not received any significant challenge. (Indeed I am unaware of any challenge, but stand ready to be corrected by citations you may provide.)
Sophie Centaur, I am probably misreading your last post. You say "You need enough GPE to convert to internal energy which corresponds to temperatures of tens of kK in the middle."
You seem to be suggesting that for fusing (which I take to mean melting and not fusion, since the latter has not been discussed at all)to occur you need temperatures of 20,000 Kelvins, or more. I presume I am misreading you, since a dry basalt melt is less than 1,000 degrees Celsius and even a picrite melt should be less than 1500 degrees.
-
I was being a bit off the cuff in my temperature estimation but, I was really implying that you need a lot of actual energy - not just at the centre but over most of the volume of the planet whilst forming. Without an excess of energy, I don't reckon the process would get established In any case, my main point was that there is a 'critical mass', below which a load of material would be just as likely to break up again into smaller bits as a result of another impact.
My main issue is with the mysticists who, without examining (or understanding, often) the conventional explanations for these phenomena, insist that there must be something else at work which lies outside our present understanding. What sort of Science is that? A separate rule for every new thing we observe, in an attempt to understand the Universe? It wouldn't be worth even starting to try.
-
A big enough plannet containing enough Th or U will generate enough heat by nulear decay to melt the core.
Anyway CSS's position is just plain silly.
-
The heat source for melting the core comes not only from Th an U, but from short lived isotopes in particular of Al. Most of the heat comes from impact energy during planetary formation.
-
I was being a bit off the cuff in my temperature estimation but, I was really implying that you need a lot of actual energy - not just at the centre but over most of the volume of the planet whilst forming. Without an excess of energy, I don't reckon the process would get established In any case, my main point was that there is a 'critical mass', below which a load of material would be just as likely to break up again into smaller bits as a result of another impact.
My main issue is with the mysticists who, without examining (or understanding, often) the conventional explanations for these phenomena, insist that there must be something else at work which lies outside our present understanding. What sort of Science is that? A separate rule for every new thing we observe, in an attempt to understand the Universe? It wouldn't be worth even starting to try.
You've just stated that there is a good reason to consider the possibility of a super-dense inner core or seed which is necessary to start the planet-forming process! The current theory is unable to support a quantum theory of gravity. This is a very good reason to re-think the whole fundamentals of which our science is based upon. The concept of an super-dense innermost core also has the potential to simulaneously solve the 'ice age problem'. It requires will power and lateral thinking. If you're a teacher of the standard syllabus, then you are unlikely to respond to this way of thinking (which is ok with me).