I like that you guys will argue not everything is as simple to throwing logic and common courtesy out the window.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
That's not right at all.I'm sorry to have to do this Kryptid but you are banned for one month, which time you will take piano lessons, then we'll meet back here for the competition....
It escapes into the surrounding material (the mantle) via conduction and convection. If you are talking about putting the core in a vacuum, then the heat will escape via radiation.The heat expands to a point, it is connected to the core and doesn't convect or other. With or without the heat, the core material acts as a single and produces the extending gravity field. So pressure towards the center closes the proximity of the atom's and creates a gravity field and magnetic field.
The strong nuclear force.
It doesn't have anything to do with fusion. Objects with a nonzero absolute temperature (anything above zero kelvins) emit thermal radiation. An atomic nucleus doesn't. Therefore, an atomic nucleus doesn't have a nonzero temperature.It does have something to do with fusion Kryptid. Where do you think the heat released from a fusion reaction comes from?
Hot things emit radiation. A stable atomic nucleus in its ground state does not, so it isn't hot.Well kryptid we seem to be reading different books and shunning the others. Where is this going? Maybe the topic of fusion? could you explain your idea of it, I won't judge you.
Where are you getting these measurements for the core of the nucleus? How would you go about measuring such a thing?The core of a nuclei is probably hot from density pressure.
It's not. It's in its ground state (usually).
Temperature is a bulk property of systems of particles. A single atom doesn't have a temperature.
It's OK. You didn't need to post that.Never will I ever worship the nonsense you claim to back your 'intelligence'. Lighten up D saur.
We already know that you have no clue about science.
Just in case you guys aren't joking, the butterfly has nothing to do with it. The point is that for a chaotic process like the weather a very small disturbance can cause a big change. That's it, no magic about a butterfly.Chain reactions aren't really described by things that aren't chain reactions very well then. I wouldn't call the weather a chain reaction either unless you mean lightning which you don't.
the heat is perfectly distributed through the earth.
Do you have a citation for that?
If you dig deep enough, that's exactly what happens. The excess heat is one of the limiting factors to how deep we can drill with current technology.Would you say the heat in the core is backed up? or bottled up by the blanket? and how can it be that heat is being made through radioactive decay, is building up up in the core, obviously faster then its conducting to the surface, without increasing exponentially? So in other words if the heat is backing up below the surface, it would seem that the planet would either lose the heat quicker or it would get hotter and hotter in the core?