Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: SFMA on 31/05/2008 02:51:34
-
The difficulties in determining the Centre of the Earth arise due to many reasons. One is that the earth is not static in the sense that it’s rotating around it's own axis. One particular place cannot be the centre while it’s moving unless it’s movement is followed by it’s surroundings. Then the centre would be the static point of attraction for it’s surroundings although it might be in motion too.
This static centre of the attraction or the centre of gravity around which the earth is moving could be the innermost base of the earth. The earth as a whole and its every particle has at least a common thing to this centre. Thus if we extend towards its surface we can reach the whole circulating earth.
But the question is if we do the same inward what would we find the very last thing remaining at its innermost static centre? What ever it may be this would be the centre of the earth! Most common, most concentrated matter of all! It comes first encompass the whole thing and the last to remain. This could only be the water!
Water is in the bottom of things is at the Centre of the Earth!
-
Abject nonsense.
-
SFMA are you saying that the centre of mass is the point to which everything is attracted?
-
SFMA are you saying that the centre of mass is the point to which everything is attracted?
To explain the anisotropic speed of sound in the inner core or at the centre of the earth, some researchers had proposed that the inner core was, in fact, a single giant crystal with the hexagonal structure. The hexagonal structure is justified because experiments and calculations have revealed it to be the stable structure adopted by iron under high pressure and temperature.
My propositon is at the very inmost of the inner core, the last thing at the very bottom is water.
-
Why water?
What's the reason for a molecular compound even existing at such extreme temperature and pressure?
Why not Iron or even Pot Noodles, if the fancy takes you?
-
SFMA,
There is, as you note, quite a lot of water on the earth's surface.
That's because the rocks sank.
If there were water at the bottome it would get forced out of the way to let the rocks sink a bit more.
-
You're trying to reason with them again, BC.
You never learn!
-
Why water?
Of the four basic elements Earth, Water, Air and Fire only the water
is dependent from the others. Earth can't survive without water, air
has water elements and fire can't survive without the air. Alchemists
even calim that water is the essence of fire.
It's quite natural that's in the perpetual centre would be dependent from others. The rest would be dependent on it that is normal.
-
Why water?
Of the four basic elements Earth, Water, Air and Fire only the water
is dependent from the others. Earth can't survive without water, air
has water elements and fire can't survive without the air. Alchemists
even calim that water is the essence of fire.
It's quite natural that's in the perpetual centre would be dependent from others. The rest would be dependent on it that is normal.
But this is a science forum, so we don't think of "the four basic elements" and certainly wouldn't give two hoots about what alchemists have to say.
-
The hexagonal structure is justified because experiments and calculations have revealed it to be the stable structure adopted by iron under high pressure and temperature.
My propositon is at the very inmost of the inner core, the last thing at the very bottom is water.
And how is your proposition justified? by experiments and calculations?
-
Compress water enough and you get Hot Ice, so water cannot exist at high pressure. The pressure at the core is capable of much more than hot ice.
-
The only hot ice I know of is a supersaturated solution which crystalises very fast (Utube is full of it). Is that what you mean?
-
No I mean the compressed water experiment that generates hot ice instantly. Even at relatively low pressure compared to the anticipated pressure at the core which would be several million atmospheres in order to contain the thermal nuclear energy without it ripping our planet to bits. So expecting water to exist there as we know it may not be a logical conclusion.
By passing the 20 million amperes of current through a small aluminum chamber, a magnetic field is created that isentropically compresses aluminum plates that sandwich a thin (25 micron) layer of water to pressures ranging from 50,000 to 120,000 atmospheres. For reference, what you experience at sea level is one atmosphere of pressure. What the researchers found was at these incredibly high pressures, water was squeezed into ice—ice VII to be exact, which was subsequently hotter than the boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure. As described by Sandia researcher Daniel Dolan, "Apparently it's virtually impossible to keep water from freezing at pressures beyond 70,000 atmospheres." Maybe that's a bit of an understatement, but it is very important to know for future operation of the Z machine and similar devices. The physical properties of ice—any ice phase—are vastly different from their liquid counter part.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/03/18/turing-water-into-very-hot-ice-very-very-quickly
-
Oh, that Hot Ice - just looked it up.
At those temperatures and pressures, surely every other substance would behave differently too. The notion of normal chemical bonds must surely not hold, in any case so how could (and why would you want to think it could) water be down there. On a simple density argument, the heavier elements would be expected to dominate down there.
What is the attraction of the idea of having water down there, in any case? You seem to be implying almost mystical significance to it. Is there any evidence for it?
I know they have some fairly good reasons for the present model of the interior of the Earth, based on Seismographic recordings but I didn't think it included any necessity for water to be present to account for the behaviour of seismic waves - or the magnetic field - or the rate of cooling.
-
Earlier today a colleague of mine was bemoaning the fact that the word "quintessentially" was grossly overused. I asked why the other 4 essences (or elements) didn't get the same attention.
I'm now happy to say that this story of the 4 elements is quintessentially nonsense.
(Sophie, is that far enough from reasoning?)
-
The idea of water at the core has not been shown to have merrit. And should water ever reach the core in sufficient quantity it would cause a spectacular eruption. Take an experiment we did as kids while messing around with molten lead. “Definitely not to be tried at home! The molten lead was poured onto a tray that had a few drops of water on it. The lead exploded spraying everyone. There was a loud whoosh as the Lead could not exist in its molten state next to the water and the Lead really went awol.
However, the same molten lead was poured into a large tank of cold water with no problems and this purified the lead taking out all of the oxidised metal and leaving shiny lead. This fits with lava flowing into the ocean and solidifying and also fits with explosions observed when the ratio of lava to water increases as water evaporates from the lakes found in inactive volcano
So even if water could withstand the pressure down there which it can’t. It would cause a huge explosion because its atomic energy would be liberated.
Eruptions into crater lakes can be entirely benign or extremely violent. In 1971-72, slow extrusion of lava onto the floor of a crater lake at La Soufriere Volcano, on the Caribbean island of St. Vincent, heated and eventually evaporated 75 percent of the water, with no harm to anyone. Then, in 1979, rapidly rising magma mixed with some of the remaining lake water, resulting in strong explosions and eruption columns 18 km (11 miles) high. Magma rising rapidly into any crater lake can lead to such explosions; a fissure opening across the floor of Green Lake could do it.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/1998/98_11_05.html
-
The idea of water at the core has not been shown to have merrit. And should water ever reach the core in sufficient quantity it would cause a spectacular eruption.
"We also note that The Earth’s core does not contains pure iron, but contains light impurities (carbon, oxygen, silicon or sulphur) at a total concentration of up to 10%." The full article
appeared on Nature
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://chianti.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~dario/earthfg.gif&imgrefurl=http://chianti.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~dario/resint.htm&h=536&w=600&sz=26&tbnid=-UwkRLOSS3IJ:&tbnh=121&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DEarth%2B%2Bcore&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=3
-
CNN - July 1996
Deep inside the Earth, spinning in a watery pool of iron, the Earth's core is a giant iron crystal slightly smaller but more dense than the moon. Beyond that, the substance at the heart of our planet always has been a mystery.
-
"It would cause a huge explosion because its atomic energy would be liberated."
No it wouldn't.
Quoting CNN as the source of all truth generally gets you laughed at, but to do so where it plainly proves you are wrong (please note iron isn't the same as water) is even funnier.
Thanks for that, I needed a good giggle.
-
Well youve got me there BC because I dont have £ billions of diposable income to go test this to prove it.
-
Earlier today a colleague of mine was bemoaning the fact that the word "quintessentially" was grossly overused. I asked why the other 4 essences (or elements) didn't get the same attention.
I'm now happy to say that this story of the 4 elements is quintessentially nonsense.
(Sophie, is that far enough from reasoning?)
I would agree with you there.
This theory is based on much less evidence than the current, accepted, one(s). But that's what you expect to find on a 'New Theories' forum.
Most people who post here don't actually have a 'new theory', they have an 'idea' which is something a lot less substantial.
-
Quoting CNN as the source of all truth generally gets you laughed at, but to do so where it plainly proves you are wrong (please note iron isn't the same as water) is even funnier.
Thanks for that, I needed a good giggle.
It's just to give some idea how others are thinking about it while
none of us can see for sure what's actually in the core. Our findings
are mainly based on the data of sesimic waves. If you click on the link I posted you will a article apeared on Nature it shows some researchers noted there are some oxygen in the core as well. While there is solid iron
that doesn't mean there woun't be any thing else.
-
Should water ever reach the core in sufficient quantity it would cause a spectacular eruption.
My theory asumes that the original source of the water was at the core. And the very first spring is still remaining but not oozing any more water. Consequently it has frozen down.
When water freezes it expands rapidly adding about 9 % by volume. Fresh water has a maximum density at around 4° Celsius. And water is the only substance where the maximum density does not occur when solidified. As ice is lighter than water, it floats. Water can solidified to a rock state but
still it maximum density does not occur.
-
There may be traces of all sorts of things down there but what evidence has been found that would indicate any significant quantity of water?
The pressures are so great (no question about that) that water would behave totally differently from how it behaves
If you have a totally different idea about the formation of planets then you can come to all sorts of conclusions. But do you have any documented evidence to support your ideas?
If water, then why not green cheese?
What's so special about water, in any case?
I know it's useful for us but what else?
-
"When water freezes it expands rapidly adding about 9 % by volume. " Only at pressures near atmospheric- at higher pressures other solid species are formed.
"Fresh water has a maximum density at around 4° Celsius"
Again, only at fairly low pressures.
"water is the only substance where the maximum density does not occur when solidified."
No, the commonest other example is probably tin.
"As ice is lighter than water, it floats."
Once again, only at low pressures.
And I'm afraid I have no real idea what
"Water can solidified to a rock state but still it maximum density does not occur."
means.
Incidentally, there seems to be general agreement that there is hot iron down in the earth's core.
Since hot iron reacts chemically with water I'm pretty sure that there's no water.
Still, that's only reallity talking an reallity doesn't seem to have much to do with this thread.
BTW, Andrew, I don't really expect you to prove that water turns into a nuclear explosive under the conditions in the earth's core- just come up with some vaguely plausible mechanism before making statements like that.
-
And I'm afraid I have no real idea what
"Water can solidified to a rock state but still it maximum density does not occur." means. Water ...the maximum density does not occur when solidified even at rock level.
Incidentally, there seems to be general agreement that there is hot iron down in the earth's core.
Since hot iron reacts chemically with water I'm pretty sure that there's no water.
Still, that's only reallity talking an reallity doesn't seem to have much to do with this thread.
Consider this recent discovery they found water from the molten magma.
New news from Kilauea: "Never been seen before"
by: Bill Harby
posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:24 PM
We always knew Hawaii volcanoes were unprecedented.
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory geologists have been analyzing the steam and gas plume that’s been gushing from Halemaumau crater at the summit of Kilauea since March 11th.
They've found something they didn’t expect: the H2O in their test tubes is not from ground water. It's been released from the molten subterranean magma itself.
They’re calling it “juvenile water,” and it’s never been seen before anywhere on the planet, says Jim Kauahikaua, chief scientist.
-
It's been released from the molten subterranean magma itself.
The Mantle starts only a few km down - it doesn't mean that it's the same all the way down to the core; conditions change quite a bit as you get deeper.
I wonder how they find out what the source is. I guess it must be dissolved salts.
-
Nuclear fusion: Force two atoms together, hydrogen and indeed oxygen closer together to create fusion The immense pressure under the earth would suffice to force them close enough. It may ultimately be found that hydrogen and oxygen cannot exist very close together. The Hot ice shows that even at relatively low pressure the familiar water state is not observed.
-
Hmmm anyone considered that water may have leached into the magma and formed steam, condensed and then been ejected through the exit point? One can make anything more complicated than reality. Ground water vaporised and reformed does not prove that water is being manufactured in the mantle!
I have stood on top of an active volcano in Lanzarote and filmed a guy / geezer pouring water down holes drilled into the heated rocks below and low and behold like magic water comes belting out as steam. I'll put the video on Youtube for you. Its cool to see.
there ya go :)
Consider this recent discovery they found water from the molten magma.
New news from Kilauea: "Never been seen before"
by: Bill Harby
posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:24 PM
We always knew Hawaii volcanoes were unprecedented.
Hawaiian Volcano Observatory geologists have been analyzing the steam and gas plume that’s been gushing from Halemaumau crater at the summit of Kilauea since March 11th.
They've found something they didn’t expect: the H2O in their test tubes is not from ground water. It's been released from the molten subterranean magma itself.
They’re calling it “juvenile water,” and it’s never been seen before anywhere on the planet, says Jim Kauahikaua, chief scientist.
-
Nuclear fusion: Force two atoms together, hydrogen and indeed oxygen closer together to create fusion The immense pressure under the earth would suffice to force them close enough. It may ultimately be found that hydrogen and oxygen cannot exist very close together. The Hot ice shows that even at relatively low pressure the familiar water state is not observed.
So what about all the other possible combinations of elements? There is a suggestion that there may be a lot of hydrides down there - to explain a possible discrepancy in the amount of Hydrogen expected on the surface.
But do you actually know the conditions needed for fusion to occur?
It needs more than 'it would be a nice idea'.
-
2 smaller atoms pushed together to form a larger atom?
-
a suggestion of hydrides appears to be a "nice idea" too. But fials to explain how water could possibly from from the molton mantle.Obviously metal hydrides will be there because of the density of the metals compared to the density of rocks. However, the reason there is no spare hydrogen at the surface is simply because the atoms are forced together due to the effects of the planets mass being great enough to push hydrogen and oxygen together to form H20, which is in abundance. So any “spare hydrogen is married with spare oxygen the very instant they arrive,. But I suspect that some oxygen and hydrogen may also be formed here on Earth too from smaller particles like those I measured in the flight to Mallorca. Water in space after all would undoubtedly rapidly decompose because it cannot exist as water without the Earth’s gravity! And this is why there is believed to be so much hydrogen in space. The article below deserves a good read.
Cold Clouds and Water in Space
Adapted from a European Space Agency press release
Astronomers have known for decades that there is a lot of water in space. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe, and oxygen is made in stars and dispersed by events such as supernova explosions. The two elements mix in star-forming clouds and form large amounts of water (H2O). But because astronomers couldn"t measure gaseous water in cold clouds in space, they couldn"t be sure of the exact amount of water in those regions.
"We"ve known for a long time that there is a lot of water ice out there," says Louis Allamandola, astrochemist for the NASA Ames Research Center and member of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI). "We also knew some water existed in the form of a gas, but we weren"t sure how much." http://www.astrobio.net/news/article142.html
This is an interesting article which is not at odds with my own theory but casts doubt on water originating at the core.
-
So any “spare hydrogen is married with spare oxygen the very instant they arrive
At the time of the formation of the Earth, there was no free Oxygen in the atmosphere. It was a reducing atmosphere, initially.
Just because there is some water in the upper parts of the Mantle that is no indication of any significant amount thousands of km lower down.
But, even if there are some traces, why should there be any more of that compound than any other compound? Why is it particularly significant? Is its presence necessary to explain some phenomenon we have observed? Is it the only explanation for any observations.
The hydride theory at least had some numerical basis behind it and 'made it' into Wickers and elsewhere. As 'nice ideas' go, it has a bit more behind it than your water idea. It has some Science behind it, for a start.
-
Take a rocket engine and launch it from the Earth's surface. Here we see a massive plume of water vapour at ground level, enough to obscure the launch pad from onlookers. Our rocket heads up into space and all of a sudden there is no more vapour trail? In fact even the jettisoned solid fuel propulsion rockets ditched before going into orbit do not send out the plumes of vapour in the videos I have watched, in fact there was what appeared to be very hot large particles coming from them rather than a plume of water vapour.
From Nasa website view: Booster Camera, Video filmed from the booster rockets as they disengage.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/Video_Archives_Collection_archive_6.html
So what has happened to this water vapour? Obviously it has atomised and the atoms from it have dissipated. In doing so we know there was oxygen and hydrogen present in space because the rocket engines put it there. Yet it becomes invisible. Vapourised directly from ice crystals of vapourised before it froze?
It is thought that the oxygen component of water comes from stars, and as I have stated before this does not change my theory one bit. Because I am saying that planets evolve into stars and then shed their mass into space as they decay and no one can deny the presence of atomic particles from solar flares. Neither can they deny the abundance of Cosmic solar radiation in the upper atmosphere. So we can see that atoms and sub atomic particles are migrating from our own star down to Earth! And no one can deny that meteors arrive here on earth and this is not rocket science that requires a calculation in order to confirm it. A scintillating radiation detector and the naked eye can verify this part of the theory. And one only has to look at the moons surface to see the evidence for astral bombardments and stellar dust settling where no atmosphere can disguise it.
Now ask yourself if there is so much evidence for this on the moon and given that the earth is much larger than the moon and has a higher attraction to particles than the moon, how much more of this particulate mass has arrived here on earth?
Confused as to why you think I believe there is water down at the core? I find this idea totally alien to logic.
-
"So what has happened to this water vapour? Obviously it has atomised and the atoms from it have dissipated."
Nonsense.
The stuf coming out of the back of a rocket is hot so any water there is a vapour. The vapour (and remember that like most gases, it's invisible) just flys away into space.
Here on earth the atmosphere cools that vapour and makes it condense into tiny droplets which we can see.
There would need to be some huge energy source to break the bonds between the atoms that make up the water molecules- and there isn't one so they don't dissociate.- of course, under bombardment fron the sun's radiation they will disociate in time.
As for the nclear fusion idea there is a clear problem.
The sun is a lot hotter than the centre of the earth.
It's also a lot bigger so the pressure in the middle is much higher.
Even the sun only does nuclear fusion very slowly- it has been at it for billions of years and has billions more to go.
At the much lower temperatures and pressures in the earth's core the rate of fusion would be too small to observe- never mind explosive.
Any oxygen in the deep core would react with iron.
-
Space is pretty cold BC. Just flys away into space is precisely what one would expect. However given the attractive force of the earth's gravitational field it is more likely to be pulled back to earth rather than go walk about in space.
Electrolysis and chemical speration of the two components on earth does not require a huge energy source. Furthermore trees, plants and even algal and phyto plancton do not have a huge energy source yet oxygen appears to be released. Even a little freshwater weed in an aquarium can bubble away oxygen.
The rate of fusion at the Earths core is hardly too small to observe. I have no doubt that water at the core would react with most of the molton components and no doubt that the weight of the earths mass would contain the explosions as we have seen atomic detonation below the earths surface and that appears to be contained ok. (fortunately for us)
I doubt that oxygen could exist at the core either.
"So what has happened to this water vapour? Obviously it has atomised and the atoms from it have dissipated."
Nonsense.
The stuf coming out of the back of a rocket is hot so any water there is a vapour. The vapour (and remember that like most gases, it's invisible) just flys away into space.
Here on earth the atmosphere cools that vapour and makes it condense into tiny droplets which we can see.
There would need to be some huge energy source to break the bonds between the atoms that make up the water molecules- and there isn't one so they don't dissociate.- of course, under bombardment fron the sun's radiation they will disociate in time.
As for the nclear fusion idea there is a clear problem.
The sun is a lot hotter than the centre of the earth.
It's also a lot bigger so the pressure in the middle is much higher.
Even the sun only does nuclear fusion very slowly- it has been at it for billions of years and has billions more to go.
At the much lower temperatures and pressures in the earth's core the rate of fusion would be too small to observe- never mind explosive.
Any oxygen in the deep core would react with iron.
-
BC:
There would need to be some huge energy source to break the bonds between the atoms that make up the water molecules- and there isn't one so they don't dissociate.- of course, under bombardment fron the sun's radiation they will disociate in time.
Not a lot, particularly if you use Chlorophyl. I think you are referring to the need for a high temperature to get dissociation without some electrolytic / chemical action.
Also, the water droplets business: in space, the ambient pressure is much lower than the vapour pressure of the exhaust water so it stays a vapour. They just never form.
I don't know what AS means by 'atomisation', presumable 'dissociation'? Atomisation is what you get with after shave dispensers.
AS: your idea about the formation of planets and their evolution into stars is very novel. What is the quantatative basis for the idea. Where does all this material come from for them to grow? You would need many orders of magnitude more than has been observed if the Stars had formed this way in any reasonable estimated age of the Universe.
Why do none of these whacky theories never involve actual NUMBERS? Do you think Newton arrived at his laws by just sitting down and thinking?
-
Newton arrived at his laws by thinking differently! As does every scientist that moves in a new direction and makes an important contribution to science.
I do not believe that the droplets stay a vapour. If they do then we would see a lot more evidence for vapour and water molecules would be found in space. They are not so something must happen to them in the vacuum of space. On earth water boils at lower temperatures in relation to altitude. Water molecules leave the liquid state in a vacuum at room temperature at zero pressure and water visibly reaches boiling point.
In space I predict that the water must therefore break it's bonds and become at first oxygen and hydrogen and then break down further into sub atomic particles and that it is their relationship with the mass of a planet that dictates their perceived behaviour not the atoms themselves.
We know there is a lot of debris in space from Gigantic Planets and stars down to Comets and meteors and the visible dust on the moons surface. Through a powerful telescope we can see that there is ample material out there for decomposition and re-composition to infinity. We do not need a mathematical model of infinity because infinity is a constant and therefore the universe which holds infinity is also a constant.
The sub atomic right down to infinity like the universe has no end or beginning just limitations on how we observe their behaviour. When a particle is torn from its host and liberated here on earth it becomes unstable. The Earth eventually re-stabilises it.
In space the same particle reaches it’s own stable point and only becomes excited when it is influenced by a mass, be it another particle or even a planet. The aurora borealis provides us with a visible display of how particles react with each other under the Earth's influence.
pressure below 612 Pa, H2O is no longer stable as a liquid and can exist only as ice or steam.
Triple point of water. Showing water turning into ice.
This video is very interesting and shows how molecules in this case gas molecules are attracted to the larger bubble.
Calling my theory wacky because there are no numbers is typical of Academia. Why complicate a beautiful simple model? Why put one of those equations on a blackboard that makes the person with the chalk look like he or she knows what they are talking about:? Is there really any need. This job can be left for those that are incapable of devising their own theory and will spend their lives sucking up to each other and ostracising those who dare to question what is taken for granted as being true in science. A belief is not science. Established science is not without its challengers or indeed its challenges.
-
"Electrolysis and chemical speration of the two components on earth does not require a huge energy source."
Yes it does- the energy required to split water is exactly the same as the energy released by burning H2 to get water. That reaction is so energetic they use it to drive space rockets.
If you can think of a way of splitting water that doesn't take lots of energy then you have done 2 interesting things, first you have solved the energy crisis and second you have broken the law of conservation of energy.
Perhaps you can understand why I rather doubt that you have.
You say "Furthermore trees, plants and even algal and phyto plancton do not have a huge energy source yet oxygen appears to be released."
I guess we must be talking about different definitions here. I think that the sun, a vast, white-hot fusion reactor, is a large source of energy. Presuably you dont.
May I ask what you do think would count as a big energy source? There's certainly nothing on a human scale that does this.
Speaking of things humans cant do, you say "The rate of fusion at the Earths core is hardly too small to observe." OK show me the obervations or stop making ridiculous statements.
It seems Sophiecentaur has made the same mistake- ignoring the energy from the sun. It doesn't matter how you split the water (and it's a moot point if plants split water or CO2)you still need the same amount of energy.
"I do not believe that the droplets stay a vapour."
What droplets? The stuff comes out as a gas and stays asa a gas.
As I already said, the radiation from the sun will destroy a lot of the water molecules so your bit about "If they do then we would see a lot more evidence for vapour and water molecules would be found in space. They are not so something must happen to them in the vacuum of space." is redundant."
As for "Water molecules leave the liquid state in a vacuum at room temperature at zero pressure and water visibly reaches boiling point."
What liquid state? The stuff coming out of a rocket is well above the critical temperature of water so it's certainly not liquid. It then expands into the vacuum of space- making it less dense is not going to make it condense. It's in a vacuum- the only option available for cooling it is radiation whichh is relatively slow. It expands much faster than it cools so it never gets to form a liquid or solid.
"We do not need a mathematical model of infinity because infinity is a constant and therefore the universe which holds infinity is also a constant."
It gets dark at night so we know that either there's something really odd about are bit of the universe or we know that it is finite in either time or extent (or both)
The universe almost certainly isn't infinite.
"it is their relationship with the mass of a planet that dictates their perceived behaviour not the atoms themselves."
How do the atoms(which are in free fall) know about the mass of the planet?
They cannot; so there's no way that your staement can be true.
"pressure below 612 Pa, H2O is no longer stable as a liquid and can exist only as ice or steam."
Good point- the pressure in space is well below that so droplets are a figment of your imagination.
The gas isn't visible. In order for a rocket exhaust in space to be visible it would need to be ice. Since it just can out of the back of a rocket it's very hot so it won't be ice.
Where's the problem here? Why do you think there's anything odd about the fact that you can't see a rocket's exhaust fumes in space?
"Calling my theory wacky because there are no numbers is typical of Academia."
I'm calling it wacky because it doesn't agree with reallity. There is no evidence for fusion in the eath's core- there is evidence against it- fusion produces the odd isotope of helium 3He which is very rare on earth so we know there's no fusion.
If, as you sugest, the universe were infinite it wouldn't go dark at nigt. It does so you are wrong.
You seem to think that the output of a rocket is small ice particles even though it's a few thousand degrees too hot.
It's not the lack of numbers and equations that's a problem here. It's the lack of agreement with reallity.
"Why complicate a beautiful simple model? "
Because it doesn't work.
"Why put one of those equations on a blackboard that makes the person with the chalk look like he or she knows what they are talking about:? Is there really any need."
Because you can use the equations to make predictions and those are the real test of science- do the predictions hold true? and yes, there's a need for this, it's called progress.
"A belief is not science. "
Some beliefs might be, but your belief, for example, in fusion deep in the earth is definitely not science- it is contradicted by the evidence. Yet you stick to it.
Sticking to daft ideas is a lot more of a problem for science than sticking to establishged ideas that have resisted gernerations of scientists' atempts to prove them wrong.
You have to start somewhere Newton's laws; the conservation of energy; Einstein's work and so on are a good place to begin. Othewrwise you are back in the dark ages.
Incidentally the SRBs on the shuttle which give it the extra kick it needs to get started produce a lot of alumina which is a white solid. This may complicate thigs
-
AKF
Why is it that people who know little real Science always ignore the numbers?
It is the actual numbers - the measurements - which provide th evidence to help you decide between good theories and bad theories.
Without finding out the actual numbers involved, there would be no need for Special Relativity. Hundreds of years ago it was sufficient to say "things fall downwards; it is in their nature. Newton and those after him did better than that by actually measuring things.
If you have no measurements or if the existing ones don't agree with your whacky ideas it's no good complaining about Academia. You are clearly tying to invent a system which is totally at odds with things as they are seen by the whole body of Science.
Fine, but just don't call your idea Science - start writing fantasy stories and people may be prepared to read them but don't expect people to build aeroplanes, computers and all the rest of technology on the basis of your ideas.
Do you not realise that Academia has a pretty good track record, judging by results.
What track record do you and your theory have?
BC; I am sure we can't really be at odds about the energy involved in dissociating O and H in water. Per molecule is isn't many Joules, is it? 5Volts will split them in an electrolytic cell - that means 5 electron volts per molecule - thats 8 e-19J per molecule (I could be a factor of two or three adrift but no matter). There may be a lot of molecules but each one doesn't need a lot.
-
Dissociating all the water vapour that comes out of a rocket would take as much energy as the rocket fuel produced driving the rocket. That's a lot. 8*10^-19 J isn't a lot until you multiply it by 6*10^23 to get J per mole then but 55000 or so to get Joules per tonne then by however much water the shuttle produces. Using plants to do it would be cheap and easy but not thermodynamically efficient.
-
OK - no disagreement, then.
Sigh of relief.
-
Geophysicists generally accept that the ambient magnetic field measured at the Earth's surface is due to electric currents flowing in it's liquid iron core. And Paleomagnetic measurements suggest that the Earth has possessed a magnetic field for at least 3.5 billionn years. Water is a source of electric currents and to last for that long it's more likely produced by water. It last longer then any other substance.
-
Water is a source of electric currents
What is that supposed to mean? It will conduct an electric current so a copper wire would also be a source of electric current (?).
Have you heard of the dynamo effect?
A moving conductor in a magnetic field produces an emf which will cause a current to flow.
-
Never mind that, how about "It last longer then any other substance."?
But surely the real killer in that post is "Geophysicists generally accept "..."liquid iron core".
Last time I checked Fe wans't the same as H2O.
-
The sun does not destroy anything! you cannot destroy water molecules. You can however change them into something else!
SophieC mentioned water droplets I said I don’t believe it. (not correct, BC mentioned water droplets)
The energy at the core is pretty obvious to most of the world! The fact hat isotopes do not come to the surface and when they do they have not been observed does not prove that they are not there!
You both repeatedly insult my intelligence. May I remind you that I have added some very important experiments to science by thinking of ways to demonstrate how solutes alter flow in fluids using gravity. May I ask you both what you have contributed to science that is originally yours? If you have contributed I would love to read about it.
Now lets have a go at answering the lack of the isotope searched for presumably in molten magma from volcanoes?
Can we rely on this isotope being available in the less dense molten rock from volcanic activity? is this isotope helium 3He dense? Could the phenomenal pressure at the core result in fusing atoms together to produce materials found on earth? I repeat, if we do not know what lies at the bottom of the ocean How on earth can we be expected to know what is happening at the core, let alone what is happening in the universe.
Quote: Speaking of things humans cant do, you say "The rate of fusion at the Earths core is hardly too small to observe." OK show me the observations or stop making ridiculous statements.
The above is such a ridiculous statement it makes me cringe. Please explain how either of us could prove or disprove what is going on at the core?
Presumably I don’t think the sun is a massive source of energy? again a blatant attempt to belittle me! I could answer you at your level but choose to behave myself and respect this forum by not trying to treat you with the contempt you have just shown me. The suns rays playing on a leaf is not quite the massive energy source that your posts require.
We were talking about how pressures that come no where near the pressures at the core can change the way water behaves by turning it into hot ice. If the pressure can do this maybe it can produce some of the many different materials found on earth also by fusing them together? For example, we can fuse different metals together in a furnace at ground level and create an alloy
The sun evaporates water, it condenses and returns back to the earth as rain, it is not destroyed! We separate oxygen and hydrogen using hydrolysis and find that when we burn the two components together it returns water back to the Earth. Could it possibly be that the hydrogen and oxygen cannot remain separated once they have been burned? Is indeed the burning merely the reaction of the atoms recombining to make water? Does this not offer some proof that water is a result of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms being here on earth under the gravitational force due to the size of the earth’s mass? Or do we just ignore these results also? We forge a cast iron block and find that it oxidizes and decomposes. We have not destroyed the iron by allowing it to rust away we have just decomposed it and reassembled it as rust!
-
SophieC mentioned water droplets I said I don’t believe it.
Where?
I can't find it anywhere. Where would they be?
Out in Space? In the Core?
May I remind you that I have added some very important experiments to science by thinking of ways to demonstrate how solutes alter flow in fluids using gravity.
Interesting as they may have been, they are hardly showing anything new. You put work /energy into a system - you get work /energy out. That explains it all. It's been going on in the Oceans for years. Your explanation involving 'water tension' makes the whole episode a bit suspect. But that is all water under the bridge. . . .
If the pressure can do this maybe it can produce some of the many different materials found on earth also by fusing them together?
"Maybe". . . . And what is the mechanism to make this happen? As I understand it, you need much more extreme temperatures and pressures than you find within the Earth's core to make that happen. (For the Heavier Elements you need Supernova conditions, even)
Have you evidence or even a ball park calculation to indicate your theory would be possible? You always ignore the actual numbers involved and they are crucial.
-
Sorry Sophecentaur. I assumed BC must have been referring to one of your post because I knew I had not mentioned this happening in space. Just doing a search it appears BC mentioned droplets my mention was that I did not believe them to be possible in space. My point was that the water coming from the rockets leaves no visible trace. Yet here on earth it does. So I am assuming that the water is decomposed. BC says you need a lot of energy to break the bonds of water on Earth. I am trying to say that may be so on Earth but may not be the case out in the reduced pressure of space. I have stated before and will state again water is water on earth because the gravitational force of earth enables oxygen and hydrogen to exist at the right distance apart. Bring them closer as per the experiments showing increased compression and water turns into Hot Ice. So bringing other atoms closer under millions of atmospheres more pressure should also generate heat. Ever put your finger over the end of a cycle pump and felt the heat generated as the air rushes through the gap. An air compressor for example will generate heat by compressing the air. Friction at the core and in the mantle would be something that would undoubtedly add to the heat required for fusing atoms together. So maybe and Ill be the first to admit it is a maybe. The pressures deep underground are such that materials found on the earth can be arranged without your supernova heat. And TBH we do not know how hot it really is down there do we?
Again you are assuming that your presumed higher temperatures apply at the immense pressure of an estimated several million atmospheres.
RE: how do particles know how to be attracted to a planet? Rather an odd question from BC but let us remember that there is an attracting and a repelling force in an atom. A mass of atoms like a comet or a planet would arrange its atoms much the same as a magnet arranges iron filings at the surface. The earth also arranges atoms as they arrive, some larger objects such as meteors and comets are arranged instantly on entry some arranged over time. Each arrival adding to the earths attracting force and each arrival adding to the collective crushing force at the core by transferring the repelling force and multiplying the attracting force giving us an explanation for gravity. Gravity is thought to be a weak force because it is not understood and it is well known and publicised that gravity is not understood. Once we begin to realise that gravity is not a weak force but a very powerful stabilising force that prevents the earth from falling apart or being blown to bits (for now at least) we can begin to understand how earthquakes and volcanoes which are many times more powerful and destructive than any of our nuclear weapons continue to cause devastation and show little signs of abating.
After all the earth is thought to have been a giant mass of particles being drawn together to create a huge amount of energy and then gradually cooling down. This also has problems explaining where all this energy came from to weld the atoms together to make our planet. My explanation does not rely on this but relies on a much slower planetary evolution. As the planets in this solar system grew, the debris in the solar system is drawn to the larger of the evolving planets and we have seen comets being drawn into Jupiter There are exceptions and the evidence for these can be found on the Earths surface and on the lunar surface and when these larger objects arrive they confirm the planets are growing. We argue that light has mass, yet we ignore the fact that light shines on the earth every day. We know that particles arrive from space and collide with particles on earth, yet we do not count this as growth? We send satellites into orbit which we know will come down to earth again some day, yet we presume that mass freely leaves the atmosphere to account for a shrinking earth rather than admitting we have an expanding earth?
Published in Nature: Secular variation of Earth's gravitational harmonic J2 coefficient from Lageos and nontidal accleration of Earth rotation
Our planet's waistline is mysteriously increasing.
After 18,000 years of slimming, our planet has suddenly turned tubby round the middle.
Researchers are baffled by the bulge.
Worth a read:
http://expanding-earth.org/
-
So I am assuming that the water is decomposed.
It is water vapour! Thtat's not decomposed - it just means the water molecules are not attached to each other and they have a large space between them - invisible.
Your following paragraph describes effects which are easily described by the 'School' kinetic theory of gases. It doesn't involve either a chemical change (e.g. dissociation of molecules) or Nuclear effects; both of these involve much higher levels of energy (per particle).
Your question about 'where all this energy came from'. You got me going on the back of the proverbial fag packet again.
The amount of energy available from the (well established) gravitational potential energy of a mass equal to the Earth's spread out over a volume of, say, a thousand times the Earth's present volume, would be nearly 10e31J. Just Schoolboy science involved with that.
See http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15037.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=15037.0)
For some more detailed sums.
-
You wrote a nice mathematical description of the earth forming from particles and all of the particles fusing together. I describe a more peaceful beginning to the earth where the pressure at the centre of the earth provides the force and heat to fuse together particles.
For the life of me I do not see how atoms and larger particles can suddenly decide to fuse together and create a planet that has enough energy to melt it all together. Sounds more like Mickey Mouse than reality! I am by no means alone in an expanding earth, in fact it was for many years the only explanation. Plate tectonics offered another explanation to the way continental drift occurs. But by no means disproved the growing earth problem.
I repeat 1 meteor arrives on earth then the growth of the earth has been shown to be true! You will never see a meteor leaving the planet and that is a fact we can rely on!
So if we begin to construct a theory based on what we know with 100% certainty we have a paradigm that is bullet proof. If we speculate on anything then we weaken our argument until it is proven and proof in universe analysis is hard to establish!
You ask for figures so let us ask how much material arrives on the planet per year including the mass from the sun and the mass from the plant, animal and insect growth generated by the sun, given that the light from the sun is said to have mass a portion of this must be added. Together with the celestial bombardments of particles, sub atomic particles, stellar dust, meteors and the odd comet over a million years.
Any idea where we can get this figure to begin with?
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=99133 a starting point perhaps?
-
Andrew please stop posting nonsense.
"The sun does not destroy anything! you cannot destroy water molecules. You can however change them into something else!"
Bollocks.
Splitting them into hydrogen and oxygen destroys the molecules - they are not water any more.
You seem to have forgotten the difference between molecules and atoms.
you said this "The energy at the core is pretty obvious to most of the world! The fact hat isotopes do not come to the surface and when they do they have not been observed does not prove that they are not there!"
Helium does come up from deep in the ground, that's where we get it from so it's been studied pretty well. It comes up at much the rate expected from the generation of heat by nuclear decay.
But it's the wrong isotope to be derived from fusion in the way you sugest.
"You both repeatedly insult my intelligence. May I remind you that I have added some very important experiments to science by thinking of ways to demonstrate how solutes alter flow in fluids using gravity. "
I must have missed those- please cite a peer-reviewed reference.
" May I ask you both what you have contributed to science that is originally yours? If you have contributed I would love to read about it."
I've contributed odds and ends to science but, as you may notice, I'm not using my real name on this site so I can't give refernces. Perhaps you might think about whether or not anything I have posted here counts as a contribution.
"Now lets have a go at answering the lack of the isotope searched for presumably in molten magma from volcanoes?"
Lets' not, because that makes a wrong presumption and I have already addressed the fact that people certainly have looked. 3He is bloody expensive- it would be well worth finding if it were there.
"The above is such a ridiculous statement it makes me cringe. Please explain how either of us could prove or disprove what is going on at the core?"
well, if you were paying attenetion you would realise I already did- the lack of 3He proves thater's no fusion to speak of.
My idea thet there's no fusion is consistent with what's known about fusion. Your idea isn't. Are you pretending that all the other physicists are wrong and you are right- even though you haven't a shred of evidence?
"Presumably I don’t think the sun is a massive source of energy? again a blatant attempt to belittle me! "
Yep, dead right. I have no problem belittling people who think they know better than all the world's nuclear physicists even in the absense of proof and in the face of contradictory evidence.
"The suns rays playing on a leaf is not quite the massive energy source that your posts require."
Just as soon as you show me the leaf that can produce as much power as the shuttle's engines that will be relevant.
"We were talking about how pressures that come no where near the pressures at the core can change the way water behaves by turning it into hot ice. If the pressure can do this maybe it can produce some of the many different materials found on earth also by fusing them together? For example, we can fuse different metals together in a furnace at ground level and create an alloy"
Yes, indeeed and we are several orders of magnitude to cold for nuclear fusion- even the sun's core is (as I said) too cold to do that very quickly. Also, the core is generally agreed to be mainly iron. This would get in the way of the hydrogen reducing the rate of fusion still further.
"The sun evaporates water, it condenses and returns back to the earth as rain, it is not destroyed!"
So?
"We separate oxygen and hydrogen using hydrolysis"
Not in thie usual sense of the word hydrolysis- but it makes sense if you look at the meanings of the words.
"and find that when we burn the two components together it returns water back to the Earth"
Yep, so what?
"Could it possibly be that the hydrogen and oxygen cannot remain separated once they have been burned? "
What does that mean?
Once they are burned they give water. In water the 2 elements are combined- not separated.
"Does this not offer some proof that water is a result of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms being here on earth under the gravitational force due to the size of the earth’s mass?"
Of course it doesn't. You ask me not to insult your inteligence, but you say things like that, even though you were the one to point out that the space shuttle's engines burn hydrogen and oxygen.
Well, they use rockets to get about in space where they are otherwise in freefall. Certainly less gravity than here on earth and "zero Gravity" from a lot of practical points of view.
Didn't you realise you were contradicting yourself?
"Or do we just ignore these results also? "
What results? You gaven't shown any results, just some odd comments. Some of them contradictory, some nonsensical.
"We forge a cast iron block and find that it oxidizes and decomposes. We have not destroyed the iron by allowing it to rust away we have just decomposed it and reassembled it as rust!"
Thanks for the reminder that, even at the temperatures used in forging metals, the atoms are not affected.
The core of the earth isn't that much hotter and that's why the atoms don't undergo fusion.
The droplets I refered to are the ones you mentioned implicitly. They are the ones that scatter light and render a rocket's exhaust visible. They don't form in space because the pressure is way too low and the temperature is way too high.
There's nothing magic about this.
The lack of a vapour trail from a rocket in space is exactly what you ought to expect.
You say it's because they are atomised (ie reduced to atoms)
Nonsense. While the sun's UV radiation is capable of doing thst slowly you would need a huge energy supply to do it as fast as the rocket makes steam. In fact you would need to supply power at exactly the same rate as the rocket dissipates power (law od conservation of energy).
Even the sun isn't up to doing that. The water will get atomised but nothing like fast enough to explain the lack of a vapour trail.
Your idea that the vapour trail disapears because it's atomised has 2 problems.
Firstly it isn't an neccessary idea- the trail should be invisible anyway.
Secondly, it would need something to supply the dissociation energy required to atomise the water. There's no adequate energy source there to do that.
"BC says you need a lot of energy to break the bonds of water on Earth. I am trying to say that may be so on Earth but may not be the case out in the reduced pressure of space."
How in the name of all that's holy does a water molecule know if it's on earth or in space? It takes 424.4 KJ/mol to dissociate a water molecule into O and OH. It then takes yet more energy to split the OH. That value applies wherever you happen to be.
Again, if you were right you would have violated the principle of the conservation of energy and solved the energy crisis. You have not really done this so please stop speculating as if you have.
"I have stated before and will state again water is water on earth because the gravitational force of earth enables oxygen and hydrogen to exist at the right distance apart"
You can state it as often as you like- it's not true. There's plenty of water in space. Gravity is something like 34 orders of magnitude less strong than the bonds that hold water together- gravity simply isn't relevant.
"Ever put your finger over the end of a cycle pump and felt the heat generated as the air rushes through the gap. An air compressor for example will generate heat by compressing the air."
Work is done when the force moves through a distance. Because rock is practically incompressible the distance it shrinks whaen compressed is small. Therfore the work involved is samll. Gases are much squashier. Try taking a lump of rock and squashing it. See if the rock gets hot as a result of this.
"And TBH we do not know how hot it really is down there do we?"
Speak for yourself, we have a pretty good idea because, if it were very much hotter it would lose heat through the earth's crust faster. From masuerments in mines and such we know how fast it's losing heat so we know how hot it is.
"Again you are assuming that your presumed higher temperatures apply at the immense pressure of an estimated several million atmospheres."
Actually the presumption I made was that the temperature and pressure at the centre of the earth are less than those at the centre of the sun.
Do you seriously doubt that?
Also the concentration of hydrogen at the sun's centre is higher because it's not diluted by a vast excess of iron.
What you said was "it is their relationship with the mass of a planet that dictates their perceived behaviour not the atoms themselves." and I asked how they knew the planet's mass.
That's a perfectly reasonable question. Imagine (as a flight of pure fantasy that's never had any observeable effect) that the atoms have a gravimeter with them.
OK that can measure the strength of the gravitational field. However they don't know if that's because they are ner a very small mass or a long way from a large mass.
So, once again I ask, how do they know?
"is thought to be a weak force because it is not understood and it is well known and publicised that gravity is not understood. "
Bollocks again. Gravity is thought to be a weak force becaus it has been measured and found to be weak.
If I pick up a book I can do so in spite of the fact that I am working against the gravity of an entire planet.
That's a weak force. How well understood it is doesn't matter- if we come up with a better theory to explain it we won't suddenly weigh more.
Again, I wonder why you write such tosh.
". Once we begin to realise that gravity is not a weak force but a very powerful stabilising force that prevents the earth from falling apart or being blown to bits (for now at least) we can begin to understand how earthquakes and volcanoes which are many times more powerful and destructive than any of our nuclear weapons continue to cause devastation and show little signs of abating."
Nope, gravity is still a weak force but if you have an entire palnnet atracting an entire mountain- rather than a book, the stored energy involved can be quite big.
Also the volcanoes are largely powered by nuclear reactions within the earth- not gravity. The original ones when the earth was young were graviational but they have cooled a lot since then.
"This also has problems explaining where all this energy came from to weld the atoms together to make our planet."
Technically it has exactly the oposite problem. If 2 molecules bump into eachother under gravity they are very likely to bounce off again. Getting them to stick (at least until you have something the size of dust) is the problem. OTOH I have given up hope of you getting this sort of thing right.
Here's another case in point "We argue that light has mass, yet we ignore the fact that light shines on the earth every day. " actually the effect of radiation pressure on things like satelites needs to be taken into account whne designing and maintaining them.
As I write this I see you have come up with another post. I will sign off here but just note that, while you can't see meteorites takingh off from earthe, you also can't seeh hydrogen and helium leaving. But the fact that they are both rare in our atmosphere tells us they do leave.
It's not easy to know which effect is bigger but, at least since the ancient Greeks measured the earth, it hasn't changed much.
And also that "For the life of me I do not see how atoms and larger particles can suddenly decide to fuse together and create a planet that has enough energy to melt it all together. Sounds more like Mickey Mouse than reality" just measn that you don't understand that a particle flying in at escape velocity caries a lot of energy. That's why rockets need a lot of stored energy and why re-entry generates so much heat.
-
For the life of me I do not see how atoms and larger particles can suddenly decide to fuse together and create a planet that has enough energy to melt it all together. Sounds more like Mickey Mouse than reality! I am by no means alone in an expanding earth, in fact it was for many years the only explanation. Plate tectonics offered another explanation to the way continental drift occurs. But by no means disproved the growing earth problem.
Well, 'for the life of me' I can't understand how anyone can presume to have a view of Science if they can't understand the idea of energy transforms. They are happening all around us. In this case, the Energy comes from Gravitational Potential and, via Kinetic Energy as the particles accelerate together ends up as thermal energy in the middle when all the bits have arrived.
Read about some real Science Andrew. It does make sense, you know.
And, BC, I've just read your post.
You are getting far too steamed up about this. Be cool man!
-
Japanese scientist claims breakthrough with cold fusion experiment
by Donald Melanson, posted May 26th 2008 at 12:10PM
A physics professor from Osaka University now claims to have made a scientific breakthrough of another sort, with him now touting nothing less than a supposedly successful demonstration of cold fusion. That was apparently done by forcing deuterium gas under pressure into an evacuated cell containing a sample of palladium dispersed in zirconium oxide, which caused the deuterium to be absorbed by the palladium sample, resulting in a denser, or “pynco” deuterium, with deuterium nuclei that are close enough together to fuse. That process also supposedly resulted in a rise in temperature to about 70° Celsius, and a temperature in the center of the cell that remained “significantly warmer” than the cell wall for 50 hours after the test. Of course, there doesn’t appear to be any other scientists ready to back up the experiment just yet, so you’ll have to rely on your own armchair science expertise to get your hopes up or down accordingly on this one.
Lets say 3 million atmospheres at the core. (A figure quoted by others) This immense pressure would undoubtedly suffice to push atoms close enough to excite them and fuse them together! No need for the immense heat you are asking for evidence of!
BC you keep talking about heat and power to generate fusion. Why not immense pressure to do the same job?
Yes, indeeed and we are several orders of magnitude to cold for nuclear fusion- even the sun's core is (as I said) too cold to do that very quickly. Also, the core is generally agreed to be mainly iron. This would get in the way of the hydrogen reducing the rate of fusion still further.
-
RE water molecules and your reply. I stated the sun does not destroy anything, it merely changes it into something else. You reply splitting them into hydrogen and oxygen destroys the water moecules. I say no it does not it changes the water moecules into hydrogen and oxygen! Nothing get's destroyed just converted!
RE citing a peer reviewed reference. All in good time BC.
Quote: How in the name of all that's holy does a water molecule know if it's on earth or in space?
Could the pressure of 1 atmosphere + the gravitational force of the planet suffice to bring the molecules together to form water and the abscence of pressure suffice to prevent the molecules from foriming into water after they are burned?
-
Andrew,
Splitting a house into bricks doesn't destroy the bricks, but it destroys the house; it isn't a house any more.
Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen doesn't destroy the hydrogen and oxygen, but it destroys the water; it isn't a molecule any more.
It's the same idea and I'm sure you are only pretending not to understand it.
We have seen "cold fusion" before. It's widely cited as how to do bad science.
The same real problem affects this story as affected the last one. If you get fusion you get neutrons. Neutron radiation kills people.
If they succeded they should be dead.
Nobody repeated the original "cold fusion" and nobody has repeated the latest claim.
It's not really science so why even raise it here?
You seem not to have noticed but I did mention the effect of pressure on fusion rates.
This is what I said "Actually the presumption I made was that the temperature and pressure at the centre of the earth are less than those at the centre of the sun."
The pressure at the centre of the sun is estimated as 10^16 Pa that's about 10^11 atmosphers.
so, from a very simple point of view the sun should fuse hydrogen something like three thousand times faster than the earth on account of the pressure. (Of course, the low temperature of the earth makes it much less efficient as a fusion reactor, then there's the minor consideration that there's no real reason to supose there is any hydrogen there to fuse.)
Now Andrew, what stopped you searching for an estimate of the presure at the sun's centre, comparing it to that at the centre of the earth and working out that you were talking nonsense?
And re peer reviewed refferences, a good time would be now, while someone is asking. What are you waiting for? Some of the more cynical might wonder if you haven't got any.
-
Hydrogen appears to be married off with oxygen on earth. Whereas in space hydrogen appears to be happy all by itself!
Molecular Hydrogen in Space
Series: Cambridge Contemporary Astrophysics
Edited by F. Combes
Observatoire de Paris, DEMIRM
G. Pineau des Forets
Observatoire de Paris de Meudon, DAEC
(ISBN-13: 9780521782241 | ISBN-10: 0521782244)
Molecular hydrogen is the most abundant molecule in the Universe. In recent years, advances in theory and laboratory experiments coupled with breakthrough observations with important new telescopes and satellites have revolutionized our understanding of molecular hydrogen in space. It is now possible to address the question of how molecular hydrogen formed in the early Universe and the role it played in the formation of primordial structures. This timely volume presents articles from a host of experts who reviewed this new understanding at an international conference in Paris. This book provides the first multi-disciplinary synthesis of our new understanding of molecular hydrogen. It covers the theory of the physical processes and laboratory experiments, as well as the latest observations. It will therefore be an invaluable reference for all students and researchers in astrophysics and cosmology.
• The first multi-disciplinary review of our new understanding of molecular hydrogen in space • Covers recent developments in theory, laboratory experiments, and observations from the latest telescopes and satellites • Includes articles by experts from around the world
Although on Earth hydrogen ranks ninth among the elements in abundance, making up 0.9 per-cent of the mass of the planet, it is by far the most abundant element in the universe, accounting
for about 75 percent of the mass of all matter. Collected by gravitational forces in stars, hydrogen is converted into helium by nuclear fusion, a process that supplies the energy of the stars, including the Sun. Hydrogen is present in all animal and vegetable substances in the form of compounds in which it is combined with carbon and other elements. In the form of hydrocarbons, it is a constituent of petroleum and coal. It also constitutes nearly 11 percent of the mass of seawater. The hydrogen content of the Earth's atmosphere remains low because of the continual escape of the gas into space.
http://www.c-f-c.com/specgas_products/hydrogen.htm
Fusion:
"The plasma performance depends on how much pressure you can put in, as the fusion power is proportional to the pressure squared," says Martin O'Brien, a programme manager at Culham, the UK's centre for fusion research. "You want to operate at as high a density as possible. But at high densities the performance can degrade. Experimentally it is hard to go higher than an empirically observed density, the Greenwald Limit. There are a variety of boundaries due to instabilities, and all factors must be optimised."
Looked up the Greenwald Limit only to find it is no longer a limit!
When hydrogen and oxygen are fused together to form water do they not prove that we do not need a great deal of heat and energy to form it? We can see it happen in the plume of a rocket when hydrogen and oxygen are burned. It is not the burning that makes the water form because it does not form in space! So if it is not the heat and energy from the rocket what is it that makes the water droplets appear from the exhaust on earth?
-
Andrew
Lets say 3 million atmospheres at the core. (A figure quoted by others) This immense pressure would undoubtedly suffice to push atoms close enough to excite them and fuse them together! No need for the immense heat you are asking for evidence of!
How can there be 'no doubt' in your mind that the pressure would be sufficient? Have you actually read that? Do you know what is actually required for fusion to occur? The nuclei have to be traveling fast to overcome the very strong mutual repulsive energy. The temperature corresponds to the average kinetic of the particles; hence you need a high temperature (don't call it 'heat' it's the wrong terminology). A high pressure improves the probability of them meeting each other. Have you read about how fusion works? I think you are a bit selective about what you want to learn. Is that in case you might have to change your mind?
And having just read the last para of your last post, I fear that are not aware of the difference between chemical reactions and nuclear fusion.
-
Hydrogen appears to be married off with oxygen on earth. Whereas in space hydrogen appears to be happy all by itself!
Could that just be because there is a lot of Oxygen around the planet so the Hydrogen atoms which find themselves here will combine with them? Did you see some particular significance in what you wrote?
BTW The fusion experiments at Culham use plasmas of very low density compared with the material at the Earth's core. You seem to be inferring something which is just not the case. They've got it right - you've got it wrong.
-
Andrew, OK I forgot the squared term. Oops!
The pressure at the earth's core is roughly 3000 times less than at the centre of the sun so the rate of fusion is roughly ten million times less.
You seem to have shot yourself in the foot.
Oh, I almost forgot. Hydrogen is common. Another thing it is is less dense than molten rock.
It would float up out of the earths core. Since it's not there, it can't fuse.
Free hydrogen in the atmosphere gets lost to space- it's to do with escape velocity and the Boltzmann distribution.
-
Hang on a minute. Did I say hydrogen was at the core?
And even if the rate of fusion is 10 million times less it does not prove or disprove that fusion may be happeing at the core under the 3 million atmospheres or more of pressure. I doubt also that hydrogen makes it to space when it is liberated but combines with free oxygen molecules to reform into water as per the rocket exhaust. Now who has shot themselves in the foot?
Andrew, OK I forgot the squared term. Oops!
The pressure at the earth's core is roughly 3000 times less than at the centre of the sun so the rate of fusion is roughly ten million times less.
You seem to have shot yourself in the foot.
Oh, I almost forgot. Hydrogen is common. Another thing it is is less dense than molten rock.
It would float up out of the earths core. Since it's not there, it can't fuse.
Free hydrogen in the atmosphere gets lost to space- it's to do with escape velocity and the Boltzmann distribution.
-
I doubt also that hydrogen makes it to space when it is liberated but combines with free oxygen molecules to reform into water
It takes an awful long time for a Hydrogen molecule to combine with Oxygen at 'room temperature' and at low concentration. It combines readily enough in a strong concentration once you have lit the flame but that is a different matter entirely. The numbers count, Andrew.
-
Hydrogen appears to be married off with oxygen on earth. Whereas in space hydrogen appears to be happy all by itself!
Could that just be because there is a lot of Oxygen around the planet so the Hydrogen atoms which find themselves here will combine with them? Did you see some particular significance in what you wrote?
RE: takes a long time for hydrogen to combine with water? No it does not at the exhaust of a rocket! it is instantaneous. Even in a hydrogen fueled car it is instantly produced yet not in space! So we have eliminated the heat from combustion as a factor. We are now left with answering why oxygen and hydrogen pair up in 1g yet fail in the vacuum of space.
It is sad that clever people like yourself adopt the "if it ain't written in a book it ain't true" attitude. We could achieve so much more with a little free thinking. For example: What if our 1g changes to say 10g do we still have hydrogen floating up or does it remain in close proximity to the earth?
Indeed there was a lot of significance in what I wrote. And as much in your reply. Oxygen on earth combines with hydrogen to make water. But not in space! The mixture coming out of the exhaust contains both oxygen and hydrogen. The velocity of the exhaust emissions could be used to explain why oxygen and hydrogen don’t produce water droplets in space. We could say that they escape before they have a chance to pair up. Yet on earth this argument must also apply and we still get water droplets forming.
-
Andrew please stop posting nonsense.
"You cannot destroy water molecules. You can however change them into something else!"
I totally agree with you. Water is the only substence that resists all difrent states. These are some of the reasons why it's fit to be at centre.
-
Water is the only substence that resists all difrent states.
What's that supposed to mean?
There are plenty of planets where water is not in great profusion on the surface. If you had to base a theory on one of those places could you guarantee you'd come up with the same conclusion about how special that particular compound is?
Have you any formal training in Chemistry, at all?
-
"is thought to be a weak force because it is not understood and it is well known and publicised that gravity is not understood. "
Bollocks again. Gravity is thought to be a weak force becaus it has been measured and found to be weak.
If I pick up a book I can do so in spite of the fact that I am working against the gravity of an entire planet.
That's a weak force. How well understood it is doesn't matter- if we come up with a better theory to explain it we won't suddenly weigh more.
Again, I wonder why you write such tosh.
First of all. You are not working against gravity when you pick up the book on earth. In fact gravity is working with you by powering the hydraulics and electrical signals that enable you to lift up the book ! It also provides you with the ability to remain pushing against the earth in order to lift the book. Remember the old adage For every action there is an opposite equal reaction? In fact the same applies to a massive cable crane lifting huge weights high up in the air. Gravity provides the cable hoist with the ballast required to prevent it from falling over so the hoist again is able to push against the ground because of gravity not, I repeat not pull against gravity!
Gravity grows the tree that makes the book. It provides the life that makes the machines to turn the wood into paper and the ink that writes the text and the brain that compiles the text! Gravity is the only force, it generates the light from the sun, it drives the worlds weather and ocean currents, it raises mountains and carves out valleys. It causes volcanoes and earthquakes than make our atomic weapons look like Childs play! Gravity makes a magnet that is perceived to lift up a pin to prove that gravity is the weaker force when gravity is supporting the person or contraption that is holding the magnet! Gravity causes the lightening and the tempest that follows. Gravity causes gigantic balls of ice to fall from the sky.
We launch a rocket into space using a tremendous amount of force from the rear of the rocket in order to propel it away from the surface and into orbit. Yet gravity can bring it down to earth in a ball of fire without using a rocket to drive it!
Gravity provides stability yet has the power to destroy and will eventually destroy and decompose every last single one of us, yet pathetic humans believe they have mastered the universe when they cannot even master their own free thinking!
-
It's fine, if you want to subscribe to the Religion of Gravity, to look at things in that way.
However, Science attempts to work at things in a different way. The actual mechanisms and causal relationships are thought to be important, rather than circular arguments and fancy.
As only one of the essential forces which we study, Gravity must take its place amongst the Coulomb Force and the intra Nuclear forces. They are all involved in the way everything acts so why just choose Gravity?
What sort of Science are you working with if you ignore selected parts of the conventional subject, apparently quite randomly?
Perhaps if you tried to think in terms of Energy rather than restricting your thoughts to Gravitational Forces, you might get somewhere. A Force does nothing until it starts to produce motion - and then Energy is involved.
-
I am trying to say that without gravity there are no other forces. Imagine a void without mass and without gravity. Would we see any force? No! Gravity is the sum of all of the particles that make up the mass. Not just pulling as preconceptions lead us to believe but each particle adding to the mass repels and attracts and it is this polarity if you like that enables the alignment of particles in the ways that we find them aligned on earth. When we try to liberate atoms that are bound together we are fighting against the binding force of gravity and when we break the particles free or push them closer together we are resisting gravity in the true sense and the nuclear energy that we release is the reaction to the action of splitting the atoms. In another thread asking about the shape of the cloud over a nuclear explosion. I asked what shape the same cloud from the same explosion would be in space? It would not be mushroom shaped because it has no resistance from the weight of the atmosphere and the attraction of gravity which after all prevents the chain reaction of more atoms being split continuing indefinitely, damping down the supposedly stronger force and snuffing it out. Does that sound like a weak gravity force or a strong gravity force?
-
Without the other Forces there is no Gravity either. It is a total system which we have chosen to interpret in the conventional terms which we use in Science.
Why do persist in your fanciful view of things? Are you really more clever than all the Scientists who you are choosing to disagree with? Have some sense. You haven't come up with a single serious argument against any of established Science.
It's all fantasy.
-
Andrew,
This "First of all. You are not working against gravity when you pick up the book on earth. " is exactly the sort of bollocks I'd lke you to stop posting.
If gravity were not there the book would be weightless and the force required to move it would be practically zero. This is plainly not the case. It's against the force of gravity that you do work when lifting a book and it's that same force that pulls the book down again if you let it go.
The force of gravity is really small whether you like it or not. The only reason it looks big is that it's always an atractive force. The electromagnetic force is about 10000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger but, since half the time it's repulsive, it
doesn't add up so much as gravity.
As for "I am trying to say that without gravity there are no other forces." I can hardly imagine a dafter statement. Ask an astronaught or a satelite.
If they needed gravity then they would fall to bits and stop working. They don't.
At least try to look at reallity before wasting bandwidth with this sort of stuff.
-
Ok then lift the planet up with the book if you want it in simple terms!
And contrary to your statement about ask an astronaut if they fall to bits. It might surprise you but they have serious medical problems in space and experience a greatly accelerated aging process, including rapid muscular atrophy, degeneration of the nervous system, degeneration of the bones with the formation of stones in the vital organs because they cannot excrete them in their urine! Serious circulation and metabolism problems, repiratory problems, renal problems, and heart problems. visual problems, nausea, reduced immune response to infections, psoriasis and other skin problems. Finger and toenails drop out and fungal infections in the root beds. Might have trouble asking a satellite though so I will wait for it to fall out of orbit before asking it. After all it was made on Earth in 1g gravity and it will return to earth someday in the not too distant future weather it wants to or not.
-
Do astronauts fall apart? No they don't. Their bodies don't function quite as they should because they evolved to work best under 1G. Their individual cells work quite happily because (by being small and of low mass) they are dominated by electric forces and couldn't giveadamn what the G field was.
Broadcast and comms satellites (which are made of familiar materials and are full of sensitive electronic equipment) function perfectly well for years and years in the microgravity conditions of low Earth orbit. Do they fly apart? No. Electric fields dominate there as well.
Please go away and learn something about real Science before you type another character on this forum. You have no idea how ignorant you appear.
-
Hmmm so an astronaut can walk out of the space craft starkers and not fall to bits. Have you thought about putting that forward to NASA?
-
What forces are causing them problems under those conditions? Is Gravity involved? If you put someone into a chilled decompression chamber at ground level the same thing will happen.
And, of course, if you do the sums, you will find that the actual gravitational field in low Earth orbit is virtually the same as it is on the surface. The inverse square law (do you subscribe to that) tells you that the field at 200km, as a fraction of the field on the surface, is about
(6000/6200) squared or 93%g
Very little different.
You didn't spot that.
The difference is in the pressure.
You, of course, will reply that gravity causes the pressure difference. But the pressure will be the same (+/- a tiny amount) if you go well beyond the Moon, where the gravitational force is a tiny fraction.
Learn some basic Science before you publish your ideas.
-
"Hmmm so an astronaut can walk out of the space craft starkers and not fall to bits. Have you thought about putting that forward to NASA?"
No, but if he wnated to he could walk about inside the ship with no clothes on. Still no gravity and he's fine.
If on the other hand hee were to cimb into a big vacuum chamber here on earth he would be in truble.
So as you should have realised, vacuum is bad for people, low gravity - not a big roblem in the short term to people and no problem at all for solid state electronics that rely on the effects of electromagnetic forces.
Andrew, Why are you spouting such nonsense?
I can't believe that you think it's true so why bother with it?
-
Even short term space flight poses very serious health complications for astronauts. Do your research before assuming it does not. That is a fact whether you like it or not. And this is in microgravity not zero gravity. The pressure the earth generates in its atmosphere is the force that prevents us humans from being boiled alive. Put water in a vacuum and it will boil. Our own body pressure would destroy us if we did not have the pressure inside the space suit or the ship.
-
Even short term space flight poses very serious health complications for astronauts.
I am not aware of any of them being 'boiled alive', though.
And you never did answer the question about why pick Gravity as the 'daddy'. Without Electric forces we would fall apart wherever we were and so would our space ship. That makes it pretty important to me.
-
"Even short term space flight poses very serious health complications for astronauts. Do your research before assuming it does not."
Apart from catastrophic failures the space travelers all lived to tell the tale.
"That is a fact whether you like it or not. " Quite.
"The pressure the earth generates in its atmosphere is the force that prevents us humans from being boiled alive."
No, not always, it's not if you are in a spaceship. The pressure in some of them is kept low anyway - no point carrying nitrogen about the place as long as you make sure there's enough oxygen.
Sorry to bother you but I only need one counter-example to falsify your theory and that one will do.
"Put water in a vacuum and it will boil."
My word, we agree on something.
Interestingly the fact that water will boil if you raise the temperature or drop the pressure depends on the electromagnetic forces between the molecules tells us something. It works perfectly well in microgravity.
Oh look, once again gravity, being about ten million billion billion billion times weaker isn't relevent.
-
Crew transfer between Apollo and Soyuz: The atmospheric pressure and gas composition inside the Apollo command module differed from that used inside the Russian Soyuz spacecraft. The American spacecraft used a pure oxygen environment at one-third atmospheric pressure (5 psi). The Soyuz used an 80-percent nitrogen 20-percent oxygen environment at a pressure of one full atmosphere (14.7 psi). In order to allow safe transfer between vehicles the Russian and American engineering teams jointly created a docking module that was inserted between the Apollo and Soyuz spacecraft. Prior to docking with the Apollo command module (that was linked to the docking module) the Russian crew lowered their cabin atmospheric pressure from a full atmosphere to two-thirds atmosphere. After docking with the Soyuz, the American crew transferred from the Apollo spacecraft into the docking module and closed the hatch behind them. They added nitrogen to the pure oxygen environment which raised the pressure inside the docking module from one-third atmosphere to two-thirds atmosphere and resulted in a gaseous composition that matched the Russian Soyuz spacecraft. The astronauts could then safely open the hatch between the docking module and the Soyuz.
http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/HumansInSpace/Apollo-Soyuz/Apollo-Soyuz.php
-
Very interesting. But what is your point?
We all know that you need the same pressure both sides when you dock together.
The partial pressure of Oxygen in both modules was pretty similar when they were separate.
-
Rather oddly, Andrew has just supplied a reference to prove my point.
I said "No, not always, it's not if you are in a spaceship. The pressure in some of them is kept low anyway " and he has pointed out that , while the Russians chose not to, the Americans used a low pressure in their spacecraft.
The astronaughts did perfectly well in a low pressure environement. They did this ewhile the craft was on the earth at one G, they did OK as they were blasted at several G of acceleration into orbit (not technically gravity but the effects are indistinguishable locally) and they did fine in the microgravity environment.
Their Russian counterparts did the same, but at 3 times the pressure.
So we have shown that you can survive a lot of different conditions.
So this assertion "The pressure the earth generates in its atmosphere is the force that prevents us humans from being boiled alive." is nonsense.
-
The elements that make up the water molecule must be there. Hydrogen and oxygen, why not
-
What do you mean by this "The elements that make up the water molecule must be there. Hydrogen and oxygen, why not"?
It's true enough that those elements are ther but I can't see how it's relevant. Admitedly it's been a while since I was thinking about the thread so I may have missed something.