[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

The heat in the center of the earth is caused by pressure of gravity. This type of heat is different then conventional heat in that its stationary and doesn't radiate. A good comparison is air conditioning. They put pressure on the fluorocarbons and heat them up, then cool them off, but the heat that they blow away gets absorbed again when the gas expands causing the cooling effect. If you blew the heat away from a burning ember it would cool off because its radiating. The heat from pressure is static around each nucleus and when you blow it away it reabsorbs heat from the surroundings.

[Kryptid]

All hot objects radiate electromagnetic radiation (at least all of them made of normal matter).

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

All hot objects radiate electromagnetic radiation (at least all of them made of normal matter).

So the center of the earth is radiating heat?

[Kryptid]

Yes. It is radiating it into the higher layers of the Earth.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

time dilation is caused by stationary heat around the nucleus retracting back unto the nucleus, making the gravity field hotter and denser which effects movement of object's. Time dilation heat is what is blown away by the outdoor coil, so that heat does radiate, however unlike filling the coil with hot water where the heat would just be gone, time dilation pressure heat re absorbs to equilibrium with its density.

[Kryptid]

Gonna need a citation for that.

[paul cotter]

Good luck in that quest, Kryptid!!. As regards the heat from the centre of the earth I would say it moves through conduction and convection- at the level of individual particles conduction and convection are most likely mediated through radiation So no real disagreement.

[Bored chemist]

The heat in the center of the earth is caused by pressure of gravity.

Some of it is.

This type of heat is different then conventional heat in that its stationary and doesn't radiate.

Then it's not heat.
How could the atoms know not to radiate heat?

A good comparison is air conditioning.

Air  con might tell us a lot about conventional heat, but not about this new "magical" sort which you have postulated.

If you blew the heat away from a burning ember it would cool off because its radiating.

No, it loses heat to advection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advection

On an unrelated note, does anyone know why all the physics books talk about three ways that heat is transferred and forget about this one?

The heat from pressure is static around each nucleus and when you blow it away it reabsorbs heat from the surroundings.

That makes no sense.

time dilation is caused by stationary heat around the nucleus retracting back unto the nucleus,

We can measure time dilation of muons which do not have nuclei.
So that's clearly wrong.

Time dilation heat is what is blown away by the outdoor coil,

Air conditioners are not time machines.

[alancalverd]

Radiation is the transfer of energy through a vacuum or effectively transparent medium. AFAIK the inner regions of the planet are not transparent.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Air  con might tell us a lot about conventional heat, but not about this new "magical" sort which you have postulated.

If the heat that is blown off the outdoor coil was conventional heat, explain how and why it re-absorbs the energy in the indoor coil???

Evidentally if we used pressure to cause heat and boiled water with it to spin a generator, one would simply have to introduce the pressurized fluorocarbons back to a hotter medium to re absorb heat and boil the water again! what do ya think of that?t

[Bored chemist]

If the heat that is blown off the outdoor coil was conventional heat, explain how and why it re-absorbs the energy in the indoor coil?

Because the coil contains a liquid which is under reduced pressure and is boikling.
The energy goes into separating te molecules of liquid and converting it to gas.

That's simple physics.
We don't need any magical additions.

Evidentally if we used pressure to cause heat and boiled water with it to spin a generator, one would simply have to introduce the pressurized fluorocarbons back to a hotter medium to re absorb heat and boil the water again! what do ya think of that?t

I think it's nonsense
It's not well enough written to say whether or not it is scientifically plausible.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

I think it's nonsense
It's not well enough written to say whether or not it is scientifically plausible.

Huh today we've reached a point where I could just run my writing through an AI paper writer and you'd think it was Phd. I 'll keep to my simple backwoods dialogue technique thank you. I'm better at producing lots of rough sketches then engineering them, that would take considerable time, just sketches is all I'm going to give you.

[Bored chemist]

Huh today we've reached a point where I could just run my writing through an AI paper writer and you'd think it was Ph

No.
we have not.
The AI would probably ask WTF you were on about.

I 'll keep to my simple backwoods dialogue technique thank you.

Have you noticed how badly  that's working?

I'm better at producing lots of rough sketches then engineering them, that would take considerable time, just sketches is all I'm going to give you.

It's not a matter of "rough sketches" it's mistakes.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Have you noticed how badly  that's working?

Run in circles then what the hell do i care?

[Bored chemist]

Have you noticed how badly  that's working?

Run in circles then what the hell do i care?

It's not always about you.
It might be about the bandwidth you waste.

[Kryptid]

Have you noticed how badly  that's working?

Run in circles then what the hell do i care?

If you want people to understand what you are talking about, you should care.

[alancalverd]

I could just run my writing through an AI paper writer and you'd think it was Phd.

Possibly, but not a science PhD, where the candidate is required to have investigated and discovered something new. AI can only recycle old stuff, and still suffers from GIGO.