[Bored chemist]

Evidently gold which is the best conductor

It isn't.
And the rest of your posts make no sense.

[paul cotter]

The OP has moved from physics errors to blatant word salad. It is obviously a lost cause to try to correct this situation and the thread should be locked.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

One thing we can say about the nucleus is it must be similar to earth in that it creates and internal stationary heat from pressure. The heat then creates a density/temperature on the surrounding aether that creates a gravity field. For its size we can probably assume the nucleus is very dense and small and hot.

[Bored chemist]

One thing we can say about the nucleus is it must be similar to earth in that it creates and internal stationary heat from pressure. T

No, it does not.
Nor does the earth.

the surrounding aether

The aether does not exist.

For its size we can probably assume the nucleus is very dense and small and hot.

Two out of three.
It's not hot.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Two out of three.
It's not hot.

I have clearly defined why I believe this arguement about pressure heat. Like most of the disputes you create between us you haven't pointed out where I'm wrong by showing any evidence, you just insist that you are right. That's why I ignore most of your comments. Please state how I'm wrong that pressure heat is different then radiating heat?

[Kryptid]

Please state how I'm wrong that pressure heat is different then radiating heat?

How are you defining them to be different?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

How are you defining them to be different?

When you heat something with pressure, its not an endless source of radiating heat. The heat created by the substance remains within the substance, and if it is removed the substance re absorbs it. This is not true for something that is merely hot. The heat radiates away but not when its created by pressure. Tell me if putting pressure on a substance causes radiating not stationary heat, then why don't we use substances under pressure to boil water?

[Kryptid]

When you heat something with pressure, its not an endless source of radiating heat.

Nothing is an endless source of radiating heat.

The heat created by the substance remains within the substance

This is not true. Objects heated through compression radiate heat. A space capsule reentering the Earth's atmosphere massively compresses the air ahead of it. This causes the air to become so hot that it glows. That glow is visible light and therefore a form of electromagnetic radiation.

and if it is removed the substance re absorbs it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this part.

The heat radiates away but not when its created by pressure.

It does. When clouds of gas in space start to collapse due to gravity, they become hot (basic gas laws). That heat doesn't stay in the gas, though. It is slowly radiated away. We know this because we are able to detect it. Take a look at some low mass brown dwarf stars. They are too small to heat themselves with nuclear fusion, yet they are much warmer than the surrounding vacuum because they retain heat from their initial formation. They will slowly radiate that heat and cool off over time. Even large planets like Jupiter emit more heat than they absorb from the Sun.

Tell me if putting pressure on a substance causes radiating not stationary heat, then why don't we use substances under pressure to boil water?

You could do that in principle, but it sounds inefficient and potentially dangerous to try to compress ambient air until it's hot enough to boil water. You might as well use whatever power source you are using to compress the air to boil the water directly.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

You're right. A shuttle coming in from space does have a hot nose that is pressure radiating heat. What I was doing is seeing if you knew that obvious shuttle fact to disprove what I said. congratulations on it!!

Stars and pressure are also things too. I was again just trying to see that you knew.

[Bored chemist]

I have clearly defined why I believe this arguement about pressure heat.

The first mention of pressure in this thread is your assertion that

One thing we can say about the nucleus is it must be similar to earth in that it creates and internal stationary heat from pressure

That's not a clear definition of anything, is it?

You have made up an idea of "stationary heat" which makes no sense because all form of heat involve the movement of particles.

That's why I ignore most of your comments.

As far as I can tell, the reason you ignore my comments is because you know you can't answer my points without admitting that you are talking nonsense.

Your problem is that you simply do not understand what heat and pressure are.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

You have made up an idea of "stationary heat" which makes no sense because all form of heat involve the movement of particles.

Its not conventional radiating heat in the center of the earth. I call it time dilation heat. The proximity of the atom's to one anotherr causes their gravity fields to retract and heat up the nucleus and space around it. Retraction of a gravity field thusly causes light to move through it slower and time dilation. It;s all about heat caused by the pressure on the center. That's what brings mass together, stars, fusion, the evolution of forward moving energy.,,

Magnets are similar. When you pack a great number of magnetic atom's in close range, the magnetic field bulges out and makes the magnetic field around the magnet.

[Kryptid]

Its not conventional radiating heat in the center of the earth.

Yes it is. It just gets absorbed by the surrounding material. If you were to peel the outer layers of the Earth away, the core would glow brightly and radiate heat quite readily into space (as very hot metal should).

The proximity of the atom's to one anotherr causes their gravity fields to retract

Evidence?

and heat up the nucleus and space around it.

Evidence?

Retraction of a gravity field thusly causes light to move through it slower and time dilation.

Evidence?

It;s all about heat caused by the pressure on the center. That's what brings mass together, stars, fusion, the evolution of forward moving energy.,,

Evidence?

Magnets are similar. When you pack a great number of magnetic atom's in close range, the magnetic field bulges out and makes the magnetic field around the magnet.

Evidence?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Yes it is. It just gets absorbed by the surrounding material. If you were to peel the outer layers of the Earth away, the core would glow brightly and radiate heat quite readily into space (as very hot metal should).

If you took off the layers of weight the core wouldn't be hot at all. Or a new smaller core would form. maybe if you scatter the peels like an orange they change colors? scattering and peels is two ideas.

[Bored chemist]

It;s all about heat caused by the pressure on the center.

Pressure does not cause heat.
This will remain true no matter how often you try to claim otherwise.

[Kryptid]

If you took off the layers of weight the core wouldn't be hot at all.

Yes it would. The heat in the core wouldn't just vanish. That is something guaranteed by the first law of thermodynamics.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

gravity.jpg (87.39 kB . 810x1080 - viewed 176 times)

Still the same picture 7 years later describes gravity the same.

[Bored chemist]

Still the same picture 7 years later

Still meaningless nonsense.
Did you not realise that?
I'd imagine it was made clear at the time.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If you took off the layers of weight the core wouldn't be hot at all.

Yes it would. The heat in the core wouldn't just vanish. That is something guaranteed by the first law of thermodynamics.

So you honestly believe the core is slowly producing heat through radioactive decay and then slowly releasing it through the crust. In the meantime the radiating heat is just sitting in the core waiting to be released through what? a volcano? Tell me what object can you heat up to molten temperatures in the center, and still be able to hold it because 90% of it is 'blanketing' the molten center making its shell room temperature? No such material exists. Dinosaurs.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

It;s all about heat caused by the pressure on the center.

Pressure does not cause heat.
This will remain true no matter how often you try to claim otherwise.

So when they use fluorocarbons in air conditioning, and they put pressure on the gas turning it into a hot liquid, this is not an example of pressure creating heat? I'm not a old dinosaur like you and haven't had the time to develop my theories like your theories that are so as much smart as they sound thpt. That's true though if you guys are so smart why aren't you ahead? seriously. you are much like chatGPT spitting out wiki answers. Is that smart? Am I seriously taking you guys serious anymore?

[Bored chemist]

So you honestly believe the core is slowly producing heat through radioactive decay and then slowly releasing it through the crust.

Yes.
We know that there are radioactive materials on earth. We know that their decay produces heat.
What else could happen to that heat apart from it being carried to the surface and radiated into space?

In the meantime the radiating heat is just sitting in the core waiting to be released through what? a volcano?

No
Most of it is carried by a combination of convection currents and conduction.
Vulcanism is a fairly small part of the process.
This sets up a thermal gradient- the surface is cool, but it gets hotter as you go down.
I believe some of the most powerful refrigeration systems in the world provide the air conditioning for gold mines.

Tell me what object can you heat up to molten temperatures in the center, and still be able to hold it because 90% of it is 'blanketing' the molten center making its shell room temperature?

Rock.
The middle is hot + maybe molten. But the layer outside that is a little cooler and so on. Gravity holds it all together.

People have understood this for a hundred years or more. Those who still don't get it are

Dinosaurs.