[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Anything that mimics gravity is an analogy to how I think gravity works.
So what?

The picture I posted in post 135 is a top view of the experiment. Can you not see that? It is the correct view of the experiment, the side view which shows bending or curvature is null as well as the bottom view. The top view is the only accurate view because the plane of the sheet is parallel to the plane of earth's gravity. Without gravity below the sheet the experiment doesn't show anything.

[Bored chemist]

Without gravity below the sheet the experiment doesn't show anything.

So, remind me not to try doing that experiment if I'm in free fall.
But the rest of the time it works just fine.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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

Yes.

Wouldn't that make the core and the whole Earth radioactive? How would people survive the radioactivity when visiting below the surface. Also if the heat is conducting or radiating then shouldn't it be shooting out of the holes that we dig down deep in the surface? with no 'blanket' above? Shouldn't the heat be rising up like a chimney?

[Kryptid]

Wouldn't that make the core and the whole Earth radioactive?

The whole Earth is, indeed, radioactive. It's generally at levels that are low enough for us to survive without problems.

Also if the heat is conducting or radiating then shouldn't it be shooting out of the holes that we dig down deep in the surface?

If you dig deep enough, that's exactly what happens. The excess heat is one of the limiting factors to how deep we can drill with current technology.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If you dig deep enough, that's exactly what happens. The excess heat is one of the limiting factors to how deep we can drill with current technology.

Would you say the heat in the core is backed up? or bottled up by the blanket? and how can it be that heat is being made through radioactive decay, is building up up in the core, obviously faster then its conducting to the surface, without increasing exponentially? So in other words if the heat is backing up below the surface, it  would seem that the planet would either lose the heat quicker or it would get hotter and hotter in the core?

[Bored chemist]

Wouldn't that make the core and the whole Earth radioactive?

It is.
We call it background radiation.
Do you not realise that, before you tell science that it is wrong, you should learn  things like this?

Also if the heat is conducting or radiating then shouldn't it be shooting out of the holes that we dig down deep in the surface?

Yes.
I already said this was what happened.

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.

Is there some reason why you do not read and remember what we say here?
It seems to be some sort of medical condition.
Have you sought treatment for it?

[Bored chemist]

obviously faster then its conducting to the surface,

No, It's being generated at exactly the same rate that it is conducted away.

Would you say the heat in the core is backed up? or bottled up by the blanket?

No.
It isn't backed up.

You need to  learn about  thermal conductivity. (and a lot of other things).

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

It isn't backed up.

​You said the crust is like a blanket for the heat, last time i checked blankets are not only capable of but there sole purpose is to trap heat below?

[Bored chemist]

It isn't backed up.

​You said the crust is like a blanket for the heat, last time i checked blankets are not only capable of but there sole purpose is to trap heat below?

If that was true you would never need two,

Have you considered studying physics at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Seems to me if the heat is not as I describe but heat from radioactive decay, the core would be putting pressure outwards onto the crust.So the weight bearing down on the core would be counter to the interrnal heat pressure and you wouldn't have a core pressure to decay with. Frankly if all that heat is radiation the earth should explode like a bomb.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Oh and this little tidbit, the decay of isotopes isn't a perfect system, yet the heat is perfectly distributed at all times through the earth. How do you explain the fact that the radioactive decay causes perfect even distribution of the heat?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

I'm still yet to find anyone who has an arguement to the question 'name something that doesn't have temperature. It is the single quality that everything that exists has.

[Kryptid]

Frankly if all that heat is radiation the earth should explode like a bomb.

Can you show the math to support this assertion?

the heat is perfectly distributed through the earth.

Do you have a citation for that?

I'm still yet to find anyone who has an arguement to the question 'name something that doesn't have temperature. It is the single quality that everything that exists has.

Empty space doesn't have a temperature. There are no particles in it to move.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

the heat is perfectly distributed through the earth.

Do you have a citation for that?

Lets just say for the most part it is evenly distributed in the different layers of earth. What is your answer to my question?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

This from physics stack exchange: "The densest elements (metals) in the Earth fall to the center, due to the gravitational force. The densest elements are radioactive, Earths core is radioactive, Uranium-238 is one radioactive species at the center of the earth."
So the heavier elements fall through the earth? at what rate? it would have to be a perfectly continuous rate or else the core temperature would vary. So what controls the rate at which these heavy elements sink? Why don't they all sink at once?

[Kryptid]

Lets just say for the most part it is evenly distributed in the different layers of earth. What is your answer to my question?

I'm not at all convinced that is the case. There very probably are areas with more heat and with less heat (at least in the mantle, because it is a plastic solid). Once you get to the outer core, you are dealing with a liquid. Mixing would distribute the radioisotopes pretty evenly.

So the heavier elements fall through the earth? at what rate?

It sounds like they are referring to the formation of the Earth, way back when it was entirely molten. So this is a process that has, for the most part, stopped happening on any significant scale today.

[Zer0]

I'm still yet to find anyone who has an arguement to the question 'name something that doesn't have temperature. It is the single quality that everything that exists has.

Good Point!
I was trying to Imagine a Single Atom drifting in the deep void of Space.

What ' Temp ' would it have...
Any Thoughts?

[Kryptid]

I'm still yet to find anyone who has an arguement to the question 'name something that doesn't have temperature. It is the single quality that everything that exists has.

Good Point!
I was trying to Imagine a Single Atom drifting in the deep void of Space.

What ' Temp ' would it have...
Any Thoughts?

Temperature is a bulk property of systems of particles. A single atom doesn't have a temperature.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Temperature is a bulk property of systems of particles. A single atom doesn't have a temperature.

The core of a nuclei is probably hot from density pressure. Could it be that radioactive decay is scattering its heat in the core of the nucleus as well?

[Kryptid]

The core of a nuclei is probably hot from density pressure.

It's not. It's in its ground state (usually).