Thunderbolts Forum

'13-11-25, 03:43 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: they are mainstream. the outer cores are liquid rocks due to heat, while the inner core the high pressure is spose to squash the liquid back to a solid despite the heat. Ok thanks. I wasn't sure what the mainstream thought. Now I do. The mainstream thinks the cores are all solid. If there are cores I tend to think the same for the same reasons.
'13-11-25, 15:50 Sparky	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity The core would have a positive charge, from the loss of electrons. Looks like the charges and currents on and in Earth are as complex as the Sun's.
'13-11-25, 17:44 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: meemoe_uk wrote: they are mainstream. the outer cores are liquid rocks due to heat, while the inner core the high pressure is spose to squash the liquid back to a solid despite the heat. Ok thanks. I wasn't sure what the mainstream thought. Now I do. The mainstream thinks the cores are all solid. If there are cores I tend to think the same for the same reasons. That's assuming we have an iron core which is just a mainstream assumption to fit their failed theories. If the core of the planet is made of the same substances that we find in the crust (the bit we can actually mearsure) then it is probably mostly liquid silicon.
'13-11-25, 17:59 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: meemoe_uk wrote: they are mainstream. the outer cores are liquid rocks due to heat, while the inner core the high pressure is spose to squash the liquid back to a solid despite the heat. Ok thanks. I wasn't sure what the mainstream thought. Now I do. The mainstream thinks the cores are all solid. If there are cores I tend to think the same for the same reasons. That's assuming we have an iron core which is just a mainstream assumption to fit their failed theories. If the core of the planet is made of the same substances that we find in the crust (the bit we can actually mearsure) then it is probably mostly liquid silicon. I have no idea what the core is and don't claim to know. But how could the core be liquid at pressures estimated over 3 million atmospheres? Are silicates heavier than lead? Why would the core be made of crustal material?
'13-11-25, 18:01 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: meemoe_uk wrote: they are mainstream. the outer cores are liquid rocks due to heat, while the inner core the high pressure is spose to squash the liquid back to a solid despite the heat. Ok thanks. I wasn't sure what the mainstream thought. Now I do. The mainstream thinks the cores are all solid. If there are cores I tend to think the same for the same reasons. That's assuming we have an iron core which is just a mainstream assumption to fit their failed theories. If the core of the planet is made of the same substances that we find in the crust (the bit we can actually mearsure) then it is probably mostly liquid silicon. I have no idea what the core is and don't claim to know. But how could the core be liquid at pressures estimated over 3 million atmospheres? Are silicates heavier than lead? Why would the core be made of crustal material? Silicon, like water, is denser as a liquid.
'13-11-25, 18:03 Sparky	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity The core is probably made of very heavy elements. Some of the heat may be fissioning uranium....
'13-11-25, 18:03 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Why would the core be made of crustal material? Surely the question should be, why would the core be made of a different material than the crust?
'13-11-25, 18:09 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: I have no idea what the core is and don't claim to know. But how could the core be liquid at pressures estimated over 3 million atmospheres? Are silicates heavier than lead? Why would the core be made of crustal material? Silicon, like water, is denser as a liquid. But is the atomic structure of silica denser than lead? If not then it wouldn't matter if silica were liquid, it wouldn't be denser.
'13-11-25, 18:12 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Why would the core be made of crustal material? Surely the question should be, why would the core be made of a different material than the crust? There are different species of rock. For that matter everything on the crust should just be solid magma but it's not. Lava rock is very distinct. You could say that at one point all of the crust was just lava rock. And over time this material differentiated into the differing species. How and why do we have thousands of rock species? Are all of these found in the core?
'13-11-25, 18:36 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: I have no idea what the core is and don't claim to know. But how could the core be liquid at pressures estimated over 3 million atmospheres? Are silicates heavier than lead? Why would the core be made of crustal material? Silicon, like water, is denser as a liquid. But is the atomic structure of silica denser than lead? If not then it wouldn't matter if silica were liquid, it wouldn't be denser. Did I state it would be denser than lead? I'm stating that I see no reason why the elements in the core wouldn't be in exactly the same proportions as the crust, which would make the crust mostly liquid silicon.
'13-11-25, 18:43 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: I have no idea what the core is and don't claim to know. But how could the core be liquid at pressures estimated over 3 million atmospheres? Are silicates heavier than lead? Why would the core be made of crustal material? Silicon, like water, is denser as a liquid. But is the atomic structure of silica denser than lead? If not then it wouldn't matter if silica were liquid, it wouldn't be denser. Did I state it would be denser than lead? I'm stating that I see no reason why the elements in the core wouldn't be in exactly the same proportions as the crust, which would make the crust mostly liquid silicon. So you don't adhere to the concept of density as having any relevance to what would be appearing in proportion in the core? There is no additional differentiation in that extreme state--it all just stays the same?
'13-11-25, 18:50 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Why would the core be made of crustal material? Surely the question should be, why would the core be made of a different material than the crust? There are different species of rock. For that matter everything on the crust should just be solid magma but it's not. Lava rock is very distinct. You could say that at one point all of the crust was just lava rock. And over time this material differentiated into the differing species. How and why do we have thousands of rock species? Are all of these found in the core? How much iron in rock? How much silicon?
'13-11-25, 18:58 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Why would the core be made of crustal material? Surely the question should be, why would the core be made of a different material than the crust? There are different species of rock. For that matter everything on the crust should just be solid magma but it's not. Lava rock is very distinct. You could say that at one point all of the crust was just lava rock. And over time this material differentiated into the differing species. How and why do we have thousands of rock species? Are all of these found in the core? How much iron in rock? How much silicon? I don't know. I'm not a geologist. However it is clear the the proportion of rock species differs from strata to strata. The proportion of iron to silica isn't the same in every condition. Lead is heavier however. And you mentioned density in that silica in a liquid state is heavier... To which I offered a counter view point: that lead would remain denser regardless of state as its atomic structure is denser. Liquid silicon is not denser than lead. But if density doesn't matter then why did you mention it? I'm trying to figure out your point of view. Please correct me if I am assuming incorrectly, but you seem to believe that a material's density would bear no relevance in the condition at the Earth's core. I say the opposite. I say that it doesn't matter if nine million different kinds of metals and rock exist in the crust--all would not appear in relative proportion in the core. The core would be different and probably much more homogenous than the crust due to the extreme conditions in the Earth's center. On the way down to the core certain things would simply not exist.
'13-11-25, 19:01 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: I have no idea what the core is and don't claim to know. But how could the core be liquid at pressures estimated over 3 million atmospheres? Are silicates heavier than lead? Why would the core be made of crustal material? Silicon, like water, is denser as a liquid. But is the atomic structure of silica denser than lead? If not then it wouldn't matter if silica were liquid, it wouldn't be denser. Did I state it would be denser than lead? I'm stating that I see no reason why the elements in the core wouldn't be in exactly the same proportions as the crust, which would make the crust mostly liquid silicon. So you don't adhere to the concept of density as having any relevance to what would be appearing in proportion in the core? There is no additional differentiation in that extreme state--it all just stays the same? 1) Firstly, why would denser materials be attracted to the gravity free center. The centrifugal force near the center would easily overcome non-existent gravity. 2) Secondly, the atmosphere doesn't order itself according to atomic weight so why do you think the core does? And if it does, why do we find the crust so thoroughly mixed and with heavy metals?
'13-11-25, 19:05 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: Aardwolf wrote: viscount aero wrote: I have no idea what the core is and don't claim to know. But how could the core be liquid at pressures estimated over 3 million atmospheres? Are silicates heavier than lead? Why would the core be made of crustal material? Silicon, like water, is denser as a liquid. But is the atomic structure of silica denser than lead? If not then it wouldn't matter if silica were liquid, it wouldn't be denser. Did I state it would be denser than lead? I'm stating that I see no reason why the elements in the core wouldn't be in exactly the same proportions as the crust, which would make the crust mostly liquid silicon. So you don't adhere to the concept of density as having any relevance to what would be appearing in proportion in the core? There is no additional differentiation in that extreme state--it all just stays the same? 1) Firstly, why would denser materials be attracted to the gravity free center. The centrifugal force near the center would easily overcome non-existent gravity. 2) Secondly, the atmosphere doesn't order itself according to atomic weight so why do you think the core does? And if it does, why do we find the crust so thoroughly mixed and with heavy metals? Good questions. On the way down to the core there is indeed gravity. The theoretical zero g center is only a very small region, a theoretical dimensionless point. About atomic weight, again, heavy things sink. It is at least my opinion that on the way down to sinking that everything would initially go down. As some things sank, some material would then get left behind, with only the very few heaviest things continuing on the way down. Perhaps I'm wrong but we will probably never know what is actually inside the Earth. It's virtually impossible to know. But it's mind-bending to try to figure it out