Jump to content

Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.

- - - - -

Earths core

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#16    jules99


    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,101 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2009

Posted 10 April 2012 - 10:40 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 10 April 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

OK, simple experiment: Go to the kitchen and get a cup of water. Now drop a small piece of paper into that water put the cup on a table and turn it slowly. You will see that the piece of paper rotates slower than the cup. That is called inertia. Same thing if the piece of paper would be solid iron and the water liquid iron.

Now, how could a magnetic field form there? If we have friction in on a dielectric (i.e. a bad conductor) we tend to get so called static electricity. if there is a good conductor short circuiting the dielectric (i.e. iron core) the energy discharges.

To see what happens when electricity discharges take a compass, a piece of wire and a battery. Place the compass on the wire and connect the wire (for a few seconds) and see what the compass needle does.

That model is pretty much oversimplified but could get you on the right track.
I ended up looking into torque converters in automatic transmissions (fluid couplings) and found once initial inertia is overcome the system can operate with a high degree (95%) of efficiency. Which sort of answers my Q about inner core, outer core and crust and suggests no need for the magnetic field to play a role in earth rotation..

#17    sepulchrave


    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:04 AM

View Postblarney, on 10 April 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

You guys are great. Thanks for your input. The reason I'm looking at this is a little off the wall. I'm looking at the theoretical possibility of the earth expanding not only in volume but mass as well over long periods of time. Some reasons I ponder this theory are....Dinosaurs the size of Bronto could not have lived under our present gravity just on the blood pressure issue alone.
There is no credible theory for the Earth expanding in volume and/or mass by any significant fraction (obviously atmosphere leaks out and star dust filters in, but this is minuscule) since life began.

In regards to the dinosaurs, the wiki on apatosaurus has some credible (to my mind, anyway) analysis of the animal's physiology, respiratory and circulatory systems. Apparently the dinosaur did not keep it's head upright like giraffes, rather the long neck was used to graze a larger area of grass before the animal had to move to a new patch. This helps mitigate the blood flow issue, since horizontal transport is much easier than vertical transport.

I also suspect that a giraffe might require more oxygen flow to the brain than an apatosaurus, but I can't back this up with anything.

The wiki also has some data on the estimated oxygen content of the atmosphere during the Mesozoic era, note that during the period of the large dinosaurs (150 - 65 million years ago) it was some 30-50% higher than it is now. This would make breathing more efficient, possibly also result in a higher blood cell to plasma ratio, and in my mind is a good explanation for why things were able to get so big back then.

For a fixed density, surface gravity is linear with radius, so if you want to explain large animals in terms of small gravity then you would need the Earth to shrink by 20% or more, and correspondingly the size of the Earth would change by almost 50%. I really don't see how the Earth could change by that much without destroying all life on the surface in the process.

View Postblarney, on 10 April 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

Obvious (to many) fitting of the continents as if they were at one time joined.
I think the theory of continental drift explains this nicely, especially since we have measurements of continental drift as it occurs that are sufficient to explain the change in geography over the given time period.

View Postblarney, on 10 April 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

E=MC2 works in reverse.....great amounts of energy will create small amounts of matter(relatively speaking) :) My limited understanding allows plasma (as in at the core of a planet) to create matter.   This is the general direction......
Unfortunately for your theory, General Relativity does not distinguish between energy density and matter when it comes to generating gravity. (Secondly, plasma is made of matter.)

If there is some enormous quantity of energy at the core of the planet, it is still confined to the core of the planet and therefore would generate gravity in exactly the same manner that regular mass would.

#18    blarney


    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • Joined:09 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • If there be a God, He must surely prefer honest questioning over blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:27 AM

Thanks Sep, you have definitely given some reasonable thoughtful answers. I appreciate your consideration of the meanderings of my mind.

#19    Anne-Marie


    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:05 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia NSW

  • All credibility, all good
    conscience, all evidence of
    truth come only from the
    senses. Friedrich Nietzsche

Posted 11 April 2012 - 07:22 AM

View Postorangepeaceful79, on 10 April 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

Now wait just a dern tootin minute!  I read on the internet that the insides of the earth are hollow like a chocolate easter bunny - because thats where the illuminati all live and control everything.  Hang on a sec...damn tinfoil hat keeps slipping off.

But anyway - this seems like a much more likely scenario than all the stuff scientists have come up with.  lol :rolleyes:

Hahahaha oh that's good, I need a tissue now, laughing so hard lol. But don't forget the UFO's that keep flying in and out too :P

Welcome to UM Blarney

#20    BFB


    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:17 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 10 April 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

Which in the case of the water is exactly the same thing: It has to overcome less pressure (in this case atmospheric) to boil on top of a mountain.

Edit: There are no physic laws for water or iron, there is just one. The difference is the amount of pressure to overcome and the temperature to achieve. The rest works exactly the same way.

You are absolutely correct. My mistake, i just thought fluid mechanics especially newtonian fluids* applied differently with such a huge gravitational effect, which they do, but not in the sense i was thinking of.

Sorry for that, but i thank you for letting me update my knowledge.


Edited by BFB, 12 April 2012 - 12:27 PM.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#21    einfopedia


    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 27 posts
  • Joined:17 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 April 2012 - 07:58 AM

why we are discuss about the dinosaurs but its a post about the earth and the dinosaur is the different animals and the giraffes is a different mammals...we cant compare it.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users