Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
blarney

Earths core

21 posts in this topic

Hi all, i'm new here and would like to pose a question in the hopes that someone here can answer it with some authority. We've all been taught the core of our earth is molten iron and the rotation of this core creates our magnetic field. We also know that molten iron cannot generate a stable magnetic field. Do we have anything empirical vs theoretical which establishes absolutely our core being molten iron? This may have a simple answer, but so far a number of men with physics degrees have looked at me like I had an eye in the middle of my forehead and could give no authoritative answer. I trust very little further than the basics in the various disciplines to begin with, as so much of the research must be linear in order to maintain funding. I'd appreciate any input. Thanks :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, i'm new here and would like to pose a question in the hopes that someone here can answer it with some authority. We've all been taught the core of our earth is molten iron and the rotation of this core creates our magnetic field. We also know that molten iron cannot generate a stable magnetic field. Do we have anything empirical vs theoretical which establishes absolutely our core being molten iron? This may have a simple answer, but so far a number of men with physics degrees have looked at me like I had an eye in the middle of my forehead and could give no authoritative answer. I trust very little further than the basics in the various disciplines to begin with, as so much of the research must be linear in order to maintain funding. I'd appreciate any input. Thanks

That right there, that's your main problem. You're starting with a false premise. In addition, the empirical evidence for the outer core being molten iron comes from observation of the main components of planets (or meteorites) in our own solar system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, i'll have to check on this some more. I've always "thought" I've known that molten iron cannot maintain a magnetic field, I even remember being taught this. I know folks in the foundry business and they say the same thing as well as the afore mentioned degreed fellows. Thanks for the response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Molten iron cannot maintain permanent magnetic moments, but it can maintain charge and/or magnetic currents.

The molten core does not act like a permanent bar magnet, but rather like a turbulent electromagnet.

(In some sense this is obvious; the magnetic field of the earth is not a pure dipole and the poles wander about chaotically over time.)

A group in 1995 managed to simulate a planetary magnetic field using a molten core and solid inner core (the solid inner core also had a field but it was an electromagnet as well, not a permanent magnet), and even managed to reproduce a pole reversal (see here).

This simulation doesn't constitute proof, of course, but it does support the current theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I just looked at the site below for some recent studies and the best it seems that has been done to replicate the dynamo effect uses a liquid sodium solution with ferro fins(non molten) to agitate. The phrase "commonly accepted" is also used as well as plasma as the driving force. From what I see this is still theoretical and is not concretely understood but is still being quantified. The plasma theory appeals to me for other "non linear" reasons.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/40

Edited by blarney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Molten iron cannot maintain permanent magnetic moments, but it can maintain charge and/or magnetic currents.

The molten core does not act like a permanent bar magnet, but rather like a turbulent electromagnet.

(In some sense this is obvious; the magnetic field of the earth is not a pure dipole and the poles wander about chaotically over time.)

A group in 1995 managed to simulate a planetary magnetic field using a molten core and solid inner core (the solid inner core also had a field but it was an electromagnet as well, not a permanent magnet), and even managed to reproduce a pole reversal (see here).

This simulation doesn't constitute proof, of course, but it does support the current theory.

I guess Its the "solid inner core" that throws me. I hope I'm not being too much of a neophyte but how do we end up with a solid inner core and a molten outer? I may be beating a dead horse but thanks for your patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solid inner core comes from the incredible pressure that is present at the center of the Earth. The outer core isn't under the same type of pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Its the "solid inner core" that throws me. I hope I'm not being too much of a neophyte but how do we end up with a solid inner core and a molten outer? I may be beating a dead horse but thanks for your patience.

Pressure, the same reason why water boils at a lower temperature on top of a high mountain then it would at ocean level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Pressure, the same reason why water boils at a lower temperature on top of a high mountain then it would at ocean level.

Although its correct pressure is responsible, it is nothing like you example.

The reason why water boils at higher altitudes is because of a reduction in the air pressure.

Lower air pressure, lower boiling point. Higher air pressure, higher boiling point.

The reason why the inner core is solid is because HIGH pressure overcomes the effect of high temperature at that depth. Nothing to do with your exsample which is atmospheric science

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Although its correct pressure is responsible, it is nothing like you example.

The reason why water boils at higher altitudes is because of a reduction in the air pressure.

Lower air pressure, lower boiling point. Higher air pressure, higher boiling point.

The reason why the inner core is solid is because HIGH pressure overcomes the effect of high temperature at that depth. Nothing to do with your exsample which is atmospheric science

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.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pressure, the same reason why water boils at a lower temperature on top of a high mountain then it would at ocean level.

The thing that throws me is how motion is translated from the solid inner core to the liquid outer core (whose motion is described as chaotic/turbulent) and then to the crust with such a small amount of lag. For a fluid coupling with chaotic/turbulence it seems too accurate a translation of movement (from outer core to crust) as the "solid inner core makes an extra revolution every 900 years or so,"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7907-earths-core-rotating-faster-than-the-crust.html

I understand that the Earths inner motions have had a while to settle into cycles/patterns, just wondering if magnetic field might also be assisting crust/mantle rotation..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that throws me is how motion is translated from the solid inner core to the liquid outer core (whose motion is described as chaotic/turbulent) and then to the crust with such a small amount of lag. For a fluid coupling with chaotic/turbulence it seems too accurate a translation of movement (from outer core to crust) as the "solid inner core makes an extra revolution every 900 years or so,"

http://www.newscient...-the-crust.html

I understand that the Earths inner motions have had a while to settle into cycles/patterns, just wondering if magnetic field might also be assisting crust/mantle rotation..

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. Giraffes have MASSIVE hearts just for their brains to get blood/oxygen. Obvious (to many) fitting of the continents as if they were at one time joined. Smaller mass/smaller gravity. 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...... Okay , make me look stupid now :wacko:

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, i do realize this goes against the recent theories plate tectonics, continental drift...... But that doesn't mean its not fun to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Hi;

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..

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.