How Tectonic Plates Formed Half-Way
Between The Surface And The Centre
Gravity Is Not Zero At The Earth's Centre
by David Beale
Started 9th February 2013 revised 10th Feb 2013
The center of the Earth would be occupied mostly by Hydrogen, according to Charles Odendhal http://www.linkedin.com/pub/charles-odendhal/23/582/174 . The facts are simple and outlined below, after this first article.
A very concise description of gravity is here: (new page) http://chisync.com/Antenna_Theory/ghosts_matter_resonance_energy.html#What_Is_Gravity
The Mythical Iron Core
A presumption happened in the steam-physics days when science was pioneered by amateurs: Because of some logic, guesswork or belief system, many believe that Earth has an iron core! Maybe this popular myth got provoked by guesswork about causes of Earth's magnetic field.
The "iron core" nonsense – axiomatic for many believers – is typical of a ridiculous aspect of modern science that accepts superstitions, conjecture and guesses as Truths. Ideas such as mine below will remain difficult to prove, easy to enjoy...but such don't get more true by observation and age.
Hydrogen floats to the top of Earth's atmosphere then drifts off into space, continually. In Earth's center, Hydrogen is trapped. There, everything that is denser falls towards the half-way area where the force of gravity, relative to the half-way mark, gets less towards the center.
As one moves further from center and away from the half-way area, towards the surface of Earth, the gravity force increases towards the center. Gravity reaches its maximum (towards the center of Earth) just above surface.
Deep in the ground, one is attracted both towards the center and to the surrounding matter, in all directions. Gravity towards the center reduces as one goes deeper into the Earth.
Alongside a mountain cliff is attraction to the cliff; more noticeably if the cliff is the beginning of a plateau stretching a long way. On the surface of the Earth, one is attracted by a cone of gravity strongest towards Earth's center and with gravity practically equal in all directions and at angles towards the surface, stretching to the horizon. The average is one's weight. As one gets further away from the surface of the Earth, one's weight is relative to the center-of-gravity of the Earth.
The mathematics of gravity has been crucial to rockets and big guns. The accuracy, of long-range WW1 type German brilliant large guns and WW2 rockets, has been slightly affected by the increase in gravity, because gravity is only perfectly related to the square of the distance if the diameters of the objects are equal --- and "distance" is from the opposing centers of gravity, not surface-to-surface distance. Obviously, doubling one's distance from the surface does not quarter the gravity, until a very long way from Earth.
A 1000kg ballistic shell, in the sky, has the gravity effects concentrated directly below the shell. When on the ground, the shell has the cone of gravity around it more than below it as when high in the sky. A cone of gravity, with strength gradients dependent on angles, applies to an object on the ground. The cone of gravity surrounds almost equally in all radial directions; it could be truly equal if the density and amount of the surrounding ground could be equal everywhere, which it is not.
The cone of gravity loses strength until zero when the angles are equal to or higher than tangential with the horizon. An objects apparent weight reduces as it gets higher, complicating the mathematics for weight/height, with resultant confusion regarding the inverse-square effects for gravity/distance.
The inverse-square relationship would work absolutely only for infinitely small objects regardless of their weight. Micro black holes would be more convincingly accurate to this "infinitely". Similarly, objects with zero diameter, but with some length (axial to their line of separation) would have their weight – their mutual gravity-attraction – relative perfectly accurately to the inverse-square relationship; but only if their lengths also were zero or they were infinitely separated (because the gravity distance is relative to the distances from their centers of gravity -- and they both have length). One-divided-by-zero type conundrums apply to the complexities of predicting gravity attraction between objects in space.
The Ground Effect
The "ground effect" for aeroplanes enables aeroplanes to fly on only say "one" engine out of four, if they keep close to the ground. The reasons for practical purposes don't need to include the fact that when close to the ground gravity is reduced because of being less directly below the plane than when the plane is flying higher. When an aeroplane is close to the surface of the ground, there more gravity is distributed in all directions radially rather than under it — less gravity is aimed at the center because much is aimed towards the surroundings alongside. The ground effect relates also to the speed of sound for reflection of pressure-changes to travel from the wings and reflect from the surface. The ground effect has well-known causes; the suggestion here is virtually unknown. The tiny heights, planes travel to, relative to the diameter of Earth, are similar to field-gun shells and other low-height tragectories. When missiles get further from Earth, then their gravity increases for the stage where formerly sideways gravity changes to being directly beneith. The height above the surface, on an inverse square calculation, does not reduce gravity as much as gravity is added by vectors from formerly-sideways gracity becoming forces that are more directly below as height above the surface increases.
Additional to the pressure-wave causes, is the fact that gravity happens between all objects. Between a very large-diameter object such as the planet, and a small thing on its surface, for the small object gravity is equal in all directions for the gravity of the Earth that is alongside the small object on the surface. If the small object rises from the surface then gravity that was alongside and surrounding the object changes to being below the object. This aspect of surface-to-Earth gravity adds to the ground effect; it makes tiny and subtle changes to the apparent weight of the plane or anything similarly small as it moves away from the surface. The effect is tiny; it's typical of the little discrepancies that should be explained but get relegated to being ignored until, at some scale, they become important.
The above is not generally well known. I believe a main reason is that such knowledge has been crucial to wars being profitable for those with superior technology that combines understandings of reality with engineering-mathematics. This article uses words to describe what has been put into mathematics I believe only partially accurately, for orbital ballistic purposes. The lookup-tables and plethora of adjustments also need details of the density-gravity characteristics, of the land that the weapons are operating near. The mathematics could include variables and vectors related to gravity being zero in the center of the Earth --- for heights close to the half-way point the proportional changes in gravity, with height, have to be calculated relative to the half-way point as being the centre-of-gravity. Gravity between any two objects is relative to the inverse-square law subject to the relative diameters of the objects and their distances apart; so accuracty, of the inverse-square calculations, has to take into account the relative diameters of the objects related to their distance apart.
Consider the diagrams here. With gravity zero at the centre of Earth (equal in all directions) there would be matter less dense than nearer the half-way stage between the centre and the surface. Matter at the centre would be at extreme pressure because of trapped Hydrogen and other matter --- this is a presumption of mine; the reality is just as likely to be that the centre is hyper-compressed plasma and overall not as dense as matter at the half-way levels. Moving away from the surface, the dense matter formerly more to the sides of the object are vectored more directly below the object; so gravity will increase at a stage above the surface, before the inverse-square factors reduce gravity as much as it would if subject only to an inverse-square function.
The Earth's Internal Tides
A bi-product, of the zero-gravity-at-center facts, is that the most dense matter, molten and semi-molten, solid and gaseous, is centrifuged from the half-way area towards the perimeter maximally at the equator asymptotic to zero at the poles where it falls back towards the half-way mark. The inertia, of the matter falling from the poles towards the center, overshoots the half-way mark. I believe that eons ago, before the Earth's present land masses reached the surface, they formed about half way towards the center; in layers with the most-dense matter closest to the Earth because of both it having overshot the half-way level and because, on the other side of the half-way mark, the most-dense matter would be more likely to be centrifuged away towards Earth's surface.
Causes of Continental Drift and of the Earth's Surface Shapes Fitting Like JigSawPuzzle Pieces
When the Earth's internal tides were well established, they lead to a crust of heaviest matter being attracted towards the half-way mark where they overshot then turned upwards, towards the surface of Earth. The overshoot, densest mixes, formed a dense layer closer to the surface of Earth than less-dense matter, as the mix solidified. At the half-way mark, formed layers of matter, as the Earth cooled. Eventually, some of the most-dense matter solidified on the surface, beginning at the equator and spreading to the poles; forming a heat-insulative prevention of head escaping from the Earth. Layers inside Earth would have been plastic and fragmented mixes of matter in various stages from liquid to solid.
Earth heated because of thermo-nuclear breakdown of complex highly-dense elements, and because of heat lost as Hydrogen forms more complex elements. Eventually the Earth's future new crust – the layers of dense matter within the half-way area – became unstable because the areas with lower melting points became more liquid. The half-way area's layers fragmented and were centrifuged to the surface, where they, in many places, broke through the older solid surface. There they became/formed the familiar shapes on Earth's surface.
The Earth wobbles on its axis in space; changing the positions of the poles. Land masses could take turns at being at or near to wherever the equator had drifted to; and at other times they could be at or close to a pole.
Migrations, of what used to be shapes joined as a perimeter surface half-way towards Earth's Center, have been induced by the internal tides reaching the surface and being diverted towards the poles (wherever they may be from time to time) dragging the above land masses. Now we have shapes that would, if Earth was half its diameter, form a surface as if the Earth was half its present size.
Earth's Magnetic Field
I believe the Earth's magnetic field is caused by imbalances in the donut toroidal nature of the Earth's internal tides of matter. Materials of the same nature tend to cluster together for many reasons including centrifuge effects and gravity between collections of matter. This happens especially when relatively solid clusters are mixed and free to move, lubricated by different liquid and semi-liquid matter.
Consider that any matter is induced to travel towards the equator if anywhere except the absolute central axis of the planet's spin. Molten and semi-molten matter can be at extreme temperatures close to Earth's centre. Hydrogen will be infused in any metals and other elements; they will behave in states more like plasma than solids; so their conductivity and magnetic abilities will be very different from their states when cold on Earth's surface. These materials centrifuge from the interior of Earth towards the surface. During these travels, they have to increase their speed from zero at the axis to 1600K's/j when just under the equator (and less depending on how close to the poles the end up being jostled to). The movement is like a jet-stream of moving matter, complete with ions, various charges...circling the planet under the inside surface at the Equatorial regions; a perfect method for generating a toroidal system of magnetic fields around the paths of the moving matter. The matter moves virtually the same in the Northern and Southern regions (under the surface) however there are minor differences. Similar to the way rivers can change their courses, the internal tide differences can bust through their virtual walls and change course, changing the Earth's magnetic field.
The Genesis Cycle
An idea is associated with the Earth's internal tides: It relates to the insulative solid crust stopping heat from radiating away after being generated continuously inside the Earth... Life on Earth depends on much of the matter being in a critical semi-molten stage between liquid and solid. The formation of land happens becaue of tiny differences in the melting points of materials and how quickly, over a range of temperatures, they change from solid-to-liquid. To form life-supporting land, on Earth's surface, some of the heaviest material of the Earth has to float on the surface (of a mass of molten material) and solidify! The place of gestation, of the continents, is about half-way towards the centre of Earth.
The temperature differences, between liquid and solid materials, vary according to the nature of the materials. Within this range, material is neither liquid nor solid --- more like spongy --- so able to move inside the Earth (centrifuging-and-gravity) and generate the Earth's protective magnetic shield.
A Critical Situation For Life On Earth
Presently, life on Earth is in a precarious situation: the next fraction of a degree increase, in internal heat, will accelerate the rate of the Earth's internal tides past a critical stage. Much spongy material will change into highly lubricative fluids. Huge clusters of very dense material, much of it still solid, will hit the underside of the surface crust, cracking it. Eventually the crust will be broken, the surface will be molten again, the crust will be recycled...Earth will flash off its heat in a few billion years... A Genesis Cycle.
Constant scraping, under Earth's surface, by migrating subterranean tidal material has gouged complex tracks towards the poles. Now these tracks, of thinning of the Earth's crust, are in many directions. Some are under tectonic plates considered stable. The plates are thin in places, they are vulnerable to gigantic masses (that can crack the plates) accellerated by centrifugal speed towards the surface.
Earth's magnetic field seems to be reducing; probably caused by an increase in temperature and liquidity. We have no way of knowing how many Genesis Cycles our Earth has been through. The present cycle is estimated to have taken about six billion years, so far.
Gravity is about resonance and accommodation. Events -- exclusion forces --- that are excluded from other dimensions, tend to allow exclusion forces in close-by three-dimensions to mutually occupy space by fitting peaks of exclusion to dips of exclusion. Harmony gets as far as forming compounds and solutions with concentric force-field variations intimately sharing 3D space.
Gravity in any system --- in part of any universe --- is not necessarily compatible with gravity in other areas in the same three dimensions. Gravity happens because collections, of exclusion-force oscillations (matter and energy) are more excluded from other dimensions than the three they are observing gravity in. Similarly movement, inertia and energy are relative to local relationships in 3D and with surrounding dimensions; they are not necessarily compatible or interchangeable with other clusters of events just by being in the same 3D universe.
Gravity is not uniform throughout the Universe. Gravity happens because of inductive cooperation between systems each having exclusive occupancy of their multi-dimensional space, while constantly changing their positions, in cycles. Collections of pieces, of exclusion-force fields, can accommodate each other and share space better than they can with the impossibly-complex surrounding forces in alternative dimensions. Exclusion forces, in dimensions that surround those of each 3D universe, keep compatible exclusion forces within their own 3D universes. Within a 3D universe, exclusion-force oscillations are more excluded from other dimensions than their own, so they come together, more or less according to how compatible they are and how much time they have had to get their oscillations into harmony with their surroundings.
Wandering Unknown Planets
Whole planets could be wandering near and in our solar system without being observed as gravity disturbances. The resonances and exclusion forces, of such unacknowledged planets and smaller objects in space, have not sufficiently got into harmony with Earth's gravity-causing oscillations to show the same gravity effects relative to their spatial size and mass. Established residents of our solar system could interact with a range from anti-gravity to mild gravity...and if full gravity they would be observed long before they caused an eclipse.
Gravity happens as seeming to be pushed strongly together. It's caused by exclusion, from other dimensions. It shows as attraction in our three dimensions. Objects in space, that are presently seen as small because of having low gravity effects, could be gigantic, with inertial effects! Gravity depends on objects having been close enough for long enough to get into synchrony enough for their mutual-exclusion forces to accomodate each other by the peaks of one fitting into the dips of the other --- things in proximity tend to become complementary, key-in-lock style, so they are able to overcome former exclusion forces and be pushed more together by external (multi-dimensional) forces. A planet-sized object could get into our solar system, with actually having negative gravity, so it would push things away until (billions of years time?) the things in our solar system got into harmony and normal gravity relationshipt with the object.
1. Planet Earth's perimeter-surface with a
(not-to-scale) person 5.
2. Gravity Center "half-way" --- gravity focus level.
3. Center of Earth, where gravity is ZERO --- equal in all directions.
4. The arrows show attraction towards the gravity-center level 2.
5. Person standing on Earth's surface (not to scale).
6. There is no gravity attraction between the person & Earth at this angle.
7. A nominal gravity vector. This is on the same quadrant of Earth's surface as are 8 and 9 and their mirrors.
Gravity, relative to short distances above the surface of Earth, varies a lot because sideways pulls change into pulls towards the center of the Earth.
8. A vector, like for 7, that is a quadrant of the
perimeter that 10 is tangent to. This is a more realistic Earth-to-person
scale, so the whole circle is not shown .
9. This same-quadrant vector strength is virtually the same as 8 for 13 and 12.
10. Tangent to Earth's surface; above this gravity is zero for such angles.
11. Note the gravity vector is larger underneath 13 than 10 is for 12.
12. A quantity of mass on the surface of the Earth.
13. The same quantity of mass raised above the surface.
The center-of-gravity of the Earth is not far enough away, from objects 12 and 13, for 13's height to reduce the pull much. But the vectors of attraction change with height, so those that were relatively-sideways change to adding to the pull of gravity on 13. The radial gravity vectors change into pull towards Earth's center --- because of the height above the surface.
Angle 10:8 shows that 11:9 is concentrated towards producing gravity-attraction effects rather than side-ways self-cancelling gravity effects on bodies 12 and 13.
Charles Odendhal [...]
Sent: Sunday, 2 February 2014 3:50 AM
Subject: RE: Earth's core
Your extensive and very interesting information has been reviewed, but only briefly to date. Thank you for the vote of confidence. I am still learning and all related information is welcomed.
You wrote: We observe that the metallic meteorites have cores of iron and nickel, and this correlates with other evidence that suggests that the Earth's core is similarly composed of iron and nickel. Modeling the density of the center of the Earth yields densities of about 14 times that of water, which could be obtainable by compressing iron and nickel, but not surface type rocks. An iron core also gives us a circulating electrical conductor, which could provide the necessary mechanism for creating the Earth's magnetic field. ..."
This is a logical and reasonable view of earth's core, I believe initially proposed by Lord Kelvin, albeit 200 years ago; which puts you in good company. However, finding iron-nickel meteorites using a magnet or metal detector is easy, which may have confused reality. Stony meteorites appear to be far more common, but they are not as easy to find; requiring sharp eyesight and burnt off or no vegetation cover. Therefore, I would submit that iron-nickel meteorites have nothing to do with Earth's core.
So, why not a hydrogen core? Well, calculations using accepted (assumed) factors will indicate the mantle to be of a relatively light density and the core too dense to be solid or metallic hydrogen; compared with the overall density of Earth. What then if the Mantle is more dense than calculated? Might this not dilute the higher calculated density of the core? If hydrogen saturates the mantle materials, still of unknown elements, the mantle may then be much more dense than calculated. If the mantle is now of greater density, due to being saturated by hydrogen, then the core might actually be less dense than calculated; perhaps more in accord with the density of metallic hydrogen at core pressures.
In addition, Columbia University, long ago, using a diamond anvil press, determined that iron-nickel could NOT be the primary material in earth's core simply because it became TOO DENSE at core pressures. This has led to theories of Iron being alloyed with a lighter element, usually hydrogen; a hydride if you will. However, my experiments have shown that when hydrogen is in the presence of iron, it will infuse into the iron molecules, increasing the density of the iron sample; not what we would want for an already too dense iron core. Hydrogen also easily passes through the walls of iron or steel pipe; which makes the transport of hydrogen damn difficult. (A composite material must be used to transport hydrogen.)
Magnetic field: Iron-nickel, assumed to be molten in the outer core, cannot create a magnetic field while above the curie point. I forgot the actual temperature for iron-nickel, but not needed. The simple fact that hydrogen can also be magnetic, which was unknown to Lord Kelvin and most of today's scientists, will allow a metallic hydrogen mass to reverse polarity in accord with the Sun's magnetosphere's polarity reversal; a relatively frequent in geological time. Something impossible for iron at any temperature due to the residual magnetic polarity retention of iron.
For example: Can you imagine a massive, solid inner core, rotating inside a molten iron-nickel outer core, suddenly reversing its direction of rotation? That is what would be required in order to reverse Earth's magnetic field polarity. How this theory became illogical dogma is an interesting story of seismic mis-interpretation. Why some still believe it, is beyond my imagination. I am reminded of the fable of the "Emperor's New Clothes." (Which never really existed, but the people/scientists were afraid to admit it.)
I will review the rest with interest, but I have limited time at the moment.
Thank you for your enlightening observations. Charlie
Charles Odendhal [...]
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 11:15 AM
To: David Beale
Subject: Appreciate the review
I really appreciate, I'm even honored by your detailed explanation. Keith has also sent me very detailed explanations, equally appreciated, as have Steven Gunth, Neil Christianson and Warren Hunt. All of whom have greatly expanded my knowledge of hydrogen's role in Earth's formation and evolution; sincerely dedicated heretics all. Their help has allowed me to gain much more knowledge than I ever thought possible. Albeit still learning.
That said, I think your observations have answered a question I have long considered. Considering your explanation as to the manner by which hydrogen atoms form into molecules, it now seems obvious to me that ALL elements in space or in Earth that could be saturated with hydrogen atoms must have been initially saturated with hydrogen atoms. No hydrogen atoms to be added later.
In my work at Shell, there was no way hydrogen molecules could be infused into other elements. Only within specific environments, usually acidic, sour crudes for instance, could loosely bonded hydrogen atoms be infused into samples. Then, once infused to the point of saturation, no more could be infused, but that represented a lot of atoms. There is a LOT of empty space within some other molecules.
However, once saturated, no atoms would then effuse, regardless of the amouont of time, unless a stress was applied. Totally saturated metal parts would just sit there if no work was done, with no internal movement of hydrogen atoms and no weakness evident. Even with heat applied, below the Curie point, no internal movement of atoms. Welded parts were especially prone to contain large amounts of hydrogen atoms and still remain sound. While some materials did not allow any infusion of hydrogen atoms, Titanium soaked up hydrogen atoms like a sponge.
These were not hydrides, wherein hydrogen molecules would bond externally with certain metals and the hydrogen could then be stored under pressure, functioning as hydrogen gas tanks.
So, if hydrogen atoms were infused into other materials when their elements were formed in space by Nova conditions, they would remain in these elements as the elements evolved into Earth. A totally saturated with hydrogen Earth. The atoms would also remain there, passively, over time until some strain was applied. In the case of Earth, this strain was the Earth Tides created by our Moon; which now pumps hydrogen molecules from within these other elements until the hydrogen combines with crustal materials and vents from the surface, to be released by solar radiation and escape into space.
Note: Mercury is racked with tidal pressures due to its close proximity to the Sun and has vented so much of its core as well as its mantle hydrogen that it is now shrinking. Probably once expanded to a great extent during the process.
However, hydrogen atoms, when subjected to strains, do not migrate to the nearest grain boundary and there combine as hydrogen molecules. Hydrogen atoms can flow through surrounding molecules of other elements, even different kinds of molecules, like water in a bucket of sand. I believe they move from concentrated to less concentrated regions until they find grain boundaries with some separation. This might explain how materials within the mantle can appear to have changing densities; creating the seismic impressions of magma movement or that of a rotating core. They could then flow passively, albeit changing surrounding densities, until they found a weakly bonded grain boundry in which to join with others to form hydrogen molecules. Then these molecules could combine with other elements, oxygen for example, creating heat and water. This is usually the result of internal movement created by stress, strains or vibrations.
However, once molecules of hydrogen result from the combination of hydrogen atoms, they cannot be infused back into the surrounding molecules. The result is a weakening of the bonds between the other molecules and eventual Hydrogen embrittlement failure.
So, if your explanation of hydrogen atoms bonding is valid, Earth must have been initially formed by elements totally saturated with hydrogen atoms; along with most of the hydrogen gas in the spinning mass, which would be forced into the center and become Earth's core.
I think this proves my point. Thank you.
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:33:14 +1100 [04:33:14 AM WST]
From: Steven Guth <...>
To: David Beale <...> , charlie <...>
Subject: Stuff for the blog
I feel I should add to the comments page
I don't wonder any more about the earth having a hot iron core or a cold
I just look at the planets and moons nearby and all seem hydrogen based.
The earth would need to be a divinely created exception to have a heated
and heating iron core.
Radioactivity came along and gave new hope to the hot core concept people.
Otherwise the hot core idea would have become so untenable it would have
needed to be dropped.
I see Charlie as correct, that deep down underground generated heat is held
for a long time. Has anyone done a simple bit of maths to see how much
heat is realised in active drilling and the later temperature reduction
curves? A co-efficient of rock insulation?
And looking around I see ....
Planet Mercury has bubbled out its gases including the hydrogen.
Venus has almost run out of hydrogen and is spewing out other gases as well.
Earth is in an amazing balancing act between hydrogen and other outputs and
is in slow depletion.
Mars still gets occasional spikes of rising hydrogen giving the water flows
that can be seen.
Jupiter is madly out gassing —perhaps an earlier stage that ends much
sooner in smaller planets.
Then there all those crazy moons that out gas all sorts of things...
Not a radioactive activity anywhere.
So David please let go of the natural instinct to follow the wisdom of our
elders and accept that the earth is a hydrogen based.
I think Charlie’s latest idea through flow of hydrogen that leaches its way
through the mantle and gushes out in some locations is great visual image.
As is the idea that volcanos are a 'blow torch' like activity.
The current plate tectonics concept, with subduction zones that can't be
found accept in thought or computer models, needs revision. Maybe Charlie's
ideas in this area are worth exploring a bit further.
I dreamt all this up last night sleeping next to Mt Stromlo Observatory and
it's hundred working astronomically-focused people. Some wisdom may have
rubbed off onto me.
A form to Email Steven Guth (new page)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:33:14 +1100 [04:33:14 AM WST]
Post a comment below?
Name: David Beale
February 11, 2013 - 09:53 pm GMT+8
seems Earth's "Internal Heating" is as likely to be either true or untrue.
If untrue, then implications have to adjust to the idea that Earth formed from originally being more like swirling hot gas at very high temperatures,
and is now cooling, flashing off heat from the surface while not allowing heat inside easy transit.
The rocks just below the surface are seriously hotter than -273C; a very delicate balance that supports life on Earth, for now.
insulative nature of the surface, that you confirm, would allow that any heat
from thermal breakdown would not escape,
and that the only places where the ground gets hotter with depth is where the surface solids are thin enough or alongside volcanic events.
I would still believe that, below a nominal depth most places on Earth get hotter with depth.
Large variations (before the increase is reliable) would depend on the thickness of the various layers.
last paragraph below, re Hydrogen combining with oxides to produce heat, is
in view of gravity being zero at Earth's centre and pressure of gas unlikely to build up because rock is porous to Hydrogen.
It supports thinking that the inside of the Earth is likely to be hot and getting hotter, because of Hydrogen burning.
Anomalies happen regarding the speed of sound through various materials;
the known densities are a poor indication in complex situations.
Mixes of spongy, molten...various somewhat inimitable combinations over gigantic distances,
would make earthquake-wave timings an unlikely indication of Earth's internals.
put your below, with this, on the web-page as a comment (sans email addresses?).
The earlier email is already there. That's better than editing, to destruction, the first thing on the page.
----- Message from … ---------
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:09:00 -0800
From: Charles Odendhal<…>
Reply-To: … Subject: Internal heating
To: David Beale<…>
Cc: steven guth
Name: Charles Odendhal
Date posted: February 11, 2013 - 09:52 pm GMT-8
Sincerely appreciate your kind words, but please realize I only know
a little bit about a lot of things. Also, please try to understand
that there may be NO INTERNAL HEAT beneath Earth's crust, nor in
Earth's Mantle, nor Earth's Core. Internal heat is a modern invention
of Sir Robert Boyle, compounded by Lord Kelvin. The Ancients didn't
believe there was any internal heating as ALL natural openings in
Earth's crust became colder with depth, some more than 3,000 feet
deep. Stobo [63 BC - 23 AD] believe volcanoes were simply safety
valves, releasing gases that burned through the crust. Sound familiar?
If history is to be believed, I am just repeating ideas of the past.
Fact is worth repeating, no scientist really knows the temperatures or
what materials are in Earth's mantle, much less in its core.
While with Shell Oil, I learned that the heat energy required to
penetrate solid rock by drilling creates considerable heat in deep
boreholes, but when production declined, because wells cooled down,
steam heating was found to useful in restoring flow. In every
instance, claims of internal heating are based on active mines,
wherein workers, lighting, powered tools and the like inject
considerable heat into the mine and rock, being a very good insulator,
retains this heat energy, getting hotter as mine activity gets deeper;
because air conditioning gets less effective with increasing depth.
However, active mines, including one of my unsuccessful gold mines in
Colorado, only get colder when the input of heat energy ceases.
Second idea is that hydrogen cannot be contained by solid rock. When
stressed, most likely by Earth Tides created by the Moon's gravity
[there is that word again], hydrogen atoms can flow through many other
molecules like water in a bucket of sand. However, if the atoms
collect in between grain boundaries they become hydrogen molecules and
they can spread the crystals apart. Then, they most likely, as far as
I can tell, will continue upward within the mantle as liquid hydrogen,
then with decreasing pressure, become gaseous hydrogen within the
crust, which can react with oxides and release heat up to 3,200
degrees F, in the same manner as hydrogen-oxygen cutting torches. The
heat from this reaction is more than enough to burn through rock and
allow gases to vent upward as they are wont to do as volcanic
Just a few thoughts, which may or may not be correct. Regards,
Name: David Beale
Date posted: February 11, 2013 - 07:43 pm
Message: The below is personal communications I'm posting instead of re-writing:
Thanks for the beautiful comments!
I’ll find some way to weave them into an article; probably break up the
present rambling article into a few sections. Anyway, continued writing
could be more like “if such is true then…” rather than saying the same
ideas as if presumptions.
Your comments spurred me to search Wikipedia to find some conventional ideas. Where I get flummoxed, though, is that whenever I dig into mainstream science, deep enough, I find too many unknowns/part-knowns and presumptions by people who don’t think for themselves so base their rigid belief systems on what a few others do, as I do – assume and test, think about “what if…?” rather than just use step-by-step logic; then go back and check it properly if the end-result can be used to predict things that cannot be questioned…Yet even using this path, I stumble on variables that can lead to multiple conclusions, often incompatible. A typical example would be trying to find a single explanation for the Ground Effect, the reasons why aeroplanes fly and the reasons why gravity and similar calculations – such as fluid flow in complex situations – have mathematical formula about as useful as the guesswork they’re based on except within very narrow almost-unreal windows of accuracy. I gave up getting into discussions, other than when younger overnight with lots of wine…because people tend to take stands rather than just put in wonderful observations that have been checked out (I love the word you used “solid” re logic!).
There are people who can view only a tiny number of ideas and visualisations, at any one time after which they have to tie them together in a series with each stage given a jargon label to reduce the number of logical steps. These types seem to get into positions of power where their limited vision sees themselves as the pinnacle of ability because they can’t imagine how people think who can see their own and other people’s limitations, and who see gaps in any knowledge – so for those people (include ourselves) life can be difficult in the face of people who can’t grasp new ideas let alone include such ideas in their own fastidiously rote-learned belief systems.
I wish I had your knowledge; but then I’d be wishing for the same level of knowledge in hundreds of other areas; so I have to live with knowing a little about a lot and a lot about very little. Wikipedia has some very exciting info, for me, today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(geology) "In the mantle, temperatures range between 500 to 900 °C (932 to 1,652 °F) at the upper boundary with the crust; to over 4,000 °C (7,230 °F) at the boundary with the core. Although the higher temperatures far exceed the melting points of the mantle rocks at the surface (about 1200 °C for representative peridotite), the mantle is almost exclusively solid. The enormous lithostatic pressure exerted on the mantle prevents melting, because the temperature at which melting begins (the solidus) increases with pressure."
I’m sure that the gravity-reduction idea, as depth increases, is correct; otherwise gravity would not happen between all objects. I’ve come across many examples of high-school physics being wrong but some are wonderfully true such as the metal balls, hung from towers, being angled away from vertical, towards each other. I remember the descriptions included the balls being inside the towers, away from the wind…I’d like to look up old texts but doing so is a minefield of nonsensical interpretations/explanations of original elegant observations…getting better having the Internet, now.
The above Wikipedia text is exciting
because it leads to a conclusion that there will be liquid, deep in the
Earth, where the pressure is very low, because gravity decreases to zero
at the centre where it is equal (cancelled) in all directions.
Mix that idea with the fact that the centre is going to be more like the sky above Earth’s surface, than most people think…and we have your Hydrogen at the centre! Mix that idea with the idea that Hydrogen is the beginning of all matter, because Hydrogen is the first true atom-molecule formed by particles newly emerged from dimensions other than the basic three (another assumption/presumption of mine however the logic is “solid” to me having been worked on since childhood). Mix the ideas, and we have your Hydrogen In The Centre (because, as I said, it’s the lightest and it can’t get out). The above article explains why, where the pressure is greatest, the Earth’s material is solid despite being very hot – raddled with liquid under pressure, super-hot water…awesomely beautiful to think about!
As for the heat-fluid “internal tides” idea, my visualization is that these tides move at a snail’s pace; but in terms of the life of the planet, these tides are white-hot-water going over cliffs, they’re towering geysers, tsunamis…
The Russians drilled a hole about ten K’s deep; perhaps a hundred holes would be enough to draw the conclusions…but I doubt so; because, before the hole was drilled, the amount of real knowledge was seriously limited with most of it being logical progressions from either dodgy observations done to prove points of view rather than just as observation of Nature. Looking at the science of Geology, would show the classic separation that happens for all branches of science:
The majority have great difficulty observing natural phenomena without imposing their own interpretations regarding what they have actually seen and what has really happened. The minority are obliged/coerced to fit in with the presumptions of the majority before having enough time or resources to study the newly-found phenomena. An outcome, of the dissonance, is that science has matured and now, like good cheese, most of it has gone past its prime and is overly moldy.
Fortunately there is always hope: We just suffered the nonsense aspects of particle physics that happened because the atomic bombs actually worked and explanations had to be found no matter how silly. Now the jargon would take a few lifetimes to fit in with the babble. Then some facts happened with electronics that got explained by resurrecting the word “quantum” reviving this word back into acceptance. Most of my ideas, about a unified field theory, fitted in with anything I could find related to the word “quantum” and, so far, I haven’t found any natural phenomena that cause rejection of the path I’m following – but the majority of explanations, alternative to mine, lead to dead ends and complexity rather than illustrating the simple foundations of reality.
|I believe that modern science has retained its
traditions dating back to when science was theology-religion –
political, money-power, not necessarily related to Truth nor
anything spiritual. I feel the rejection by the majority and value the
life-line of an occasional discussion with somebody else who has
originality for ideas that are ahead of their times.
Your explanation is astonishing and shining as likely really accurate-true; for how the shapes formed, on Earth’s surface. I’ll add my old idea, from now on, as contributing only partly to the shapes – because I still feel there’s some say “truth” in the idea of, at the half-way point, centrifugal action formed an area with the most-dense being closest to the centre; and that this area was, later, centrifuged to the surface and broke through. The idea considers, especially, that the Earth was most likely, at some stage, closer to being a mass of hot gas and plasma than a collection of rocks in space that got big enough to trap heat from atomic breakdown… Usually this specific “atomic-breakdown” implies only the breakdown of some elements into for example, Lead; however I’d like to include the idea that Hydrogen, when combining in special conditions – given enough time – forms all other elements, in stages, with a slight loss of matter into energy, at each stage. I’ll quote you as “private correspondence” or “personal correspondence” (the convention) if that’s ok.
Regardless of how much I try to leave out jargon from my work, I need to use it sometimes and get humbled by how little jargon I have learned. I do prefer to refer to the closest natural descriptions that I can, because I enjoy discussions with people from a huge range of disciplines. I for example had to look up “crust” and “mantle” because, for me, they are concepts – the words are part of immensely complex situations, far more intricate than can be described by circles under circles. I liked some diagrams in Wikipedia; but they included rubbish, too.
A difficulty facing present-day science is the conflict from static algebraic formula being applied to dynamic situations needing calculus in three dimensions plus other situations working in parallel as if extra dimensions – 3D spatial plus changes to the non-linear situations that change very quickly with relatively stable situations in between; different for different places on/in Earth. This problem will exacerbate as more people graduate from uni with little better than primary-school arithmetic and literacy. The art of mathematics is being diluted. People are regarding mathematical descriptions as reality whereas such can be only as accurate as the observations of reality.
---- Message from … --------- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:19:16 -0800 From: Charles Odendhal …Reply-To: … Subject: Gravity puzzle To: David Beale … Cc: steven guth …
Reviewed your gravity article again and found it again interesting, but still puzzling. A lot of assumptions were repeated along with some explained very well. Mainly regarding heat and material condition beneath the crust. Hydrogen and oxides combine in an exothermic reaction which releases heat, considerable heat, sometimes 3200 F in the localized areas where the reaction takes place, otherwise little on no heat may be present beneath Earth's crust over a wide area; nothing molten either.
We have a group at the University of Colorado which has recently claimed that much of Earth's crust is supported or underlayed by water. Professor Bennett's class I think. I need to find out myself. However, when the Russians drilled their Superdeep Borehole at Kola, they found hydrogen gas and liquid water at 7.6 miles; not steam. The heat they measured what most likely the result of energy input needed to drill into rock. No radioactive materials were found, which are usually blamed for creating heat internally. Mainly silicon oxide, which, when in the presence of reactive hydrogen, can react with considerable heat release.
Being as I spent much time in Physical Geography, Landform Evolution, I have some doubt about existing continental evolution, more like many more thinner, wider plates, moving about, compressing and recompressing into todays smaller, thicker plates; at one time initially forming a thin covering over the entire globe, which I modestly call "Odenland". Another story and thesis which got damned to death, even though there is physical evidence and solid logic available. Alps were once in Africa for instance.
Comments accepted will be posted unedited unless you request e.g. typo-checking.
Index for ChiSync
top of the page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
A form to email David Beale
Dynamic Drive for free, original DHTML scripts and