An oxygen molecule travels at the Earth's surface conditions (300 K) with a medium speed of aprox 400 m/s. If this molecule descend 1 km it will accelerate to aprox 425 m/s wich correspond to aprox 330 K. So for 1 km the (associated) temperature would increase with aprox 30 K.
If we consider the Earth, I red on the net that digging scientists have discovered a temperature gradient as they dig towards the Earth's center of 25 to 30 K per 1 kilometer of depth.
In the same time the geologists are living with the believe that such a temperature gradient require an energy source (radioactive decay) wich they have planted in the center of planet. What they can not explain is why, having a radius of 6400 km and starting with a temperature gradient of 25 to 30 K/km they reach only aprox 6000K in the center of Earth instead of 200,000 K (the product of 30 K/km and 6400 km). They have no explaination for this dramatic decrease of temperature gradient but it seems to me that they don't even need one.
My hypothesys is that gravity (and any force field) attract some energy in the sense that the medium kinetic energy of particles wich travel towards the center of a (large) mass will increase, so there will be a spontan heat transfer from cold to hot, so here it is a violation of second aw, at a very large scale. Also the gradient of temperature would be dependet of the intensity of field force, so as the gravity decrease toward the center, so the gradient would decrease and we would not need to stay on a 200000 K hell. (in the same time the central heat source model would require an increasing with depth temperature gradient as the sourface of transfer decrease as the radius decrease)
Please criticise my exposee. Thank you for any comment.
My email is
sorin251@yahoomail.com

I really have no idea what sort of point you have with all this (it's barely decipherable), but I did gather the following:

Obviously the temperature gradient is not linear. While it may be 25-30K/km near the surface, it's obviously greater nearer the center.

- Warren

possibly a product of the increased pressure in the core?

Originally posted by sorin251
...so there will be a spontan heat transfer from cold to hot, so here it is a violation of second aw, at a very large scale. Conventional wisdom would consider this evidence that you're wrong. Assuming I even understood what you were saying. It was very unclear.

so as the gravity decrease toward the center
dosn't gravity follow the inverse square law, meaning its the stongest at the center?

I hope English is not your first language.

dosn't gravity follow the inverse square law,

Yes

meaning its the stongest at the center?

No

DVSBL

:-)

DVSBL? whats that?

DVSBL is the Daryn Voss School of Binary Logic. On another forum I frequent DV is known for his yes/no answers, when the poster of the question really wanted more information but worded his questions in such a way that a yes/no answer could suffice.

Sorin, welcome to sciforums. It would really help if you proofread your posts, this one was very hard to read.

An oxygen molecule travels at the Earth's surface conditions (300 K) with a medium speed of aprox 400 m/s. If this molecule descend 1 km it will accelerate to aprox 425 m/s wich correspond to aprox 330 K. So for 1 km the (associated) temperature would increase with aprox 30 K.

It sounds like you're assuming that an oxygen molecule could just fall freely for 1 km. The thing is, it can't because it's not the only molecule in the air. If it hits another air molecule it will ricochet off in a new direction. Also, i think your estimate of a normal speed at the earth's surface are a bit high.

If you could restate your point in an easier to read post, then people could answer you better.

Now that explains the global warming!

It's not the CO2 blanket but all those falling oxygen molecules, good thing Bush didn't sign Kyoto so that we can continue to use up all the oxygen to fight global warming....

First of all english is not my first language so please excuse my many mistakes.

To Warren:
If the temperature gradient becames larger than 25 K/km as we descend it means that for evry 1 km of depth we must add more than 25 K to temperature, so in the center we should get a temperature increased with more than 6400 km x 25 K = 160,000 K (geologists assume for Earth’s center a temperature of only 6,000K. 6400 is Earth radius in km). This contradiction needs a solution.

To On Radioactive Waves:
The presure can influence the temperature of a substance only if it modifyes. I do not think that this is the case.
The gravity decrease with depth: consider yourself at 1 000 km depth: the remayning ‘Earth’ under your feet is 1000 km smaller in diameter so it is much lighter and in the same time there is a mass of 1000 km of rocks on your shoulders wich attracts you up. So the gravity decrease with depth.

To Nasor:
Yes, conventional wisdom says I’am wrong.

To Nova 1021:
Yes, the medium free path of a molecule in air is very short (less than 1 micrometer). But when an accelerated (because of gravity) mollecule hits another molecule, the speeds of both molecules will be influenced by the extra-speed gained by the descending molecule and by the reduced speed of the ascending one. The kinetic becames diferent if we consider a force field (gravity).
I do not think that a medium 400 m/s speed for a molecule (oxygen, N2) is overestimated (see Gauss curves for speeds distributions at normal temperature).

To Vortexx
No, my statement does not explain global warming