Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 178

Thread: New Earth Compostion

  1. #141
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    968
    Well Kmguru the book it self cost 20,000 (US)dollars per copy, understanding the formula really unlocks a lot of doors in understanding the solar system. it seems that every body from the military to space exsploration miners ect.. would kill for the type of information, exspecially when its elaborated on, it really is quite special i would say.

    Well you don't have to weight for understanding the terrerstial compostion of the earth, and that which was elaborated on for the moon, I also post the composition of Ganymede, with a little on its jovian partners, and i posted a little on mercury in another topic. The earth is what most real people would want to know about, I dont think it will be giveing away my book.

    None the less the compostion of the earth provides some interesting instie to the earth and a lot for specialist to look at in the chemical composition of the earth, such as how the mixture came about creating life.

    I personally look at what must be generating the magnetic feild of earth as a internal componet.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon

  2. #142
    All aboard, me Hearties! Captain Kremmen's Avatar
    Posts
    11,071
    The earth is filled with gas?
    If we don't stop global warming, the earth may pop like a balloon.
    Then you'd be sorry.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon View Post
    Well Enmos I would disagree with the discription presented in that article.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
    So what was the point of your challenge, if this is all you are going to say ??

  4. #144
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    968
    Well Enmos
    I am not nessacarly presenting a challange to their argument, i am sure that they them self know that their assement remains theorical, but that it is the best scientific assement that they can assign using the avialable data and meathod.
    I would assume form what i read that the data indicates a later time frame then the formation of the earth, one that pretains to the upper crust of the earth. I also assume that much of the material that they mentioned giving there quote for iron content was actually farther out in the solar system like 5,100,000,000 miles out, being past the distance of Pluto. as well there may be other orgins of the material.
    In end i did not read the entire article, but it seem to leave a open end to the base formation of nuclear chemistry.
    I would have to read more to look for errors that i think exist. It could in end be a match for the conditions of the crusts composition in part of their assement, and some bias fact misleads the out come.

    Enmos what about their assement do you find is the strongest influence defining the earth.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon

  5. #145
    Registered Member
    Posts
    11
    "A star determines the stabilty and conditions of the neutron that exist with atomic structure,and so isotopes and stable atomic elements are seperated by neturon stabilty and collaspe. by that means boron and hydrogen are seperated."

    Neutron stability is NOT determined by nearby stars.Where do you get this mistaken information?

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon View Post
    Well Enmos
    I am not nessacarly presenting a challange to their argument, i am sure that they them self know that their assement remains theorical, but that it is the best scientific assement that they can assign using the avialable data and meathod.
    I would assume form what i read that the data indicates a later time frame then the formation of the earth, one that pretains to the upper crust of the earth. I also assume that much of the material that they mentioned giving there quote for iron content was actually farther out in the solar system like 5,100,000,000 miles out, being past the distance of Pluto. as well there may be other orgins of the material.
    In end i did not read the entire article, but it seem to leave a open end to the base formation of nuclear chemistry.
    I would have to read more to look for errors that i think exist. It could in end be a match for the conditions of the crusts composition in part of their assement, and some bias fact misleads the out come.

    Enmos what about their assement do you find is the strongest influence defining the earth.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
    You mean why do I rather believe them ?
    You are one guy presenting ideas completely contrary to convention. And you are not providing sources and calculations.
    Am I to believe you, instead of hundreds of geologists that did years and years of study on the subject and on top of that all agree ?

    If you want people to agree with your theories provide your sources and calculations. Prove it.

  7. #147
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    968
    Well I do just fine with my assesment and it awnsers my questions
    Their are lots of professional that would dissagree with with out any consideration of their meathod, so you would be wrong in lumping all the geologist in to one pile, The composition of geologists is diveresd like that of the earth.

    For your information the meathod i use is a overruling assesment, the geologist that making reference in the article are better prepared to make a assement of the chemical composition of the earth rather than the earths actual compostion. it is exactly this group of geologist that i would exspect to rely on my assesment, and by that means a better chemical composition of the earth could be made.

    Well Enmos your welcome to copy and print out of the composition of the earth that is listed in this topic it provides percentage values for each of the atomic elements of the periodic chart. it is free!! it might be of help if you become confused at some time or it might give a means of comparison.

    Quantic it is deducted
    DwayneD.L.Rabon

  8. #148
    Registered Member
    Posts
    11
    "Quantic it is deducted"

    So you have no evidence that stars affect neutron stability?

  9. #149
    Dwayne,

    You keep referring to me as ego-centric, well atleast I have the grades to back my ego up. Whereas you blatently admit to not understanding maths.

    you will find that iron is not even a magnetic
    Molten iron spinning at high velocities is. Basic physics 101.


    In end i did not read the entire article
    ....

    Your theory defies all the laws of physics, disregards all maths and goes against the word of every expert there is.

    Their are lots of professional that would dissagree with with out any consideration of their meathod, so you would be wrong in lumping all the geologist in to one pile, The composition of geologists is diveresd like that of the earth.
    Stop with the HORSESHIT. I told you not to be making assertions without backing them up. There is overall concensus on the planetary structure. Your theory is a load of crap. You are just deluded. You are a nutter. Just face it, your wrong so stop wasting time.

    Bring some proper science to this argument and you might be listened to.

    Barry

  10. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by DwayneD.L.Rabon View Post
    Well I do just fine with my assesment and it awnsers my questions
    Their are lots of professional that would dissagree with with out any consideration of their meathod, so you would be wrong in lumping all the geologist in to one pile, The composition of geologists is diveresd like that of the earth.

    For your information the meathod i use is a overruling assesment, the geologist that making reference in the article are better prepared to make a assement of the chemical composition of the earth rather than the earths actual compostion. it is exactly this group of geologist that i would exspect to rely on my assesment, and by that means a better chemical composition of the earth could be made.

    Well Enmos your welcome to copy and print out of the composition of the earth that is listed in this topic it provides percentage values for each of the atomic elements of the periodic chart. it is free!! it might be of help if you become confused at some time or it might give a means of comparison.

    Quantic it is deducted
    DwayneD.L.Rabon
    I guess my (and likely other people's) biggest problem with what you say is how you say these elements are dispersed.
    Can you shed some light ?

  11. #151
    Molten iron spinning at high velocities is. Basic physics 101.
    Actually molten iron will lose its magnetic properties due to high heat.

    http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html

  12. #152
    The solid inner core is too hot to hold a permanent magnetic field (see Curie temperature) but probably acts to stabilise the magnetic field generated by the liquid outer core.
    Wikipedia

    Barry

  13. #153
    I would favor NASA to Wikipedia anyday

  14. #154
    As would I but you must note that the NASA site is aimed towards children and is very simplified. It is also not discussing planetary geology merely magnetic effects a child would be more familiar with.

    Barry

  15. #155
    That does not make it untrue. If you do a little more research, you will find that the creation of Earth's Magnetic field is still in intense research and various theories are abound. When I took my geology course in college many thousand years ago, we thought that the Earth has a strong magnetic core....then it all changed, but no definitive answer yet.

    I suspect it has something to do with our atmosphere and solar radiation....but without some research...I would not know for sure....

  16. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by kmguru View Post
    I would favor NASA to Wikipedia anyday
    you got a supporter there.

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Flannery View Post
    As would I but you must note that the NASA site is aimed towards children and is very simplified. It is also not discussing planetary geology merely magnetic effects a child would be more familiar with.

    Barry
    you must have not been on NASA's technical servers...

  18. #158
    Well I'm going on the currently accepted theory of the dynamo theory.The moral of the issue is that it is far more correct than the bull that Dwayne is proposing.
    Dynamo theory describes the process through which motion of a conductive body in the presence of a magnetic field acts to regenerate that magnetic field. This theory is used to explain the presence of anomalously long-lived magnetic fields in astrophysical bodies. In such bodies, dynamo action depends on the presence of highly conducting fluids such as the liquid iron of the Earth's outer core or the ionized gas of the sun.
    Source is Wikipedia again.
    Earth's magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion.
    Source is Nasa.
    science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm (be sure to include the http : //).

    Barry

    P.S. I just want to reiterate, kmguru that you are 100% correct in stating
    Actually molten iron will lose its magnetic properties due to high heat.
    That's basic physics again and I don't want to start an argument with people on my own side.
    Last edited by Barry Flannery; 02-06-08 at 04:02 PM.

  19. #159
    Earth's magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion.
    That statement by itself is incorrect, I do not care who says it. Yes, iron is electrically conductive but the EM field does not come from a moving iron liquid or not. There is no physics behind it, unless it is magnetically charged to begin with and that will not last long in the heat.....

    You can take a piece of soft iron and move it very rapidly - it would not become a magnet in the absense of any EM field.

  20. #160
    Kmguru,

    Here is the full cut to avoid confusion.

    Earth's magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has "hurricanes"--whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth's rotation. These complex motions generate our planet's magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.
    I think that this has been simplified somewhat. The dynamo effect as I understand it, fundamentally requires a prexisting magnetic field before hand which it then sustains and can grow.

    Barry

Similar Threads

  1. By Prosoothus in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 11-24-07, 08:01 AM
    Replies: 203
  2. By plakhapate in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 06-26-07, 06:34 AM
    Replies: 22
  3. By nfdouglas in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 02-18-07, 12:57 PM
    Replies: 8
  4. By IceAgeCivilizations in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 12-06-06, 08:18 AM
    Replies: 262
  5. By invert_nexus in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 08-31-06, 04:38 PM
    Replies: 35

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •