Are the planets growing?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
moonkoon
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by moonkoon » Sat May 30, 2015 6:00 am

As most readers will know, the tectonic process is said to involve a combination of ocean crust sinking/subduction/slab-pull at Benioff zones and compensatory extension at Mid Ocean Ridges, the two processes occurring at locations that are thousands of kilometres apart. The cumulative movement amounts to some tens of centimetres per year, with rates at individual locations varying from roughly one to twenty centimetres per year.

Yet despite the wide geographical separation of the activity and the different processes (crust density related and convective mantle flow related) involved, recent observations, suggest that the extension and contraction is almost perfectly synchronized, ...remarkably so in fact. At least that is one conclusion that can be drawn form measurements of the earth's circumference, in my opinion.

... The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant. ...


Centimetre scale annual fluctuations in the radius would seem to be more likely than the observed amount which is some two orders of magnitude lower. However if the reported annual variation has not been over-egged and the radius is actually as stable is claimed, the question arises as to what might be the communication mechanism that keeps these widely spaced processes in sync. Offhand, I can't think of one. :-)

scowie
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:31 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by scowie » Sat May 30, 2015 1:28 pm

VLBI measurements give an average increase in radius of 18mm per year (before "adjustments" are made to the data), according to James Maxlow's book Terra Non Firma Earth.

Here's an interesting quote from Stephen Hurrell's Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth where he is himself quoting a paper by geologist John K. Davidson:
...in 2002, Gerasimenko and Kasahara ... removed 23 of the 59 stations in the VLBI database because the measured vertical component of those stations exceeded 4 mm per annum and each was considered unreliable. This discrimination against 40% of the data caused a minor contraction of 0.3 ±0.1 mm per annum and preserved the status quo with plate tectonics under constant radius
So it sounds to me like we do measure the earth to be growing but this fact gets hidden by the doctoring of the data (which happens all too open these days in mainstream science).

scowie
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:31 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by scowie » Sun May 31, 2015 6:13 am

^ open=often, oops

Here's another quote from Stephen Hurrell's book:
...this elimination of any increase in radius has manifested itself in large periodic adjustments in charts of the published data. One chart located near Canberra in Australia shows an arbitrary adjustment of 71 mm during 1993 to 1994. This would have resulted in a severe earthquake if it were real. Similar severe adjustments are also noted in a selection of other charts.
Sounds a bit like what climate scientists do, although they make adjustments to historic temperature data to manufacture a trend rather than to hide one.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Sun May 31, 2015 11:16 am

Thanks, moonkoon.

I agree. How can they measure such a large expansion at the Mid Ocean Ridges yet not measure the required subduction to match it.

What Is The Mid-Ocean Ridge?
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorati ... ridge.html
Ken MacDonald
Professor, Marine Geophysics
University of California, Santa Barbara
The mid-ocean ridge system is the most extensive chain of mountains on earth, but more than 90% of this mountain range lies in the deep ocean. The mid-ocean ridge wraps around the globe for more than 65,000 km like the seam of a baseball. The average depth to the crest (top) of the ridge is 2500 m, but it rises above sea-level in Iceland and is more than 4000 m deep in the Cayman Trough.

Mid-ocean ridges are geologically important because they occur along the kind of plate boundary where new ocean floor is created as the plates spread apart. Thus the mid-ocean ridge is also known as a "spreading center" or a "divergent plate boundary." The plates spread apart at rates of 1 cm to 20 cm per year. As oceanic plates move apart, rock melts and wells up from tens of kilometers deep. Some of the molten rock ascends all the way up to the seafloor, producing enormous volcanic eruptions of basalt, and building the longest chain of volcanoes in the world! The molten rock that does not erupt freezes onto the edges of the plates as they spread apart. In 1783, a segment of the ridge which emerges above sea-level in Iceland erupted more than 12 cubic kilometers of lava- enough to pave the entire U.S. interstate freeway system to a depth of 10 meters. The scorching lava (~1200 ºC), as well as 50 million tons of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere, ruined crops and caused the death of more than 10,000 Icelanders, a quarter of the nation's population at the time.
melt_diagram_600.jpg
A big picture cross section showing melt (molten rock) in the upper mantle beneath the East Pacific Rise. Melt extends over 100 kilometers deep below oceanic crust, and spans a breadth of several hundred kilometers. Click image for larger view and image credit.

Since most of the mid-ocean ridge is more than 2000 meters deep, most of its eruptions go unnoticed. In fact, accurate maps along the mid-ocean ridge did not exist until the last ten years, and even now much of it remains unmapped. Accurate maps that exist along portions of the mid-ocean ridge show that the zone of recent volcanic activity is narrow, less than 10 km and often less than 1 km wide. This region generating new ocean floor is also characterized by many small to moderate earthquakes. Some of these earthquakes are caused by volcanic eruptions, and others are caused by breaking and ripping of the thin, newly created plate as it spreads to either side of the ridge.

Two of the most carefully studied mid-ocean ridges are the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the East Pacific Rise (called a rise because it has more gentle slopes). The Mid-Atlantic Ridge runs down the center of the Atlantic Ocean. It spread apart at rates of 2 to 5 cm per year, and at these relatively slow spreading rates, the ridge has a deep rift valley along its crest. The rift valley is 1 to 3 km deep, about the depth and width of the Grand Canyon. In contrast, the East Pacific Rise spreads fast at rates of 6 to 16 cm per year (more than 20 cm per year in the past). Due to the fast spreading rates, there is no rift valley, just a smooth volcanic summit with a crack along the crest that is much smaller than the Atlantic rift valley. Every 50-500 km, the mid-ocean ridge is offset sideways right or left by transform faults (found where two plates slide sideways against each other). The ridge also has many smaller lateral offsets which, together with larger transform faults, divide the mid-ocean ridge into many segments.
It's a small world, after all: Earth is not expanding, NASA research confirms
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 120527.htm
Date: August 17, 2011
Source: NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Summary:
A NASA-led research team has confirmed what Walt Disney told us all along: Earth really is a small world, after all. Since Charles Darwin's time, scientists have speculated that the solid Earth might be expanding or contracting. That was the prevailing belief, until scientists developed the theory of plate tectonics, which explained the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere, or outermost shell. Even with the acceptance of plate tectonics half a century ago, some Earth and space scientists have continued to speculate on Earth's possible expansion or contraction on various scientific grounds. Now a new study has essentially laid those speculations to rest. Using a cadre of space measurement tools and a new data calculation technique, the team detected no statistically significant expansion of the solid Earth.

FULL STORY

This view of Earth comes from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aboard the Terra satellite.
Credit: NASA

A NASA-led research team has confirmed what Walt Disney told us all along: Earth really is a small world, after all.

Since Charles Darwin's time, scientists have speculated that the solid Earth might be expanding or contracting. That was the prevailing belief, until scientists developed the theory of plate tectonics, which explained the large-scale motions of Earth's lithosphere, or outermost shell. Even with the acceptance of plate tectonics half a century ago, some Earth and space scientists have continued to speculate on Earth's possible expansion or contraction on various scientific grounds.

Now a new NASA study, published recently in Geophysical Research Letters, has essentially laid those speculations to rest. Using a cadre of space measurement tools and a new data calculation technique, the team detected no statistically significant expansion of the solid Earth.

So why should we care if Mother Nature is growing? After all, Earth's shape is constantly changing. Tectonic forces such as earthquakes and volcanoes push mountains higher, while erosion and landslides wear them down. In addition, large-scale climate events like El Nino and La Nina redistribute vast water masses among Earth's ocean, atmosphere and land.

Scientists care because, to put movements of Earth's crust into proper context, they need a frame of reference to evaluate them against. Any significant change in Earth's radius will alter our understanding of our planet's physical processes and is fundamental to the branch of science called geodesy, which seeks to measure Earth's shape and gravity field, and how they change over time.

To make these measurements, the global science community established the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. This reference frame is used for ground navigation and for tracking spacecraft in Earth orbit. It is also used to monitor many aspects of global climate change, including sea level rise and its sources; imbalances in ice mass at Earth's poles; and the continuing rebound of Earth's surface following the retreat of the massive ice sheets that blanketed much of Earth during the last Ice Age.

But measuring changes in Earth's size hasn't exactly been easy for scientists to quite literally "get their arms around." After all, they can't just wrap a giant tape measure around Earth's belly to get a definitive reading. Fortunately, the field of high-precision space geodesy gives scientists tools they can use to estimate changes in Earth's radius. These include:

Satellite laser ranging -- a global observation station network that measures, with millimeter-level precision, the time it takes for ultrashort pulses of light to travel from the ground stations to satellites specially equipped with retroreflectors and back again.

Very-long baseline interferometry -- a radio astronomy technology that combines observations of an object made simultaneously by many telescopes to simulate a telescope as big as the maximum distance between the telescopes.

Global Positioning System -- the U.S.-built space-based global navigation system that provides users around the world with precise location and time information.
Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite -- a French satellite system used to determine satellite orbits and positioning. Beacons on the ground emit radio signals that are received by satellites. The movement of the satellites causes a frequency shift of the signal that can be observed to determine ground positions and other information.

Scientists use all these techniques to calculate the International Terrestrial Reference Frame. Central to the reference frame is its point of origin: the precise location of the average center of mass of the total Earth system (the combination of the solid Earth and the fluid envelope of ocean, ice and atmosphere that surrounds it, around which all Earth satellites orbit). Scientists currently determine this origin point based on a quarter century of satellite laser ranging data, considered the most accurate space geodetic tool for this purpose.

But the accuracy of the satellite laser ranging data and all existing space geodesy technologies is contaminated, both by the effects of other major Earth processes, and limited ground measurement sites. Think of it this way: if all of Earth's GPS stations were located in Norway, their data would indicate that Earth is growing, because high-latitude countries like Norway are still rising in elevation in response to the removal of the weight of Ice Age ice sheets. So how can scientists be sure the reference frame is accurate?

Enter an international group of scientists led by Xiaoping Wu of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and including participants from the Institut Geographique National, Champs-sur-Marne in France, and Delft University of Technology in The Netherlands. The team set out to independently evaluate the accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame and shed new light on the Earth expansion/contraction theory.

The team applied a new data calculation technique to estimate the rate of change in the solid Earth's average radius over time, taking into account the effects of other geophysical processes. The previously discussed geodetic techniques (satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry and GPS) were used to obtain data on Earth surface movements from a global network of carefully selected sites. These data were then combined with measurements of Earth's gravity from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) spacecraft and models of ocean bottom pressure, which help scientists interpret gravity change data over the ocean.

The result? The scientists estimated the average change in Earth's radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

"Our study provides an independent confirmation that the solid Earth is not getting larger at present, within current measurement uncertainties," said Wu.

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

X. Wu, X. Collilieux, Z. Altamimi, B. L. A. Vermeersen, R. S. Gross, I. Fukumori. Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame origin and Earth expansion. Geophysical Research Letters, 2011; 38 (13) DOI: 10.1029/2011GL047450
Accuracy of the International Terrestrial Reference Frame origin and Earth expansion
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 47450/full

moonkoon
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by moonkoon » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:33 am

The latest picture of Charon has some interesting features that could be interpreted as being a product of expansion activity. I have taken the liberty of inverting and cropping the complete image to highlight the features that could possibly be the margin of a large bulge.

Image

There appears to be a multi-rifted edge running along the margin of a large “sea” which could be the younger crust created by the spreading rift, …with the other side of rift being away over the horizon somewhere. If this is the case then it is quite a substantial feature and would require a similar amount of compensatory subduction to have occurred in order to maintain a constant diameter moon, …and I can’t see much, if any, evidence of that.

Note the old crust pieces to the left of the centre of the picture which appear to have separated from the main body of the older crust. They appear to have tilted into the newly (at the time) emerging “sea”. Here on earth, the Pacific Basin may be a similar type of feature.

User avatar
Vecta3
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Vecta3 » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:26 pm

As for "where did the extra mass come from"? According to alchemy, the dew on grass is mostly freshly condensed from "a higher plane" and so is completely new, "virgin" water, supposedly. Also, and I think this is according to Steiner, thunder and lightning rain is also freshly condensed from the cosmos. Does lightning produce carbon when there is water too? I don't know why but have often felt this to be true. As well as this, in the book "Secrets of the Soil", they cite experimental evidence of plants, in controlled environments, ending up with more minerals than they started with and that were available to them. It's possible all living things can do this. I also feel it's possible that the centre of the Earth spews matter from the astral plane into the physical and that lava maybe virgin matter (primary matter). Seems about as "out there" as planetary alignments and the like yet not one that would ever be drawn on caves etc. All maybes that I don't personally hold to but enquiry demands I treat them as possibles. Conclusions either way prevents enquiry.
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Webbman » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:52 pm

if an asteroid has fallen to earth it is pretty hard to say that the earth has not gained mass. Of course sending a rocket into space has the opposite effect, but I guess people could imagine that many more asteroids have landed than spacecraft left over a very long period of time.

unless a planet is losing its atmosphere I find it hard to believe that it isn't growing. Even adding one microliter of water to a glass will fill it eventually.
its all lies.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by allynh » Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:30 pm

I'm not sure if I have mentioned this concept before. I did a search on my files and couldn't find any mention.

There is a thing called a "Just So Story". Rudyard Kipling wrote them as fun stories explaining how the elephant got his trunk, etc... Most of the stories that consensus science tell us are "Just So Stories". Things like "The Big Bang" and "Black Holes" are "Just So Stories" made up to give a pleasing narrative.

Here is another "Just So Story" to play with.

How we know what lies at Earth's core
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150814 ... e-of-earth
Humans have been all over the Earth. We've conquered the lands, flown through the air and dived to the deepest trenches in the ocean. We've even been to the Moon. But we've never been to the planet's core.

We haven't even come close. The central point of the Earth is over 6,000km down, and even the outermost part of the core is nearly 3,000 km below our feet. The deepest hole we've ever created on the surface is the Kola Superdeep Borehole in Russia, and it only goes down a pitiful 12.3 km.

All the familiar events on Earth also happen close to the surface. The lava that spews from volcanoes first melts just a few hundred kilometres down. Even diamonds, which need extreme heat and pressure to form, originate in rocks less than 500km deep.

What's down below all that is shrouded in mystery. It seems unfathomable. And yet, we know a surprising amount about the core. We even have some idea about how it formed billions of years ago – all without a single physical sample. This is how the core was revealed.

In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't weigh much (Credit: Torrenegra, CC by 2.0)

One good way to start is to think about the mass of the Earth, says Simon Redfern of the University of Cambridge in the UK.

Most of the Earth's mass must be located towards the centre of the planet
We can estimate Earth's mass by observing the effect of the planet's gravity on objects at the surface. It turns out that the mass of the Earth is 5.9 sextillion tonnes: that's 59 followed by 20 zeroes.

There's no sign of anything that massive at the surface.

"The density of the material at the Earth's surface is much lower than the average density of the whole Earth, so that tells us there's something much denser," says Redfern. "That's the first thing."

Essentially, most of the Earth's mass must be located towards the centre of the planet. The next step is to ask which heavy materials make up the core.

Yes, iron like this - only without the barnacles and rust (Credit: Jon Wilson/SPL)

The answer here is that it's almost certainly made mostly of iron. The core is thought to be around 80% iron, though the exact figure is up for debate.

An iron core would account for all that missing mass
The main evidence for this is the huge amount of iron in the universe around us. It is one of the ten most common elements in our galaxy, and is frequently found in meteorites.

Given how much there is of it, iron is much less common at the surface of the Earth than we might expect. So the theory is that when Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, a lot of iron worked its way down to the core.

That's where most of the mass is, and it's where most of the iron must be too. Iron is a relatively dense element under normal conditions, and under the extreme pressure at the Earth's core it would be crushed to an even higher density, so an iron core would account for all that missing mass.

But wait a minute. How did that iron get down there in the first place?

The San Andreas fault can trigger major earthquakes (Credit: US Geological Survey/SPL)

The iron must have somehow gravitated – literally – towards the centre of the Earth. But it's not immediately obvious how.

Most of the rest of the Earth is made up of rocks called silicates, and molten iron struggles to travel through them. Rather like how water on a greasy surface forms droplets, the iron clings to itself in little reservoirs, refusing to spread out and flow.

The pressure actually changes the properties of how iron interacts with the silicate
A possible solution was discovered in 2013 by Wendy Mao of Stanford University in California and her colleagues. They wondered what happened when the iron and silicate were both exposed to extreme pressure, as happens deep in the earth.

By pinching both substances extremely tightly using diamonds, they were able to force molten iron through silicate.

"The pressure actually changes the properties of how iron interacts with the silicate," says Mao. "At higher pressures a 'melt network' is formed."

This suggests the iron was gradually squeezed down through the rocks of the Earth over millions of years, until it reached the core.

Earthquakes can be destructive, but we also learn from them (Credit: Peter Menzel/SPL)

At this point you might be wondering how we know the size of the core. What makes scientists think it begins 3000km down? There's a one-word answer: seismology.

All the seismic stations dotted all over the Earth recorded the arrival of the tremors
When an earthquake happens, it sends shockwaves throughout the planet. Seismologists record these vibrations. It's as if we hit one side of the planet with a gigantic hammer, and listened on the other side for the noise.

"There was a Chilean earthquake in the 1960s that generated a huge amount of data," says Redfern. "All the seismic stations dotted all over the Earth recorded the arrival of the tremors from that earthquake."

Depending on the route those vibrations take, they pass through different bits of the Earth, and this affects how they "sound" at the other end.

A seismograph of the Kobe earthquake (Credit: Carlos Munoz-Yague/Eurelios/SPL)

Early in the history of seismology, it was realised that some vibrations were going missing. These "S-waves" were expected to show up on one side of the Earth after originating on the other, but there was no sign of them.

It turned out that rocks became liquid around 3000km down
The reason for this was simple. S-waves can only reverberate through solid material, and can't make it through liquid.

They must have come up against something molten in the centre of the Earth. By mapping the S-waves' paths, it turned out that rocks became liquid around 3000km down.

That suggested the entire core was molten. But seismology had another surprise in store.

Red: P-waves. Yellow: S-waves. Mauve: surface waves (Credit: Gary Hincks/SPL)

In the 1930s, a Danish seismologist named Inge Lehmann noticed that another kind of waves, called P-waves, unexpectedly travelled through the core and could be detected on the other side of the planet.

P-waves really were travelling through the core

She came up with a surprising explanation: the core is divided into two layers. The "inner" core, which begins around 5,000km down, was actually solid. It was only the "outer" core above it that was molten.

Lehmann's idea was eventually confirmed in 1970, when more sensitive seismographs found that P-waves really were travelling through the core and, in some cases, being deflected off it at angles. Sure enough, they still ended up on the other side of the planet.

It's not just earthquakes that sent useful shockwaves through the Earth. In fact, seismology owes a lot of its success to the development of nuclear weapons.

An atomic bomb explodes in Nevada in 1957 (Credit: US Department of Energy/SPL)

A nuclear detonation also creates waves in the ground, so nations use seismology to listen out for weapons tests. During the Cold War this was seen as hugely important, so seismologists like Lehmann got a lot of encouragement.

This turns out to be quite tricky to determine
Rival countries found out about each other's nuclear capabilities and along the way we learned more and more about the core of the Earth. Seismology is still used to detect nuclear detonations today.

We can now draw a rough picture of the Earth's structure. There is a molten outer core, which begins roughly halfway to the planet's centre, and within it is the solid inner core with a diameter of 1,220 km.

But there is a lot more to try and tease out, especially about the inner core. For starters, how hot is it?

Under normal conditions, iron melts at 1538 °C (Credit: Ria Novosti/SPL)

This turns out to be quite tricky to determine, and baffled scientists until quite recently, says Lidunka Vočadlo of University College London in the UK. We can't put a thermometer down there, so the only solution is to create the correct crushing pressure in the lab.

Earth's core has stayed warm thanks to heat retained from the formation of the planet
In 2013 a team of French researchers produced the best estimate to date. They subjected pure iron to pressures a little over half that at the core, and extrapolated from there. They concluded that the melting point of pure iron at core temperatures is around 6,230 °C. The presence of other materials would bring the core's melting point down a bit, to around 6,000 °C. But that's still as hot as the surface of the Sun.

A bit like a toasty jacket potato, Earth's core has stayed warm thanks to heat retained from the formation of the planet. It also gets heat from friction as denser materials shift around, as well as from the decay of radioactive elements. Still, it is cooling by about 100 °C every billion years.

Knowing the temperature is useful, because it affects the speed at which vibrations travel through the core. That is handy, because there is something odd about the vibrations.

Earth's internal structure (Credit: Roger Harris/SPL)

P-waves travel unexpectedly slowly as they go through the inner core – slower than they would if it was made of pure iron.

It's a Cinderella problem: no shoe will quite fit
"Wave velocities that the seismologists measure in earthquakes and whatnot are significantly lower [than] anything that we measure in an experiment or calculate on a computer," says Vočadlo. "Nobody as yet knows why that is."

That suggests there is another material in the mix.

It could well be another metal, called nickel. But scientists have estimated how seismic waves would travel through an iron-nickel alloy, and it doesn't quite fit the readings either.

Seismic waves from earthquakes criss-cross the Earth (Credit: Patrick Landmann/SPL)

Vočadlo and her colleagues are now considering whether there might be other elements down there too, like sulphur and silicon. So far, no-one has been able to come up with a theory for the inner core's composition that satisfies everyone. It's a Cinderella problem: no shoe will quite fit.

That could explain why the seismic waves pass through more slowly than expected
Vočadlo is trying to simulate the materials of the inner core on a computer. She hopes to find a combination of materials, temperatures and pressures that would slow down the seismic waves by the right amount.

She says the secret might lie in the fact that the inner core is nearly at its melting point. As a result, the precise properties of the materials might be different from what they would be if they were safely solid.

That could explain why the seismic waves pass through more slowly than expected.

"If that's the real effect, we would be able to reconcile the mineral physics results with the seismological results," says Vocadlo. "People have not been able to do that yet."

Earth's magnetic field extends far out into space (Credit: Andrzej Wojcicki/SPL)

There are plenty of riddles about the earth's core still to solve. But without ever digging to those impossible depths, scientists have figured out a great deal about what is happening thousands of kilometres beneath us.

The magnetic field helps to shield us from harmful solar radiation
Those hidden processes in the depths of the Earth are crucial to our daily lives, in a way many of us don't realise.

Earth has a powerful magnetic field, and that is all thanks to the partially molten core. The constant movement of molten iron creates an electrical current inside the planet, and that in turn generates a magnetic field that reaches far out into space.

The magnetic field helps to shield us from harmful solar radiation. If the core of the Earth wasn't the way it is, there would be no magnetic field, and we would have all sorts of problems to contend with.

None of us will ever set eyes on the core, but it's good to know it's there.

moonkoon
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:37 pm

Stretch Marks on Pluto?

Unread post by moonkoon » Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:16 am

The original NASA image of Pluto is here. It is very large, about 70 Mb.

Below is a portion of the South-West sector of the whole image. It shows extensive rifting that could be interpreted as being the result of some kind of regional inflation pressure being applied to a relatively brittle surface crust by a presumably lower viscosity mantle layer. The rifting appears to be a relatively recent feature as the cracks cut across older circular features.

Image

User avatar
Vecta3
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Vecta3 » Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:35 am

The presence of other materials would bring the core's melting point down a bit, to around 6,000 °C. But that's still as hot as the surface of the Sun.
Interesting. I wonder if it could be logically hypothesized that the core is in some ways, a sun. Before coming to the EU I had already intuited that the sun's interior was not like it's surface. My feeling is that in the centre of the Earth you have, similar to the Sun, matter at absolute zero. Absolute zero would lead to the least amount of excitation and therefore the most amount of free space for matter to occupy. So a superdense material state that allows a focal point for incoming Birkeland currents? This matter also allows astral matter to "inflow" into the 3rd dimension creating more matter from nothing, breaking supposed physical laws. But then, imo, all matter existing within a living field, like a plant or human, transports matter from the astral to the physical. Probably all matter can do this.
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.

pavlink
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:14 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by pavlink » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:07 am

Vecta3 wrote:
The presence of other materials would bring the core's melting point down a bit, to around 6,000 °C. But that's still as hot as the surface of the Sun.
Interesting. I wonder if it could be logically hypothesized that the core is in some ways, a sun. Before coming to the EU I had already intuited that the sun's interior was not like it's surface. My feeling is that in the centre of the Earth you have, similar to the Sun, matter at absolute zero. Absolute zero would lead to the least amount of excitation and therefore the most amount of free space for matter to occupy. So a superdense material state that allows a focal point for incoming Birkeland currents? This matter also allows astral matter to "inflow" into the 3rd dimension creating more matter from nothing, breaking supposed physical laws. But then, imo, all matter existing within a living field, like a plant or human, transports matter from the astral to the physical. Probably all matter can do this.
Have you read this, channeled, material?
It contains some ideas concerning your speculations about the core and the currents.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/t ... #msg176211
We live in a double star system.
We need to study double star systems.

Solar System as 4D energy vortex
http://files.kostovi.com/8835e.pdf

User avatar
Vecta3
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by Vecta3 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:54 am

Interesting, thanks. Lower than absolute zero? I can appreciate that as it must be distinguishable from common space at absolute zero else everywhere would be a core. A different realm? Sort of though still occupying physical space albeit in a none mechanical way, so a window between 2 realms maybe? Similar to the fact that glands, in particular the pineal, are also non mechanical. The only non mechanical parts of the body. Heating and cooling? Find that hard to grasp but don't deny it's possibility.

In some ways matter could be construed as holes in the aether. So the core could be viewed as either superdense or having more space than anywhere else. Ammonia crystal is interesting. I've always pictured the core as black,,,like a sining blackness if there can be such a thing. It could be Ammonia. That would make it highly alkaline, which is "cooling", nurturing, drawing in (gathering). Thanks for the share anyway
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.

pavlink
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:14 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by pavlink » Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:57 am

Vecta3 wrote:Lower than absolute zero?
A temperature below absolute zero
Atoms at negative absolute temperature are the hottest systems in the world
January 04, 2013
http://www.mpg.de/research/negative-abs ... emperature
Physicists at the Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich and the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching have now created an atomic gas in the laboratory that nonetheless has negative Kelvin values.

Imagine a whole star at negative absolute temperature.
As if it is just a core, perfect current sink/source.
Indispensable for double ( All ) star systems circuit.
We live in a double star system.
We need to study double star systems.

Solar System as 4D energy vortex
http://files.kostovi.com/8835e.pdf

pavlink
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:14 am

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by pavlink » Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:39 am

Planetary expansion is affecting navigation

US Navy grabs old-fashioned sextants amid hacker attack fears
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14 ... 4994953549
We live in a double star system.
We need to study double star systems.

Solar System as 4D energy vortex
http://files.kostovi.com/8835e.pdf

User avatar
MattEU
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: Are the planets growing?

Unread post by MattEU » Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:56 pm

pavlink wrote:Planetary expansion is affecting navigation

US Navy grabs old-fashioned sextants amid hacker attack fears
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14 ... 4994953549
Where does it say that or is that a playful joke?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests