Earth's core as a converter of neutrinos
I proceed from the assumption that the conversion of neutrinos and materialization in elementary particles takes place in the inner core. For the conversion no energy at all is used, because the inner energy together with the outer energy of the particle amounts to zero. The neutrinos merely have to be remodelled into another structure and for that they at first have to be slowed down with the help of the oscillating interaction.
During this process of slowing down, as said, no heat is formed because in the case of a mass less particle no energy can be set free in the domain where the classical law of conservation of energy is valid. Only after completion of the process of materialization we are able to detect mass and energy of neutrinos.
But if the oscillating interaction is taken as a basis, the oscillation with opposite phase between particle and earth's core, then contrary to all expectations a cooling down takes place. If the particle has reached its region of destination in the core, then the oscillations are overlapping. Mathematically seen they are added with reversed sign; they thus are
subtracted. The result of the mutual compensation is the decrease of the thermal oscillation and the cooling down of the region which was expected.
In addition the formed particles with a mass mutually contract and in doing so are further cooling down, as we will derive. The physical limit of the process of contraction and cooling down is formed by absolute zero, at which no thermal oscillation at all occurs anymore, so that superconduction becomes possible with the result of giant electric currents and magnetic fields, which can be detected even at the earth's surface in damped form, for instance with a compass.
The necessary heat energy is flowing towards the quick-frozen inner core from the outside, principally from the outer core. Here, in the core, from the neutrinos slowed down to the speed of light various elementary particles are formed. Most of them immediately fall apart, to form other configurations. In the end only electrons and protons are preserved, which, as the only stable particles, can't fall apart anymore. These again are trying hard to take the state of an atom, which however needs very much space with the large distance between atomic nucleus and hull. Under the high pressure the enveloping electrons therefore will time and again fall into the nucleus to form neutrons together with the protons.
The neutrons need no atomic hull and can, as is well-known of neutron stars, take an extremely high density. In the case of the earth's core the neutrons however cannot be stabilized. The contraction to a neutron is accompanied by a corresponding drop in pressure, so that the neutron falls apart again. A continual oscillation of size is formed, with which the neutrinos again interact. With that also the high density of the earth's core
would be explicable simultaneously.
In earth's outer core the various atoms and isotopes are formed, which in the sum release more energy than they absorb in their fusion processes. Here the fusion oven rages, which supplies the inner core with heat energy. The formed matter is pushed further to the outside, rolls as a viscous mass through the earth's mantle and collects the surplus radiation and heat from the fusion oven. With this model of explanation we now can tackle the calculation of the growth of the earth.
Inner structure of the earth
Next the question is raised: How fast does our earth actually grow? The calculated growth, distributed over the 200 million years, results in a yearly increase in the diameter of the earth of less than 0.1 mm. Carey assumes 0.04 mm per year and Owen only 0.01 mm per year.
Actually the young earth must have been somewhat bigger than calculated, because as a result of the smaller gravitational acceleration the density of the matter must have been smaller. But this changes nothing to the relations, because the less dense earth was surrounded by likewise less dense water, the water-level nevertheless reached the peaks, as already calculated.
For indicating absolute linear measures and the calculation of the gravitational accleration the respective density should be considered. In most calculations the density is cancelled out, so that as well can be calculated with an unchanged density. A grave error however lies in the assumption of a linear growth. Hilgenberg assumes an exponential growth and gives as a reason for the empirical approach of the e-functionthe 'law of organic growth".
In order to now not to speculate or to postulate in the same manner, we will derive and found our approach. If namely the earth grows, then its core of fusion also grows, which causes the growth to take place accelerated, etc. A customer of a bank, who sees his amount of money grow according to such a regularity, will be given information immediately about the growth rate with a compound interest calculation.
But how big is the growing fusion reactor of our planet? According to today's level of knowledge about the structure of the earth the inner core is surrounded by the outer core and that again by the earth's mantle. On top floats the thin, but firm earth's crust, on which we live. The inner core has a radius of nearly 1390 km, the outer core stretches to a radius of 3500 km, whereas the crust is only between 10 and 78 km thick, dependent on the geographical latitude
lk wrote:- The neutrino expansion idea is interesting except for the 200 million years figure. I doubt if the Earth is more than a few ten thousand years old, just as Venus is likely less than ten thousand years old. The Earth and other bodies likely expand rather rapidly, not gradually. Charles Cagle has a somewhat similar theory. He says neutrons, not neutrinos, form within bodies, causing the expansions, which are rapid and periodic.
- The guesses about millions of years figures seem to be based on uniformitarian assumptions. Robert Gentry has a website that has excellent evidence that Earth's basement granite rock crystallized almost instantly instead of over millions or billions of years.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests