Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum vast water reservoir hidden beneath the earth

If I recall in a previous thread , one of the main objections
to the account in the Bible of the Great Flood ( Noahs Ark ) was that there could not have been enough water to cover all of the mountains on the earth.

Looks like that objection no longer holds water!

Paul, I thought about you when that news broke.

How aware are you of the actual situation, and the way in which this “water” would be incorporated into the mantle?

As so often happens, the media have (perhaps with some justification in the light of Graham Pearson’s over exuberance) dramatised the situation.

One minute “drop” of water in one crystal of ringwoodite from one location in the transition zone is hardly proof of subterranean “oceans”.

If that amount of water really is there it will be built into the crystal lattices of the minerals. Try wringing water out of an opal!

Much of the so-called water in rocks is incorporated as OH molecules, which are not even wet, but are commonly referred to as "water" content.

A lot more samples, from a lot more locations, would be needed to provide anything like scientific proof of anything remotely “oceanic”. For the moment, it’s little more than media hype.



Mail = Encyclopaedia fox populi.



1.5% of what; a miniscule crystal of ringwoodite?

I suppose its a little too early to be defending the find.
the article was published today.

I can say that an increase of temperatures would release the
O and H from the crystals as the crystals become liquid.

as the O and H gasses rise to the surface fractures in the rock can produce electric discharges due to pressure buildup and sudden release which could combine the H and O into H20 molecules forming water and the gasses that reach the surface could be combined into water as lightning could combine the H and O into water as H20.

also it could just as easily rain for 40 days and 40 nights...

And that would have been quite a deluge. In 40 days and 40 nights it rained 29,000 feet over all the surface of the Earth. To simplify the math let's say 28,000. That comes to 70 feet per day, or approximately 3 feet per hour. I'm surprised the ark didn't swamp under that kind of a deluge.

Bill Gill

It is relatively easy to extract water from a mineral such as selenite (CaSO4.2*H2O) by heating; but not so easy to extract it from the hydrated form of talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2.) and less easy from a ring silicate, which is the sort of thing you would be more likely to have to deal with in the mantle.

Then you would have to explain where sufficient heat came from to dewater the transition zone, and drive that water to the surface.

If you did that you would have to explain how the transition zone could shrink by about 1% without causing major tectonic disruption to the overlying mantle and crust, which, far from having shrunk, would have to swell to accommodate the passage of the water.

Possibly this could produce relatively small quantities of water, but to produce the quantities necessary for the “flood” would result in the sort of tectonic disturbances that would have left a very distinctive mark in the geological record, everywhere in the world.

I think you might have to find evidence of worldwide, contemporaneous volcanic activity of the sort that formed the Deccan Plateau before you could make a cogent argument for dewatering the transition zone.

If you could do that, and explain the source of the heat, you could probably make a good argument for the water evaporating and resulting in a vast amount of rain. You might have trouble fitting it all into the Biblical time scale, though.

Stick with it Paul, I welcome any excuse to rethink my rusty geology.

yes , but you shouldnt confuse this deluge with the comparatively low amounts of rainfall that the earth receives due to solar radiation.

thats kind of like comparing a firecracker to a hydrogen bomb.



there are recent records that show several feet in a 24 hour period from solar radiation alone and that radiation is
apx 93 million miles away.




it was probably really rough at first but as more and more land was covered the water would calm down because it could flow over the areas where land once blocked it from flowing.

like the smooth rolling waves in the middle of todays oceans.




try this

from around 130,000 years ago until
around 13,000 years ago a very large amount of the earths
water became locked up in ice.

the ice formed around the north and south poles.
and extended towards the equator for thousands of miles
and was several miles thick.

thats a lot of weight moving to the center of rotation
and this movement of mass to the center of rotation caused
the earths crust to spin faster.

so the earths crust was spinning much faster than it is today.

and the friction between the magma and the earths core caused an enormous amount of heat that was transfered into the magma
this caused the transition zone to heat up , and along with the heating up , the magma that melted the transition zone and filled the transition zone expanded the way that magma / all matter does due to temperature increases.

That may seem like a lot of ice, and a lot of weight, but in relation to the volume of the Earth it's not a lot.

Consider that the oceans comprise about 0.1% of the volume of the Earth, and that there is no evidence that at any point the oceans were completely frozen. That is, unless you include the Pre-Cambrian "Snowball Earth" theory; and I suspect the Pre-Cambrian may be a bit far in the past for your liking.

Another consideration here is that the oceans form part of the crust, as did the ice, so the phase change from water to ice is not going to add weight to the crust. The transfer of water from the oceans to ice on the land caused isostatic readjustment, but that would not involve the sort of movement that would increase friction in the transition zone.

the problem with your reply is that the earths crust only makes
up apx 1% of the earths volume.

the earths crust is like the rubber part of a inflated rubber balloon.

the crust is not attached to the magma underneath it and the earths crust floats on top of the magma.

the crust , the mantle , and the core all spin independently of each other and at different speeds from each other.




http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior/

I could clearly understand your comment if the earth were a solid ball , because that amount of mass moving towards the center of rotation would not matter much at all.

but the earth is far from being a solid ball.

Not the best analogy, Paul.



This suggests that there is a layer of magma under the crust. That is not quite the situation. Magma occurs only locally, where temperature is higher than in surrounding areas.

You are absolutely right in saying that the comparing the Earth to a solid ball is not right, in that it is a dynamic body, but in the normal usage of the word, it's quite solid, the internal movement is very slow. It is a common mistake to think that the motion of tectonic plates involves the sliding of crustal plates over the mantle at the Mohorovicic discontinuity. In fact, the upper mantle moves with the plates.



There is a small difference between the rate of rotation of the core and mantle, but as far as I am aware, the only difference between the movement of crust and mantle is caused by plate movements, which is certainly not unidirectional spin, and the plane of differential motion is not at the base of the crust.

to me that sounds like you were saying that the rest of the earth would prevent the crust from spinning faster because of
its mass , like it were a solid.





I didnt say that weight would be added to the crust , did I?



I didnt say anything about the sliding of the plates , I said that the earths crust would spin faster.



I didnt say that either , I said this



when I wrote this.



I meant the earth floats on the mantle , not the magma.

still any increase of spin of the crust will translate into heat inside the earth , the spin that we have today causes
the temperature of the bottom of the earths crust to reach
temperatures of 1600 F +.

if the earths core did not spin at a different speed than
the earths crust then the earth would freeze solid.

there would be no friction to heat the earth.




in fact the extra spin of the crust that would be the result
of ice gathering at the poles is possibly the reason that
the earth has recovered ( began to warm up ) at the height
of the many ice ages it has had in the past.

Paul, given that you didn't say the various thing you claim you didn't say, I shall have to devote a little effort to finding out what you actually said and seeing if it makes any sense to me.

Perhaps we are making the mistake of trying to cover too many different points in a single post. How about we take one point at a time?

Let's start with this.



If you were not saying that this involved an increase in mass/weight of the crust, why would there be any difference in the tendency for movement towards the centre of rotation before and after the formation of ice?

If you were not saying that this involved an increase in mass/weight of the crust,

its not an increase of mass/weight of the crust.

why would there be any difference in the tendency for movement towards the centre of rotation before and after the formation of ice?

that is explained a little better further down.




thats a lot of weight moving to the center of rotation...

the earths crust holds the oceans weight , the sea level of
the earths oceans undergo a significant drop during an ice age.

apx 100 meters lower than today.

and this movement of mass to the center of rotation

the worldwide drop in sea levels of apx 100 meters gathered
at and around the earths poles.

caused the earths crust to spin faster.

if you understand physics then you understand that by moving
mass toward the center of rotation gives energy to the rotation (increases the rotational speed).

there does not need to be any additional force applied for the
increased rotational speed and there does not need to be any additional mass added for the increased rotational speed.

the reason that the rotational speed increases is because the
energy needed for angular acceleration of mass further from the center of rotation is greater than the energy needed for angular acceleration of mass when it is closer to the center of rotation.

since the earths crust already had angular momentum before the
ice age relocated a vast amount of the earths ocean water to the poles , any movement of mass to the poles would add angular
acceleration to the earths crust increasing the angular momentum of the earths crust. (increasing its rotational speed)

picture one of the round swimming pools that you can buy
20 feet in diameter and has a height of 5 feet and its filled with water.

only it is made of stainless steel.

it holds 1,570 cu ft of water.

in the center of the pool there is a 2 foot diameter stainless steel drain pipe that is capped at the bottom and extends to a verticle depth of 500 ft.

the pipe is baffled so that water can not spin inside it.

it can hold 1570 cu ft of water.

the drain pipe is not filled with water.

at the top of the drain pipe there is a water valve that
when opened will allow water to flow through it at a
flow rate of 1 gallon per minute.

the water valve is remotely controlled.

the entire contraption is attached to an axle and the axle is mounted on frictionless bearings.

you apply a force that rotates the pool containing the drain pipe and the valve and the 1,570 cu ft of water to a rotational speed of 1 rev per 24 hours.

the valve is remotely turned on and water begins to flow from the pool into the 500 ft of drain pipe.

after 1,570 minutes have passed the pool will be empty and the drain pipe will be full , and the pool the drain pipe and valve and water will be rotating faster than you first rotated it.

there has been no weight added , there has been no energy added (except that used to open the valve), there has been no additional momentum added.

if you calculate the initial momentum and the final momentum
it will be the same. (or the difference will be negligible)

the overall contraption is rotating faster.

1,570 gallons of water has moved closer to the center of rotation.

I understand the physics of moving mass toward the centre of rotation increases the speed of rotation, but I thought it wise to make sure we were talking about the same thing before moving on.



Two points are worthy of note here:

1. The build up of the vast thickness of ice took thousands of years. Over those same thousands of years local vertical movements of crust and upper mantle would take place as isostatic equilibrium was slowly restored. The maximum ice thickness would, roughly, be contemporaneous with the maximum crustal depression, thus minimising the effect you describe.

2. As far as I am aware the Mohorovičić discontinuity does not constitute a surface of slippage on a global scale. Perhaps I should look these things up rather than relying on memory, but where do you get the idea that the crust and mantle spin at different rates?

As I said above; I am aware that there is a difference between the rotation rates of core and mantle. The difference would be between inner core and mantle, and it is the core that rotates faster. What evidence do you have that the crust might rotate faster than the mantle?

You may point out that you didn’t say that, but if increasing rotational speed of the crust increases friction, then it cannot be because the mantle was formerly rotating faster.

I like your contraption, but it bears little, if any, relation to the situation in question.

Paul, you might want to check the math on how much the Earth would speed up with the weight of the water moved to the poles. On a very simplistic calculation I find that the mass of 100 feet of water from the surface of the ocean would be about 2.35 * 10^16 lbs. The mass of the Earth is about 1.32 * 10^26 lbs. That means that 1/10,000,000,000 of the Earth's mass would be moved to the polar regions. I'm afraid that amount of mass would have almost no effect on the rotational speed of the Earth.

Your explanation that the crust is not rotating at the same speed as the core doesn't really help all that much. They are still coupled together by fluid dynamics, and the whole Earth would have to speed up. Keep in mind that fluid coupling works quite well in the transmissions of most cars on the road today.

In your example with the fancy funnel the vast majority of the mass of the system would move to the axis of rotation. That would have significant effect on the rotational speed of the system. So it is not a very good analogy to the problem of the water moving to the poles.

And one very minor correction. You kept talking about the water moving close to the center of rotation of the Earth. You probably meant the axis of rotation, which is a more correct statement. The center of rotation is at the center of the Earth, approximately equidistant from all points on the Earth's surface.

Bill Gill

Even that small effect is diminished by isostatic readjustment.

I've just looked back at my earlier post. I guess I shouldn't have put the accents on the "c"s of Mohorovicic! I assume that's the problem.

Bill S.


I just figured it did when I thought about what could cause the
earth to recover from the many ice ages in its past.



it just so happens that the core does spin faster than the earth , not only does it spin faster it spins in
opposite directions , the inner core super rotates in a
eastward direction , the outer core rotates in a westward
direction while the earths crust rotates in a eastward direction.

that doesnt really sound like theres much solidarity
going on in there.





the mantle , in my opinion moves at apx the same speed
and direction as the crust where the two meet , then as depth increases the speed of the mantle gradually decreases until
at some depth the speed of the mantle goes to zero and then reverses direction as it is dragged into a new direction by the westward spinning outer core.

the mantle obviously isnt a solid , so it would follow the way
that a fluid would react in this same situation.

of course there is much more to it than the above , but that should do as a summary.

I believe that the core moves around inside the earth also.
and spins at more than one direction.

Bill



its a good thing that the crust isnt attached to the other 99%
of earths mass.

and it was 100 meters not 100 ft.

and you would need to remember that the crust only makes up
apx 1% of the earths mass and volume I think.

and the seas make up only .1% of the earths volume.





yes , if I thought about it that way I would agree with you.
but since the earth is not a solid ball , I'm afraid I cant.



yes , and fluid dynamics includes the viscosity of fluids and the vast amount of heat down there means that the atoms do not interact that well , the degree of viscosity / friction is vastly diminished from what it would be if it were solid rock , still given the pressures down there the viscosity would be enormous.

viscosity is like the friction of a fluid.



you would think that if that were true then there would be
no differences in the speeds of the many layers of the earth.

but I suppose that isnt true.



the example was just that , an example.

and it clearly shows what would happen to the rotation of the entire system if mass moves towards the center.



I was talking about the earths rotation , I just figured that Bill S already knew that.

Paul, your latest post deserves more comment than I have time for at present, but one thing I must ask is, where did you get the information that the core and mantle rotate in opposite directions? That is not my understanding.

A reasonable thought, but certainly not supported by evidence from the study of seismic waves.

Paul. a thought occurred to me while dog walking. I wonder if your idea that the core rotates in the opposite direction came from the fact that the differential rotational rate causes the axis of rotation of the inner core to precess eastward. Could that be right?

Bill, I did some checking after I saw that claim by Paul. He is right. If you do a search for Earth core rotation you can find a number of sources for the information. One of them is Why Earth's Inner and Outer Cores Rotate in Opposite Directions. What I am not sure about is the rates of rotation.

On Discovery I found this. Earth's Rotating Inner Core Shifts Its Speed According to this one the inner core rotates in approximately every 750 to 1,440 years.

The Daily Mail has an article Earth's inner core spins in an eastward direction - the opposite to the outer core . In this one it doesn't say how fast the outer core spins except to say "Meanwhile the outer core, made up of mainly molten iron, spins westwards at a slower pace". So the outer core takes even longer than to inner core to make a revolution.

I don't think that is going to provide anything to help Paul's hypothesis.

Bill gill

this article is from Columbia University
Dr. Song and Dr. Richards

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol22/vol22_iss1/Core_Spin.html



and its 400 years per revolution.



I certainly hope you guys didnt expect it to spin much faster
than that.

with that apx 5,000 C and 140gpa pressure at the outer core
its a wonder the outer core can spin at all , much less in an opposite direction from the mantle and crust above it
and the inner core below it.

its fascinating stuff.

but the earth is a awesomely large dynamo down there.
and thats why there are different speeds and directions of
the different layers of earth.

I can certainly understand how a faster moving crust would
stir up a lot of extra heat down there , sorry if you guys
cant see it that way.

any extra heat down there eventually makes its way up here.

it has no where else to go...

400 years per revolution?

So in 400 years, the planet rotates, or revolves, (let's say) 146,100 times.
That means, over that same time, the inner core would rotate 146,101 times, right?

I'm unsure of the other rotation comments, such as retrograde motion, but the idea that they are talking about the axis of rotation ...and perhaps precession, sounds more likely.

I wonder what this might mean for mantle plumes....

-

It seems that these stats are a bit out of date, and about a million times too fast.

http://phys.org/news/2011-02-earth-core-rotating-faster-rest.html

The outer core is liquid, so its movement relative to the inner core and mantle is likely to be “chaotic” if they are rotating at different rates. It is difficult to imagine a mechanism that would start and maintain the movement of a liquid in a direction opposite to that of the solids enclosing it.

You can find all kinds of statements and scientific “facts” on line. Try googling something like “Do photons experience time”!

Here’s an example:

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/07/q-does-light-experience-time/

I'm not sure what we are supposed to see. If the crust were moving faster than the upper mantle, I can see that that would generate a lot of heat, but not only is there no evidence that there is differential motion along the Moho; there is good evidence that tectonic plates are composed of crust and upper mantle, and that movement occurs at the LVZ, deeper in the mantle.

It will mean a lot less if the latest figures are correct.

BTW; are you a plume supporter?

well , I guess it all boils down to which article is found first, LOL.

I have a definite problem with the article you posted about
Cambridge U.



its obvious that solid FE which comprises the inner core
is heavier than the composition of the FE and S above the inner core.

its also obvious that when pure FE is separated out of the FE and S of the outer core and the pure FE bonds with the inner core there are things that happen.

1) there would be a layer just above the inner core consisting mostly of pure sulfur.

2) the viscosity of the pure sulfur when heated increases unlike other substances whos viscosity decreases.
and I haven't yet to read any evidence in your article that
discusses this variation in viscosity concerning the sulfur
that would be deposited from the FE and S in the outer core.
given that the pressures would increase the melting and boiling temperatures and other properties.

3) the momentum of the inner core would decrease and likewise
the momentum of the outer core would increase.
this would point to the inner core slowing down during the process , not speeding up.



Im curious if the differences above and the what they found that consistently shifted east with depth was nothing more than layers of sulfur.

the sulfur could have a viscosity that is so strong that it
could be being confused with the upper 90 km of the inner core , also the density of the sulfur could have a great
potential for confusion.

the only evidence we have is through the use of seismic waves
and a layer of sulfur might just slow down a seismic wave.

we have observed huge boulders floating on fast moving water here on the surface of the earth.

with the increased pressures and viscosities of sulfur down there velocities are not really that important for such a thing to happen.

so the FE and S could be floating on top of the pure sulfur.

the article about the hypothesis and its proposed inner core speed and the reasons it claims that the previous speed is wrong and the evidence given is too questionable for
me to accept.

Paul, you raise some interesting issues in your last post, I'm not ignoring it; just a bit short of time.

I only heard some news (plus saw some awesome "picture") of latest data that sounded fairly normal and well accepted. Is there some disagreement or alternative explanations?

I think most significant is that Continents are original, multi billions-year-old crust, and yet the oldest seafloor crust is only a fifth of one billion years old.

I've been trying to learn about the evolution of soils, and sediments and sedimentary processes play a big role. Big understatement, I'm sure, but new paradigms point to both changing life and changing climate has determined evolution of different soils ...as well as the rocks and clays that many buried, weathered, and/or petrified soils turn into. ...or words to that effect.

The weight of those sedimented layers, especially in various areas on the generally bowl-shaped Continents, has me wondering about growth of continental "roots" and if material exchanges with the mantle or those "young" subducted plates.

Aside: do you think a radically different distribution of glacial ice sheets could alter tilt and wobble of the planet?

~

The momentum of the inner core would decrease only if the deposition had a greater influence than the pushing effect, which is unlikely. Given that there is a pushing effect, wouldn’t the increase in mass involve an increase in momentum? P=mv, so if v is maintained, and m increases, p increases.

Would the opposite not apply to the outer core?

In your model, which I am not disputing at this point, the inner core and outer core rotate in opposite directions. Both chemical reactions and frictional drag operate at the inner/outer core boundary and the outer core/mantle boundary. Wouldn’t this tend to slow the rotation of the outer core, and promote turbulence; rather than increase it, as you suggest?

As with many things, it is possible to find different chemical formulae in different references for the deep Earth. From my recollection of Open University days, and more recent reading, I think that seismic studies indicate that the inner core is composed of 90+ % Fe/Ni, with some lighter minerals.
The outer core is believed also to be mainly Fe/Ni with possible some S. What it comes down to is that one has to evaluate information as best one can, and wait for the next discovery to add further confusion.

Discoveries made a few years ago suggest that the lighter elements in the inner core might have migrated to the top.

http://www.livescience.com/10324-earth-core-layer-scientists-claim.html

I sure would like to see the model that would show a magnetic field that could do that.

from what I know about magnetic fields you need motion of the field in order to push anything in a direction.

and the direction of motion of the inner core is eastward.
an eastward motion cannot push westward.

how do they explain that away?

lets try using the shell of the inner core as if the magnetic field were shaped like a big donut.

even still the direction is eastward because the core spins eastward.

you would need 2 separate magnetic fields.
could there be 2 separate magnetic fields?

I suppose you could have 2 separate magnetic fields ,
because you do have 2 cores that are spinning.
it could be like a small magnet inside a larger magnet.

I really want to see that model.

I would like for us to clear the above up first if we can.



if there were an additional force added for rotation as the additional mass is added to the rotation then yes, the momentum would increase.

what we have here is a big ball of iorn that already has a amount of momentum which is P=mv.

----------
in order to add velocity to the inner core
you would need to supply enough force to accelerate the entire
mass of the inner core to the desired velocity!!!

----------

momentum = the mass of an object times its velocity.

without adding velocity to the object the momentum
of the object will decrease.

it would be extremely hard to get me to believe that
when some iorn is deposited onto the surface of the inner core
there is somehow a corresponding added force added to rotate the inner core.

perhaps at this point is where QM and relativity could solve the dilema.

the added velocity just pops in from one of the many parallel universes or what ever is popular that day.

It wasn't my link that that came from.

Just like to show that I read other folk's links.

Even if they are from the Mail!

Even if they are from the Mail!

or one of these !

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130916162005.htm

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articl...ns-eastward.htm


http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/5699/the-dynamics-of-earths-core

these days is pays to think about what you read , a lot of it
just gets copied from one web site to the next without the application of thought.

So far I've had time only for a glance at the first of your links.

It seems to talk of S waves propagating through the core. Unless the laws of physics have changed in the last 30 years, S waves don't propagate through liquids.

I seem to recall that S waves reaching the outer core can somehow propagate as modified P waves, then change back into S waves when they reach the inner core, but I don't remember the details, and don't have the time to look it up.

Does anyone else feel that what is being interpreted as westward motion of the outer core might mean only that the inner core and the mantle/crust are rotating eastward faster than the outer core?

I do. The inner core is rotating about 2/3 of a second per day faster than the mantle/crust (Core Spins Faster Than Earth). So the fact that the outer core is 'rotating in the opposite direction' Doesn't mean that it is really going the other way around. In fact since it seems to be rotating more slowly in the reverse direction (that's from one of the links I threw in up above) then it isn't exactly like driving the wrong way down a freeway at 100 mph. The reversal of direction is relative to the inner core and the mantle/crust. With respect to the stars it is still rotating the same way.

Bill Gill

There’s a lot of misinformation out there. Much of it is generated by the media who are more interested in a story than in fact; but some obviously comes from enthusiastic researchers who understandably want to push their ideas to the fore.

Whatever one may believe about humans having walked on the moon, or about our machines being on other planets; one thing is certain: we have never visited the mantle, much less the core.

We know little about the mantle, and even less about the core. My belief is that the best we can do is to evaluate the information available in the light of physics and common sense, and see where it leads.

I may not have accepted Paul’s argument at the start of this discussion; I may still not accept it at the end, but I think the proposal and discussion of non-mainstream ideas is always likely to be of value.

I bet that’s no surprise to anyone on SAGG.

Let's have a go at clearing this one.



If p=mv, and m is increased, v could decrease by the appropriate amount and p could remain unchanged. Even without a mysterious force appearing from somewhere, p would not necessarily decrease as mass was added.

The point I was making included the statement, in Bill’s link, that the magnetic field did some pushing. If that were the case p could actually increase as m increased.

There is an added complication in that it is possible that melting of the upper layer of the inner core is also occurring. I have yet to find any reference as to how that fits in with the deposition of material from the outer core onto the inner.

not me , Im under the impression that they meant westward motion
when they said westward motion.

they would have used something like

slower eastward motion vs westward motion if that were the case.

thats not the way I see it.

looking at a rotating earth may throw you off.

try looking at it as if the earths crust and mantle were stationary.

the inner core should still be spinning eastward.
and
the outer core should still be spinning westward.

I agree.

The momentum of the inner core would decrease only if the deposition had a greater influence than the pushing effect, which is unlikely. Given that there is a pushing effect, wouldn’t the increase in mass involve an increase in momentum? P=mv, so if v is maintained, and m increases, p increases.

so if v is maintained

if there were an additional force added for rotation as the additional mass is added to the rotation then yes, the momentum would increase.

what we have here is a big ball of iorn that already has a amount of momentum which is P=mv.



P would change because mass is added , as it slows down
P would go from a higher number to a lower number.

lets try that to see if it works.

without using magic.


P=mv
P=100kg x 10mps
P=1000 kg/ms or Ns

lets add mass and keep the velocity

P=mv
P=200kg x 10 mps
P=2000 kg/ms or Ns --> P goes to a higher number because mass is added.

now lets lower the velocity also

P=mv
P=200kg x 5 mps
P=1000 kg/ms or Ns --> P goes to a lower number

yes that works , but how will the entire inner core be decelerated.

by adding mass to the inner core !!!

the magnetic field cant push the inner core if the magnetic field is generated by the inner core.

because that would be like a magnet sitting on a table spinning around under its own power.

I think we need to include a few electromagnet fields.

possibly generated by the westward spinning outer core
and the eastward spinning inner core , crust and mantle.

dont you?


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/MagEarth.html

That is correct. The Earth's magnetic field is generated by the rotation of the conductive core. Movement of the electrons in that core produces the magnetic field. As I understand it the differential rotation of the inner and outer core would be created by the effects of the field from the inner core acting on the outer core. So the inner core would be pushed one way by the magnetic field while the outer core would be pushed the other way. That is like standing on a rotating platform and pushing against a rotating ring around the outside of the one you are standing on. You would rotate one way and the outer ring would rotate the other way.

Bill Gill

This would be the case even though the inner core is not magnetic?

It just depends on it being conductive. The rotating magnetic field generates a current in the core and that current creates a magnetic field in the opposite direction. That's the same way small electric motors work.

Bill Gill

for clarity

The rotating magnetic field (of the inner core)

which is not an electromagnetic field

generates a current in the outercore

because the non electromagnetic field of the inner core causes electrons to pass
charges within the molten metal of the outer core in the direction of the inner cores non electromagnetic fields motion.

and that current creates the electromagnetic field of the outer core..which repels the magnetic field of the inner core causing the inner core itself to spin... in the opposite direction.

although the outer core and the inner core spin in different
directions , the electromagnetic field of the outer core would
still repel the magnetic field of the inner core.

like poles repel each other.

That's the same way small electric motors work.

I think I have that sort of right , what do you think Bill?

this brings us to why do we have pole shifts , LOL

A little clarification may be needed here. In fact all magnetic and electric fields are part of an electromagnetic field. They do not exist in isolation. We frequently speak of a magnetic field or an electric field as if it was an independent item. However, that is just a matter of how we are looking at them. Here is the Wikipedia article It has a fairly good explanation of just how the electromagnetic field works.

And with that small correction I think you have pretty good grasp of the situation.

Bill Gill

I think I'll leave you and Paul to sort out the EM stuff, while I see if I can find out a bit more about the geology of the core mantle boundary.

Should one assume that this means that the inner core completes one more rotation than the rest of the Earth in that time; rather than what it actually says?

That is certainly my interpretation. I recall one place I looked at that said there was an estimate of 1 degree per year, but they had a report that it was slower. I'm not sure now what the rate is, but it is not that much different from the speed of rotation of the Earth.

Bill Gill

I think the latest figure is about a million times slower.

Bill, could you copy n paste that part of the wikipedia article
I couldnt find it.

I want to try and understand how they have come to that conclusion.

I cant see how a magnetic field of a magnet could be confused with a electromagnetic field.

I did find this



When an EM field is not varying in time is the focus there I believe.
and its talking about what observers would see if it were not varying in time.



is that the part that you were referencing?

Paul, I wasn't really referring to any particular part of the article on Wiki. I just wanted to provide an overview of the electromagnetic field.


Keep in mind that the magnetic field of a permanent magnet is generated by the circulation of charges at the atomic level in the magnet. It is a manifestation of the electromagnetic field of those charges.

In your quote about static E and M fields notice that they are referring to EM fields that are not varying in time. This is of course a simplification, since there is in reality no such thing as an EM field that doesn't vary in time. It just varies such a small amount during the time we are observing it that we can work with it as if it is static.

Also in your second quote about observers who see a static E or M field notice that they mention that even if the observer sees static E or M field that the other field will be seen by observers in other frameworks. As I understand it that means that if a charge is not moving in one framework you can see a static E or M field, in that framework. If somebody else observes it who is moving with respect to the charge the other field will be observed in their framework.

And of course even if we have a static field and make some kind of measurement of that field then it will cease to be static, since our measurement will perturb it to some extent. This is an old problem in practical applications. I am well aware of it from the time I was an electronics technician. If I measured a voltage I had to be aware of the impedance of my measuring instrument, since it could load the source of the voltage and cause an erroneous reading. I needed to use a voltmeter that had a high enough impedance that it did not cause a significant change. Notice that it would cause a change, but not enough to create a problem in the reading.

Bill Gill

circulation?

don't you mean orientation of charges?

circulation of charges implies constant energy input into a permanent magnet that would generate any proposed electromagnetic field.

from what I have always understood to be fact , the magnetic
field of a permanent magnet is due only to the orientation of atoms within the magnet.

like striking a iron bar while holding it in line with the
earths magnetic field causes the iron bar to be magnetized because the atoms inside the iron bar all align with the earths magnetic field and they remain locked into that orientation and the orientation is what causes the magnetic field.

theres no charges that are circulating in a permanent magnet
unless theres something that causes the charges to circulate as
in a electromagnet that has current passing through it.

and as soon as the current is removed the electromagnetic field is also removed.

this wouldn't be like QM or Relativity stuff would it?

because it sounds a lot like it may be.


each atom has a north and south pole.
like the earth has , when the iron bar is struck the atoms all
align with the earths magnetic lines of force.

the charges that you say that are circulating is nothing more
than the alignment of the atoms inside the iron bar.

striking the iron bar is what allows the atoms inside the iron bar to move around and align with the earths magnetic field.

if there were charges being circulated within a permanent magnet then the proposed charges could be extracted using a
copper wire coil because the electromagnetic field should also protrude from the permanent magnet , to date I don't think this has been accomplished.

it must be QM or Relativity because it certainly isn't reality.




if what you meant was

circulation of charges within the atoms of the magnet.

then I could certainly agree with you.
because each atom has circulating electrons , LOL

that would mean that you could stack atoms up on top of
one another and form a larger magnetic field , but still there is no circulation of charges within the magnet itself , only in the atoms of the magnet.

and all iron bars do not naturally have a magnetic field , but all iron bars do have atoms within it that have magnetic fields.

and charges do not pass from atom to atom unless the atoms are excited by some external means , so theres no circulation of charges outside of the atoms in a permanent magnet.

the iron core of our earth generates a simple magnetic field.
it does not itself generate any type of electromagnetic field.

I said that the charges were at the atomic level. It is the individual charges within the atom that create the magnetic field. When the atoms have their magnetic orientation aligned then the bar becomes a permanent magnet, produced by the circulation of all those charges in the atoms.

And yes it is a QM effect. Just about everything that isn't SR comes down to QM.

Bill Gill

Not having a great deal of luck finding references to counter rotation of the outer core, but this one provides a slightly different perspective.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/40/15914

“Seismic probing of the earth’s deep interior has shown that the inner core, the solid core of our planet, rotates slightly faster (i.e., eastward) than the rest of the earth. Quite independently, observations of the geomagnetic field provide evidence of westward-drifting features at the edge of the liquid outer core.”

lets revisit the moments.



and its not an electromagnetic field , its a simple magnetic field.




I dont believe that needed correcting however
when you wrote the below I believe it needed correcting.

as all magnetic and electric fields are part of an electromagnetic field.

all magnetic and electric fields are not part of a electromagnetic field.

all magnetic and electric fields
are caused by the orientation of atoms.















what circulates in the atoms?

in order for there to be circulation a charge would have to leave an atom at the bottom of the stack of atoms and move to the atom above it , until it reaches the atom at the top of the stack of atoms , when the charge leaves the top of the stack of atoms then the charge would have to travel from the top of the stack ( outside of the magnet and to the bottom of the magnet ) and then enter the magnet at the bottom of the stack.



that is so very sad.



the above tells me that a magnetic field and an electric field are two separate fields but they are both components of an electromagnetic field.


https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

thanks Bill S

that hit the spot.



this type of research has value and deserves more.

while reading the article I noticed several points that I
have been considering and have posted here.

Always glad to help.

Seriously, though, this thread does seem to be uncovering areas in which there is either very little reliable information, or that information is difficult to access.

I think I have once again demonstrated that Paul isn't really interested in the reality of science, so I will drop this matter. For everybody else, just remember that Paul doesn't know how science works and won't bother to learn and take any thing he says with a grain of salt until you have checked it out.

Bill Gill

I agree , that's why I believe that more research in this area
is needed.

and the research will sort out the refuse.

Im gald for you , you should pat yourself on your back.

Be that as it may, this discussion has raised some interesting geological thoughts, and there could be more to come.

Looking back at discussions with PreEarth, there are lots of aspects of mantle geology I would have skimmed over had it not been for his arguments. The same applies here, so I'm still in on the geology part.

The current model of the Earth in sciencebooks is totally wrong, don't forget that. The Earth is hollow, has an internal sun, has polar openings, and shell thickness is 480km.
The Earth is expanding as well, primitive radius was 3700-3800km.
Due to the expansion and conservation of mass, the Earth becomes hollower and hollower. If they say there are oceans at depth 450-600km, only proves this only true theory.
Shell Theorem? wrong. The center of mass is not equal the center of gravity. You are not weightless inside a hollow Earth, only in the center.
Mass of the Earth? Needs recalculation, will be much less.
Gravitational constant also wrong.
Other planets are hollow too, even our Moon.
Baffled by this information? I can proof every single word I say.
MD

interesting stuff

TTT

Im not going to say that the hollow earth theory is not valid.

and

Im not going to say that the hollow earth theory is valid.

but I would like to hear your most important piece of evidence
that the earth is hollow.

Ok, first, I will prove that we have an inner sun and polar openings.
Jupiter
Cassini polar movie:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Jupiter_Polar_Winds.gif
Look at the censored image from NASA:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Map_of_Jupiter.jpg
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1895/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1895-9347.jpg
Why are they doing that you think? rarara
You can clearly see the inner sun in the movie.

Moon
Check the Moon in Google Earth. Do to the south pole. You see the light from the inner sun. The 'moon impact probe' is highly probably a coverup. This can never be 1 photo, there are 100 strips of photographs attached to each other, so its an eternal light source.

later more

Hi Thoth This Through, thanks for the PM.

You say "I am pretty sure the Earth is hollow and has an inner sun."

I think the open forum is the best place to discuss this. May I suggest that a new thread would be a good idea. Perhaps you could start it with an explanation of why you believe these things.

Bill, it is obvious that Thoth has been reading the works of that eminent scientist Edgar Rice Burroughs. Burroughs wrote several volumes about the hollow earth, starting with "At the Earth's Core". In these volumes he outlined the lives of people living on the inner surface of the Earth, and the plant and animal life that they shared it with.

Bill Gill

I'm sorry, never heard of that guy. I'm not interested in reading fantasy nor scientific books. However, I like to read ancient texts from BC.

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/video/videodetails/?videoID=255

you might want to watch the above video.

the video has data in it that can help you to understand the
planet.

but you will need to understand how to apply the data.

usually the ability to apply data comes with the acquisition of knowledge from books.

I cant blame you for not wanting to read scientific books
because some if not most of them contain an agenda within their pages that I don't agree with due to my logical thought processes that I have acquired over the years.

and even if you might not agree with the agenda in the science books , they do have useful information in them that you can use to apply data from a set of gathered findings to form a view of any observed or unobserved instance.

in the above video you have data from an observed instance.

using gathered data and having the ability to apply that data will provide you with a wealth of insight into the theories that you encounter.

That's right most of them do have an agenda. Their agenda is to explain how the universe works.

Bill Gill

Are you trying to be funny? They explain how the universe works?? Are you really serious? They lie about EVERYTHING that lies further than 500 miles away from this planet. You're probably one of that guys who hardly believe in intelligent extraterrestrial life. Maybe you believe in alien bacterial lifeforms, but definitely not smarter than you.
If you believe in God, you believe in an alien who created us. Do not forget that.
Yes, your idol Newton was a genius, but his 'shell theorem' is absolutely rubbish. The center of gravity is NOT located in the center of the sphere. He had a pen and paper, but he could not use computerpower. I made a simple vbscript which proves he was wrong. Gravitational constant G is miscalculated, so is the mass of the Earth.
I only trust one thing and that's my own tiny brain. We know only 0.001% of what's really happening in the universe.

Well Thoth, I guess you need to move this discussion over to the Science Fiction forum, since that is what you seem to be talking. Otherwise we don't need any more people who are just here to stir up a lot of garbage. So bye-bye

Bill Gill

I will let Thoth speak to this poor child of men (Bill Gill):
Deep in Earth's heart lie the Halls of Amenti,
far 'neath the islands of sunken Atlantis,
Halls of the Dead and halls of the living,
bathed in the fire of the infinite ALL.
Far in a past time, lost in the space time,
the Children of Light looked down on the world.
Seeing the children of men in their bondage,
bound by the force that came from beyond.
Knew they that only by freedom from bondage
could man ever rise from the Earth to the Sun.
Down they descended and created bodies,
taking the semblance of men as their own.
The Masters of everything said after their forming:
"We are they who were formed from the space-dust,
partaking of life from the infinite ALL;
living in the world as children of men,
like and yet unlike the children of men."
Then for a dwelling place, far 'neath the earth crust,
blasted great spaces they by their power,
spaces apart from the children of men.
Surrounded them by forces and power,
shielded from harm they the Halls of the Dead.
Side by side then, placed they other spaces,
filled them with Life and with Light from above.
Builded they then the Halls of Amenti,
that they might dwell eternally there,
living with life to eternity's end.
Thirty and two were there of the children,
sons of Lights who had come among men,
seeking to free from the bondage of darkness
those who were bound by the force from beyond.
Deep in the Halls of Life grew a flower, flaming,
expanding, driving backward the night.
Placed in the center, a ray of great potence, Life
giving, Light giving, filling with power all who came near it.
Placed they around it thrones, two and thirty,
places for each of the Children of Light,
placed so that they were bathed in the radiance,
filled with the Life from the eternal Light.
There time after time placed they their first created bodies
so that they might by filled with the Spirit of Life.
One hundred years out of each thousand must the
Life-giving Light flame forth on their bodies.
Quickening, awakening the Spirit of Life.
There in the circle from aeon to aeon,
sit the Great Masters,
living a life not known among men.
There in the Halls of Life they lie sleeping;
free flows their Soul through the bodies of men.
Time after time, while their bodies lie sleeping,
incarnate they in the bodies of men.
Teaching and guiding onward and upward,
out of the darkness into the light.
There in the Hall of Life, filled with their wisdom,
known not to the races of man, living forever 'neath the cold
fire of life, sit the Children of Light.
Times there are when they awaken,
come from the depths to be lights among


So there is life at 3 places: On the outside of the planet, on the inside of the planet, and in the shell of the Earth. This is what this topic is about: how you can get oceans 480km deep? Simple, the Earth is hollow with an inner sun. What's above is what's below and what's above is what's below. Smart guys will know what I'm talking about. Earth is expanding as well. Read your holy bible, the Genesis, and look for similarities with this text. You are an American, you'll probably believe in 'God'. I'm not a sci-fi fan, i will not move to there because this is the truth I'm talking about.

The world of the mainstream scientists is about to collapse. Their Earth model is completely wrong. How do they explain the presence of deep underground oceans? Isn't there magma of thousands of degrees? Water would just vaporise instantly. Your idol Newton said you're weightless inside a hollow sphere? You will have to wait for another famous genious to disprove that, before you will believe it. Because everything what Newton or Einstein said, is holy gold according to scientists. Start thinking with your own brain and never believe someone untill you have researched it for yourself. There are holes at the poles. Find me a uncensored picture of the North or the Southpole. You will only find photos with black or white dots on it. Don't tell me that satellites cannot see the poles.

I'm Dutch, i'm sorry for my English
TTT