Our planet's center may be more active than thought

Earth's Moving, Melting Core
Our planet's center may be more active than thought

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...core.html?etoc

On Aug 4, 4:29*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Earth's Moving, Melting Core
Our planet's center may be more active than thought

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...ving-melting-c...

Nice public funded research and spiffy simulations. Thus far all
speculation and in need of further public funding, thereby we get
these eyecandy infomercials so that we at least think we're getting
our moneys' worth.

How come no mention of heavy elements like thorium or uranium?

~ BG

On Aug 4, 6:04*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

How come no mention of heavy elements like thorium or uranium?

Oh, no! The Earth has a uranium core, not an iron one? I guess we'd
better get the space program moving...

Wait a moment, that can't be. Our Sun isn't red.

John Savard

On Aug 4, 8:38*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 4, 6:04*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

How come no mention of heavy elements like thorium or uranium?

Oh, no! The Earth has a uranium core, not an iron one? I guess we'd
better get the space program moving...

Wait a moment, that can't be. Our Sun isn't red.

John Savard

I said nothing about any 100% pure thorium or uranium core.

Do you have another Semite approved zinger for us?

~ BG

~ BG

On Aug 5, 12:29*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Earth's Moving, Melting Core
Our planet's center may be more active than thought

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...ving-melting-c...

As they use geomagnetic signatures left on the evolving surface
crust,by definition,they already link the Earth's rotation with
crustal motion and evolution but somehow fail to take notice of the
viscosity of the fluid which pours out of every volcanic or plate
boundary is determining the mechanism behind not only the motion of
the crust but also why the planet has a 26 mile spherical deviation.

The spherical deviation has been known for centuries and the reasons
behind it center on the planet's rotation with current attempts
amounting to an arrow pointing out from the dead center of the Earth -

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sfigs/Bulge1.gif

If the spherical deviation is placed within the discipline of fluid
dynamics then a more satisfactory explanation emerges,at least in
principle as the uneven rotational gradient associated with
observations in fast moving stars correlate shape with maximum
equatorial speed even if these studies generally omit that
differential rotation exists,the faster the speed the more numerous
the shear bands and the more uneven the shape -

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/200..._2001_150.html

Of course,to determine an uneven rotational gradient and shear bands
beneath the Earth's fractured crust requires a maximum equatorial
speed and to think that virtually no attempt is made to explain the
planet's spherical deviation or its geological evolution through the
dynamic of daily rotation is dismaying to say the least.

It is though men are afraid of the processes that go on beneath the
fairly thin crust under their feet and that for all the fuss about
rotation to stellar circumpolar motion,the interior does not rotate
evenly as all celestial objects with low viscosity compositions
do.This is just another instance where astronomical observations act
to fill in the modelling and speculative gaps and although imaging
power has yet to resolve spherical deviation in fast rotating stars,it
becomes a geological case of what is above then so below,at least in
terms of fluid dynamics.

On 05/08/2010 04:38, Quadibloc wrote:
On Aug 4, 6:04 pm, Brad wrote:

How come no mention of heavy elements like thorium or uranium?

Oh, no! The Earth has a uranium core, not an iron one? I guess we'd
better get the space program moving...

Neither Uranium or Thorium are siderophile elements (as can be confirmed
experimentally by analysis of iron meteorites).

Periodic table showing the Goldschmidt classification of various
elements according to their chemical affinity is online at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siderophile_element

Uranium and Thorium are both silicate loving and widely distributed as
2ppm trace elements in the Earths crust, but seldom as mineable ore.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Aug 5, 12:29*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Earth's Moving, Melting Core
Our planet's center may be more active than thought

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...ving-melting-c...

When somebody intelligent looks at the entire length of the Mid
Atlantic Ridge,sees its orientation and the fracture zones coming off
perpendicular to the Ridge along with all the other characterisitcs
that seem to shout out loud that the Earth's rotational dynamic is
involved,they is those times when the observer is free to speculate as
to mechanics behind the difference between the solid but fractured
crust and the fluid dynamics occuring beneath it.As the idea of
'convection cells' are so repulsive when considering crust development
off the MAR,it is just as easy to consider the lag/advance mechanism
where one shear band moving at higher latitudes generates crust to the
East while in contact with a faster moving shear band towards the
equator creates crust towards the West,depending on how many shear
bands there are,the process is repeated hence the symmetrical
generation of crust either side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge -

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/new...ges/index.html

The idea that the crust suddenly decides to sink or is dragged down by
'convection cells' is ridiculous and investigators can't be this
desperate to avoid the rotational dynamic which supplies the mechanism
for crustal evolution mainly due to the difference between the even
rotational gradient of the surface crust and the uneven rotational
gradient of the interior.The loss of crust at the boundaries can be
attributed to a type of erosion as the fluid interior contacts the
crust,something like a loose analogy of sandbank erosion by water and
keeping the whole thing local -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrbX...eature=related

Little point in discussing this without the affirmation that the
equatorial Earth turns through 1037.5 miles for 15 degrees of rotation
and this alone should be incredibly disappointing for every reader
here.

On Aug 5, 12:47*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Little point in discussing this without the affirmation that the
equatorial Earth turns through 1037.5 miles for 15 degrees of rotation
and this alone should be incredibly disappointing for every reader
here.

Y'all sure as hell got yure knickers in a spin, int'ya, sunshine? Oi'd
be wurryin' like 'ell if the ol'mud ball was a changin' up a gear. But
sure as 'ell sleep easy knowin' it don't ever. It do be t'cceleration
wot does most 'arm. Not the spinnin' in the furst place. So y'all wana
do yure basic homework dy'hear? Sometimes I do wish the bløødy planet
would brake or 'cellerate an' chuck you off. But us poor ignorant
buggers would suffer the dame fate and that don't seem very fair to
me. So you bugger off and sit on the sun an' watch them planets
gliding smoooothly past n'learn from it. Dy'hear?

On Aug 5, 1:20*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 05/08/2010 04:38, Quadibloc wrote:

On Aug 4, 6:04 pm, Brad *wrote:

How come no mention of heavy elements like thorium or uranium?

Oh, no! The Earth has a uranium core, not an iron one? I guess we'd
better get the space program moving...

Neither Uranium or Thorium are siderophile elements (as can be confirmed
experimentally by analysis of iron meteorites).

Periodic table showing the Goldschmidt classification of various
elements according to their chemical affinity is online at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siderophile_element

Uranium and Thorium are both silicate loving and widely distributed as
2ppm trace elements in the Earths crust, but seldom as mineable ore.

On the other hand, Gold is siderophile; I remember reading that
somewhere.

Of course, the main purpose of my post was to refer whimsically to the
menace of the Earth ending up like Krypton, if fissionable material in
the Earth's core was something the knowledge of which was suppressed.

John Savard

On Aug 4, 10:21*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

Do you have another Semite approved zinger for us?

Siegel and Shuster _were_ Jewish, that's true.

John Savard