[Boerseun]

Hey, Charlie - you don't seem to want to answer me, so I'll quickly repeat myself:

If, what you propose to be the case, is true, then the planet won't gravitationally cohese and would fly apart. If the centrifugal force was indeed more potent than the gravitational force, then the planet would fly apart.

Having a metallic hydrogen core is possible for fat planets like Jupiter, but only because of the abundance of hydrogen. But keep in mind that even on Jupiter, the metallic hydrogen actually overlies a rocky core. So even there, the rocks sank to the bottom. And this is proposed due to the density of Jupiter. If Jupiter was completely hydrogen, then it would've been less dense than it is found to be. Also, Jupiter have been (and are still - consider Shoemaker-Levy) bombarded by rocky interplanetary objects, and Jupiter's visible surface is still found to be mainly hydrogen. Where did the heavy stuff go? Keep in mind that Jupiter revolves around its axis once every ten hours, much faster than Earth. So the effect you're describing should be even more visible there than on Earth.

I can understand if you're not too positive about having a fruitful discussion after raising this very same question for more than 40 years, but the simple truth is that the evidence points the other way. Heavy stuff sinks to the bottom, lighter stuff rises to the top. On Jupiter, the same applies, but there is so much of the lighter stuff that the hydrogen can achieve a metallic state, and be close to the core. But the very core is still rocky in nature, not hydrogen. On Earth, there simply ain't enough hydrogen for the same to apply. Any hydrogen existing here would overly the formerly molten rock, or what we would see as the surface. Once again, the same applies to Jupiter. All the hydrogen is overlying the rocky surface of a planet not much bigger than Earth. But it's one hell of a big atmosphere.

I'm asking you very kindly not to dismiss my post again, because I believe I'm raising some serious issues for your premise. Also, keep in mind that if you've been trying to discuss this for the last 40 years without success, you might simply be ignoring arguments against yours. And that's not how science works. We take a look at all the evidence at hand, and if the evidence doesn't support our pet theory, well, then it turns out we were wrong and we go on to the next one.

[CharlieO]

Good work TURTLE. You did well in your review of current scientific thinking as evolving over time; from an entirely Iron Core to one now being assumed to be mostly Iron, etc., possibly alloyed with Hydrogen. At least there are questions now being raised about the possibility of Hydrogen at least being part of Earth's core. With this evolving position in scientific thinking, it may eventually be possible for more serious scientists to accept the more likely and more logical concept of there being a largely Hydrogen core; some now do.

Unfortunately, self-serving scientists, with their careers at state, still maintain, without question, the popular assumption that intense heat must exist within the core. Yet they don't have a shred of provable, physical evidence beyond their own assumptions of easily misunderstood factors; surface heat flow, extra-terrestrial bodies' impact energy, etc. It is this assumption of intense heat that is my next shoe, of many.

As for my question about heavier elements following iron into Earth's core, one well done answer offered above seems to claim they did. If so, then all the other heavier elements, as well as iron, were originally found on the surface of proto-Earth in far greater quantities than galactic proportions. In reality, deep bore hole cores haven't found iron nor heavier elements, including radioactive elements, in the deepest layers of Earth's Oceanic crust. This might indicate these elements may not exist in Earth's mantle.

Yet the current theory-assumption would also have us believe the inward flowing heavy elements would so cleanly separated from their parent deposits as to leave behind no trace of their progress thru the mantle. That only an enormous excess of these elements could flow inward, without any trace of their passage, yet leave behind sufficient quantities of each in the crust. This stretches the imagination. I'm still amazed that so many can accept this fairy tale.

In addition, the current theory-assumption has these heavier elements and iron first being found on Earth's surface and then flowing inward in response to Gravity. This leads to the conclusion there first had to be a region of lighter elements which initially made up Earth's core. The obvious lighter elements being hydrogen and helium. Ah ha!

The current theory-assumption explains this situation of there being admittedly an initial core of 'lighter elements' by having the assumed enormous excess of iron, and now heavier elements, displace these 'lighter' elements. Then the current theory-assumption claims the lack of Earth's sufficient gravity and our sun's solar winds washed these 'lighter elements' away from Earth and into space. All very convenient and all assumptions, as well as physically impossible. However, imaginative and very creative on the part of some self-serving scientists, but still illogical when the evidence all around us, gathered by serious scientists thru Hubble and many other surveys of outer space, begs to differ. See my prior post on how the universe behaves.

In response to BOERSEUM: Sorry if I neglected to include you in a personal answer, might have been because I've been so busy of late. However, having survived a medical emergency created by a just passed over snow storm, I will try to answer you directly in the future.

For now, please review what I have written to TURTLE as I believe this may answer some of your concerns. Also try to understand that centrifugal force, which is affecting all matter from atoms to the universe, must have played a very critical part in Earth's formation. I still find it hard to believe so many view Earth as a static model and think that centrifugal force played no part in its formation, evolution or present composition.

Still don't understand what expolsions have to do with disproving centrifugal force. Please advise.

Best Regards, CharlieO

[CraigD]

I think some confusion has ensued in this thread due to the lack of a succinct summary of CharlieO’s idea, allowing it to be considered for its scientific merit. Rather, the bulk of Carlie’s arguments have presenting a speculative account of a long history of scientific mistakes and subsequent cover-ups, in an effort to discredit the mainstream scientific consensus. As Turtle noted, this is essentially an ad-hominem argument, which is generally considered fallacious, and discouraged at hypography.

In order to put the thread on a track better aligned with our site rules and standards, I’ll attempt to summarize Carlie’s idea, and compare it to the mainstream consensus on the Earth’s structure and formation

• • Charlie proposes that Earth has a mostly hydrogen core.
  • Mainstream theory proposes that it has a mostly iron core.
• • Charlie proposes that Earth formed from the condensation of a hydrogen rich cloud, and thus constitutes a large fraction of Earth’s mass.
  • Mainstream theory proposes that Earth formed from the gradual accretion of hydrogen and helium-poor Planetesimals, small bodies similar to present day asteroids, and thus hydrogen constitutes less than 0.2% of Earth’s mass.
• • Charlie proposes that, in the early formation of the Earth, higher density elements such as iron, became concentrated near its surface, while less dense elements, such as hydrogen, became concentrated near its center.
  • Mainstream theory proposes that higher density elements became concentrated near the Earth’s core, lighter elements near its surface.

Before proceeding to elaborate on this summary, and evaluate these two conflicting ideas, I’d like confirmation that it’s an accurate statement of Charlie’s idea, and the mainstream consensus. Without going beyond a summary, please post any corrections, avoiding any ad-hominem arguments, personal anecdotes, or elaboration and explanation of a simple statement of the ideas.

[CharlieO]

Review: Excellent summary, wish I had done this long ago, but got side tracked with illogical assumptions and unrelated examples.

* Charlie proposes that Earth has a mostly hydrogen core.

There is ample physical evidence of hydrogen venting from within Earth on a daily basis in such amounts over eons of Earth's history as to only be available from a hydrogen core, which can also generate a magnetic field.

* Mainstream theory proposes that it has a mostly iron core.

There is not one piece of physical evidence for an iron core, albeit the ignorance of alternative elements with magnetic properties would have made a core of ferromagnetic materials a logical assumption at the time, but still only an assumption.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Charlie proposes that Earth formed from the condensation of a hydrogen rich cloud.

Not only Earth, but all suns and planets throughout the universe, which can be observed to be forming in the same manner.

[and thus constitutes a large fraction of Earth’s mass.] I don't remember writing such a thing and, if so, I wish to retract any consideration of the size of hydrogen's mass at this point.

* Mainstream theory proposes that Earth formed from the gradual accretion of hydrogen and helium-poor Planetesimals, small bodies similar to present day asteroids, and thus hydrogen constitutes less than 0.2% of Earth’s mass.

This is such a contrived assumption as ignore how all other galactic masses are known to have formed and you have the problem of explaining the assumption of why these mythical Planetesimals were hydrogen and helium-poor and then explaining how they came into being. Then, one has to assume Earth was formed after the rest of our solar system was created in some special manner, unlike the formation of planets in the rest of the universe. All this would simply be more assumptions with no possible proof. Then one has the problem of explaining how a point in space, initially without any gravitational mass, can be assumed to attract all these mythical Planetesimals to it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Charlie proposes that, in the early formation of the Earth, higher density elements such as iron, became concentrated near its surface, while less dense elements, such as hydrogen, became concentrated near its center.

Actually, I proposed that magnetic, metallic hydrogen molecules, within a spinning cloud of largely hydrogen, most of which later became our sun, were attracted to each other within eddies in the surrounding solar cloud of largely hydrogen and few other elements. Then I propose these eddies developed into a series of spinning masses which became the planets rotating around the sun. It would be only after enough hydrogen collected to become a viable mass, with sufficient gravity, that any heavier elements in the surrounding cloud could be attracted to the initial mass of hydrogen, and then only after the spin rate of the initial hydrogen mass slowed so the other elements could collect on the surface of what would become a hydrogen core.

* Mainstream theory proposes that higher density elements became concentrated near the Earth’s core, lighter elements near its surface.

Let's be fair now. Mainstream theory is more complicated. It has higher density elements, mainly iron, assumed to have initially formed on Proto-Earth's surface, then it is assumed the iron somehow flowing inward, against a centrifugal force which would have been a significant factor within an Earth spinning far more rapidly than it does today. Then Mainstream theory assumes this iron displaced the 'lighter elements' in Earth's core. This agrees with me that hydrogen was the first to form Earth's core, before the assumed iron arrived. However, I claim the enormous excess of iron assumed to now be within Earth never existed and iron could not have physically flowed inward against a more dominate centrifugal force existing at the time of Proto-Earth, thus our hydrogen core is still there and still producing evidence of its existance on a daily basis.

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

...our hydrogen core is still there and still producing evidence of its existance on a daily basis.

Regards, CharlieO

O Charlie! Your're a good sport I must say first. Now to that hydrogen coming out of Earth (and the critters that eat it.).

Originally Posted by NASA

... "The hydrogen that could feed bacteria in the depth of the Earth comes from a subtle chemical reaction that occurs within rocks that were once hot or even molten. In the top 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of Earth's crust," Freund said, "the conditions are right to produce a nearly inexhaustible supply of hydrogen. In the top 5 to10 kilometers (about 3 to 6 miles) all fissures and cracks in the rocks are probably filled with water. Hydrogen molecules will seep out of the mineral grains, enter the intergranular space and saturate the water. Microorganisms that live in these water films can be expected to use this hydrogen as their vital energy source." ...
NASA - Hydrogen-fed Bacteria May Exist Beyond Earth

[CharlieO]

Good to see TURTLE still hanging in there. I sincerely appreciate the effort.
---Quote (Originally by NASA)---
... "The hydrogen that could feed bacteria in the depth of the Earth

Charlie here: Is there any evidence there are bacteria in the depth of the Earth? Seems like another assumption.

(NASA) comes from a subtle chemical reaction that occurs within rocks that were once hot or even molten.

Charlie here: What is the 'subtle' chemical reaction? Is there any physical evidence of rocks in the "depth of the Earth" even being once hot or even molten? Seems like more unqualified assumptions to me.

(NASA) In the top 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of Earth's crust," Freund said, "the conditions are right to produce a nearly inexhaustible supply of hydrogen.

Charlie here: The Russians only drilled seven miles deep in Kola. Where is the evidence of any physical analysis done at 12.4 miles? If there is none, this must also be an assumption.

(NASA) In the top 5 to10 kilometers (about 3 to 6 miles) all fissures and cracks in the rocks are probably filled with water.

Charlie here: Probably filled? Fissures and cracks at that depth? Shell has drilled to five miles, the Russians to seven. No fissures or cracks of useful size were reported at depth, unless they were micro sized. At you may know, such micro sized spaces between grains do a good job of filtering out bacteria in aquifers. I recently had a well drilled to 455 feet, no fissures or cracks were found, but enough water did filter in thru micro cracks to provide sufficient, tested, bacteria free water for our household use. This "Fissures and cracks - - probably filled" remark appears to be just another assumption.

(NASA) Hydrogen molecules will seep out of the mineral grains, enter the intergranular space and saturate the water.

Charlie here: Where do these hydrogen molecules come from? Mineral grains? How long have they been seeping hydrogen? Earth is probably older than the nearly four Billion years currently indicated. Would need a lot of hydrogen in a lot of grains to feed the bacteria over that amount of time. Seems more like a good assumption in support of a hydrogen source from within Earth, albeit not from a finite number of mineral grains. Earth's core is a more likely source.

(NASA) enter the intergranular space and saturate the water.

Charlie here: Well if hydrogen seeps out of anything it would sure enter the inter-granular spaces, but "saturate" water? Isn't water already HOH? [Hydrogen+Oxygen+Hydrogen] What would a water molecule do with an extra hydrogen molecule? Hydrogen with an extra electron is deuterium, used to make "Heavy Water" for nuclear weapons. Don't know what a water molecule combined with an extra, ordinary hydrogen molecule might become. If this statement is not an assumption, it sure doesn't seem very scientific.

(NASA) Microorganisms that live in these water films can be expected to use this hydrogen as their vital energy source." ...

Charlie here: Is there any evidence of water films at 12.4 miles? Otherwise, this seems like just another assumption.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sincerely appreciate the effort by TURTLE to find what he might first believe is a good example, but the very fact that everything in the NASA quote is either 'may' or 'probably' or 'expected' or without any supporting evidence, makes the quote more like a series of assumptions supporting assumptions. In fairness, don't you agree?

However, the Russian Kola very deep borehole RESULTED in finding considerable amounts of water and hydrogen gas at seven miles, so the NASA assumption may at least be based in part on that discovery. In addition, there have been many recent articles in SCIENCE regarding the considerable amount of water which may [assumption] underlie Continental crust and possibly [assumption] explain Continental Drift.

Some personal history, which I hope is allowed in this forum: I am personally aware of water and hydrogen gas being a problem in very deep boreholes. In fact, while working for Shell (Oil) Development in Emeryville, CA, during the 1950s, the problem we were trying to solve was the effect inside metals resulting from contact with hydrogen in deep boreholes. I'm sure you can understand what might be the problem when a drill string breaks several miles deep. "Fishing" any broken string out of a borehole is extremely costly. So it was necessary to try to protect drill strings from the effects of hydrogen infusion. We did have some success, albeit failures created by hydrogen in deep boreholes have continued to this day.

My realization that Earth might have a hydrogen core came when I learned hydrogen had a magnetic, metallic phase and could generate a magnetic field. It had long troubled me how hot iron could generate a magnetic field, even when spun inside more hot [non-magnetic] iron. Thus both the impossibility of any viable mass spinning inside Earth, at core pressures, and the impossibility of a magnetic field being created by hot iron, plus my experience with hydrogen, led to the revelation that Earth must have hydrogen core; which could generate a magnetic field without needing to spin inside Earth. Hydrogen from the core also has the ability to effuse thru the mantle and produce evidence of its presence within Earth's crust, which is measurable on Earth's surface. The Chinese do this on a daily basis.

Regards, Charlie

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Good to see TURTLE still hanging in there. I sincerely appreciate the effort.

No worries. You countered well with your own assumptions. To whit:

Originally Posted by Chuck

...My realization that Earth might have a hydrogen core came when I learned hydrogen had a magnetic, metallic phase and could generate a magnetic field. It had long troubled me how hot iron could generate a magnetic field, even when spun inside more hot [non-magnetic] iron. Thus both the impossibility of any viable mass spinning inside Earth, at core pressures, and the impossibility of a magnetic field being created by hot iron, plus my experience with hydrogen, led to the revelation that Earth must have hydrogen core; which could generate a magnetic field without needing to spin inside Earth. Hydrogen from the core also has the ability to effuse thru the mantle and produce evidence of its presence within Earth's crust, which is measurable on Earth's surface. The Chinese do this on a daily basis.

Regards, Charlie

But that assumption seems countered by new evidence by scientists of some qualification or another. At least the funding to gather it I dare say.

Originally Posted by New York Times

As the earth turns, the center of the earth turns even faster.

Confirming assertions first made in 1996, a team of geophysicists are presenting data in the journal Science today showing that the earth's inner core, a ball of solid iron larger than the moon, spins faster than the rest of the planet. Over a period of 700 to 1,200 years, the inner core appears to make one full extra spin.

That extra spin could give scientists information about how the earth generates its magnetic field.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/science/26core.html

Here's some bacteria living in rock from 4,00 feet down a blowhole...er...borehole.

CORVALLIS, Ore. - A team of scientists has discovered bacteria in a hole drilled more than 4,000 feet deep in volcanic rock on the island of Hawaii near Hilo, in an environment they say could be analogous to conditions on Mars and other planets.

Bacteria are being discovered in some of Earth's most inhospitable places, from miles below the ocean's surface to deep within Arctic glaciers. The latest discovery is one of the deepest drill holes in which scientists have discovered living organisms encased within volcanic rock, said Martin R. Fisk, a professor in the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University. ...

12-29-03 BACTERIA DISCOVERED IN 4,000 FEET OF ROCK FUELS MARS COMPARISON

Take 5. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em.

[CharlieO]

Good show TURTLE, you are going to get me back in the library yet. I remember reading about the plastic nature of Earth's outer core in SCIENCE magazine some years ago, but since they come to me via email thru my membership in AAAS, I haven't retained them. I will admit I'm trying to avoid Information Overload and have been winging it on memory.

EARTH'S INNER CORE SPIN: As for the plastic nature of Earth's inner/outer core relationship, some movement is certainly a possibility, even at core pressures, because the force of gravity acting on individual 'grains' or molecules decreases with depth. While pressure may increase to levels beyond our comprehension in Earth's core, there is no more force of gravity in the center of Earth. Effectively, molecules in the center of Earth's core are 'free floating,' albeit jammed together by the pressures created by the mass of materials around them.

By way of explanation, Newton didn't get it wrong, he just didn't take into consideration the fact that Gravity has a push-pull effect in every direction, where as Newtonian physics deals with the relationship between individual objects only on a vertical basis; Moon to Earth, Cannon balls and targets, etc. Gravity inside a cohesive mass includes an added vector to the vertical up and down vectors. This includes horizontal or sideways vectors. So one has to include push-pull vertical vectors as well as sideways vectors in calculations for the effect of Gravity on molecules within Earth.

When this is done, and the assumed intense internal temperature is dismissed as an illogical factor, the requirements for Earth's core density are greatly reduced. In fact, calculations including horizontal vectors make it obvious that metallic hydrogen, compressed by pressures within Earth, nicely equals the density required for Earth's core. Accordingly, iron, compressed by pressures within Earth, especially when intensely heated, becomes far too dense to be in Earth's core, even when alloyed with hydrogen.

MATH EXPLANATION: Neil B. Christianson is an engineer of some accomplishment. He was the head of the Titan Missile program and no slouch when it comes to advanced mathematics. He undertook to compute the values for Earth's density at multiple levels and wrote the following explanation:

When Newton was working with gravity, he was concerned with the flight of cannon balls and orbits of satellites. He had to show that the total mass of an orb, regardless of its layered distribution, could be treated as though all mass is located in the orb’s center. As proof, he separated a hypothetical orb into concentric shells of different densities. His shells had walls of zero thickness and all shells shared a common axis. He then chose an individual shell and sliced across its axis to produce stacked rings. Next, he rotated the masses of these rings around the common axis to locate them on an arc of that shell’s circumference. Using an individual ring’s combined mass he then calculated the gravitational force it produced on a gram mass sitting outside of the orb—directly above its axis.

Since the force produced was the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle, he simply used trigonometric relationships to determine the vertical vector produced by that ring’s mass. He repeated the process for all ring slices in that shell. Then, repeated the process for all other shells. Adding up all vertical vectors, he showed that their sum was exactly the same as would be produced by considering the orb’s total mass to be located at its center. Now, he ignored the horizontal vectors, because they had little effect on a gram mass sitting outside the orb. But, this is not true for gram masses sitting inside the orb—no one has bothered to calculate trigonometrically the packing effect of horizontal gravity.

Once a radial vector is selected for use in trigonometrically calculating the strength of gravitational forces at descending depths, all other radial vectors disappear and the rest of the earth becomes nothing more than a bunch of individual gram masses. Applying gravity’s elastic nature to gram masses inside the earth, suggests gravity’s horizontal vectors work in a manner similar to the pull exerted by molecules in the skin of a rubber balloon. It seemed reasonable then that the strength of pull (packing effect) by gram masses at descending depths within the earth would be obtained by running thin walled shell calculations similar to the ones used by Newton—a very tedious, but eye opening, trigonometric calculation. Results are shown below.

Values for vertical gravity vectors obtained from my calculations, using directional vectors and the current hot-core model of earth’s cross section, match well with values obtained by Adam M. Dziewonski (Harvard). This makes me confident that my trigonometric approach is equivalent to his way of calculating vertical gravity at descending depths within the earth. My horizontal and vertical vectors in the earth’s surface are basically of equal value. However, my horizontal vectors in the center of the earth are four times the value of surface vectors. The current model of earth’s cross section has a core of nickel-iron to produce this strong packing effect; so, you can well imagine the packing effect that must result in a star with a degenerate neutron core (~40,000 g/cc).

[Sorry if the math tables are jammed together, they wouldn't transfer from the posting area to the displayed message. Hopefully, you can understand what the displayed mess really means.]

Model: Hot-core Average density Cold-core
Radius km Fv msec-2 Fh Fv Fh Fv Fh

6370 9.833 8.043 9.826 9.799 9.834 10.071
6359 9.852 8.134 9.834 9.926 8.947 10.194
6291 9.932 8.677 9.817 10.653 9.862 10.907
6116 9.875 9.774 9.364 11.987 9.589 12.334
5671 10.621 12.973 8.824 14.067 9.073 15.198
5371 9.946 13.217 8.244 15.008 8.199 16.486
4371 9.966 17.305 6.733 17.804 5.218 19.646
3871 10.235 19.739 5.969 18.960 3.112 20.158
2900 9.271 25.924 4.467 20.332 0.892 16.841
1217 4.221 32.240 1.875 21.890 0.437 15.244
700 2.483 32.878 1.078 21.973 0.263 15.121
0 0.000 32.025 0.000 21.509 0.000 14.944

While calculating gravitational pulls by gram masses located at various depths within an earth model of constant density (average), an interesting numerical relationship popped up. At all depths, the absolute value of the vertical vector, plus the absolute value of the horizontal vector equals twice the absolute value of the vertical vector on the earth’s surface. Since the vertical vector decreases in value, until it drops to zero in earth’s center, the packing effect of horizontal gravity quickly becomes the dominant vector. Also, since my gravitational pulls were derived trigonometrically (consisting of right angle triangles) these results can be proportionally applied to a molecular cloud, or a fragment thereof, by reason of similar triangles.

Neil B. Christianson, 1989

EARTH'S CORE SPINNING: One must consider the fact that any 'spin' of the inner core, which may be an illusion, would be created by Earth slowing in its rate of rotation, i.e., the fact is, our days are getting longer. This is largely due to the drag on Earth's rotation created by Moon's gravity.

Miss I. Lehmann of Danmark discovered the existence of Earth's inner core in 1936. This was measured by several researchers to be 1217 Km in diameter. Now, if Earth's main mass is assumed to be falling behind one rotation every 1700 to 2000 years we have a problem for the believers in a hot iron, magnetic generating, inner core. Assuming this retrograde rotation estimate for Earth is valid and 1850 years are a realistic average, consider the circumference of Earth's inner core to be 3832 Km.

If Earth fell behind in rotation once every 1850 years, the retrograde distance traveled in a single year would be 2 Km. Since there are 8766 hours per year, the retrograde speed of Earth in relation to its inner core would be 2.282 Centimeters per hour or less than one inch per hour. Not exactly a speed which could generate a magnetic field. In fact, common garden snails crawl much faster. Therefore, the existence of magnetic, metallic hydrogen being able to generate Earth's magnetic field without spinning appears to be a much more realistic alternative to the impossibility of a non-magnetic iron core generating anything at the speed of less than one inch per hour; if the inner core moves at all. [Check my math, not my strongest suite.]

BACTERIA IN EARTH'S DEPTHS: As for bacteria, the little buggers have been found deeper inside Earth than in your reference. In France there is a cave nearly 5,000 feet deep filled with the little devils. In the Marianas Trench they are doing well at 30,000 feet. I guess 12.4 miles or 65,000 feet was just more than my limited imagination could believe. However, I'm always willing to learn something new, so I'll have to recant on my flat denial of the possibility of such a thing. Still, I do believe there is water down there and that hydrogen does effuse thru it, so non-oxygen feeding bacteria are certainly a possibility. Thank you.

However, in your earlier post, NASA assumed hydrogen was effusing from within 'grains' to feed the bacteria. Consider the amount of hydrogen which might be needed to feed anything for 4+ Billion years or even for one week. While at Shell, I was able to infuse hydrogen into various samples, increasing their density, but not their size. Hydrogen has the unique property of being able to reside within other molecules; in some more easily than others and totally unable to penetrate some. Unfortunately for Shell Oil, drill strings were easily penetrated by atomic hydrogen and when molecular hydrogen effused during stress, it would gather in grain boundaries and rupture the crystals, leading to complete metal failures.

Unfortunately for the NASA assumption, at best, I was only able to increase hydrogen density in my samples by 70%. Russians claim to have increased hydrogen density in their samples by 110%, but how was beyond my limited ability. Even so, a 'grain' with 110% of its stored hydrogen capable of effusion and feeding bacteria would not provide much nourishment, perhaps only for a week or so. However, hydrogen effusing from within Earth could effectively provide unlimited nourishment for bacteria over eons. Good argument for a hydrogen core, no help for one of iron.

TURTLE this is great, your most applicable examples are a great help in jogging my memory, considering all my notes were lost in a move many years ago. Reliving research done more than 50 years ago has been fun.

Best Regards, Charlie

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

I remember reading about the plastic nature of Earth's outer core in SCIENCE magazine some years ago, but since they come to me via email thru my membership in AAAS, I haven't retained them. I will admit I'm trying to avoid Information Overload and have been winging it on memory.

The article referenced by the NYTimes story referenced by Turtle, and described by Charlie above, is available here:


GEOPHYSICS: Earth's Inner Core Is Running a Tad Faster Than the Rest of the Planet -- Kerr 309 (5739): 1313a -- Science

Nine years after suggesting that Earth's inner core may spin faster than the rest of the planet, the original claimants are back with persuasive evidence. The rate is not as fast as it first seemed, but possibly fast enough to help probe the nature of Earth's layered interior.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Good show TURTLE, you are going to get me back in the library yet. ...

TURTLE this is great, your most applicable examples are a great help in jogging my memory, considering all my notes were lost in a move many years ago. Reliving research done more than 50 years ago has been fun.

Best Regards, Charlie

No worries. I cut to the chase a decade ago after a fire and threw away what didn't burn the same as what did. At any rate, I've proffered more here than I said I would and I'll leave it all to other hands and just read along. I have already forgotten more than I know.