[CharlieO]

In response to a request from BUFFY, I have combined my Introduction Posts into a new thread for Earth Science enthusiasts to review.

1. The most popular theory [assumption, concept, guess, etc.] about Earth's composition appears to be based solely on a static model. In this theory, it is assumed that Gravity somehow forced an enormously excessively amount [in comparison to known galactic proportions] of mainly iron to move inward thru molten mantle materials [with temperature only an assumption], leaving other, heavier elements behind [physically impossible], and form proto-Earth's core. This is illogical to the core. [Pun.]

2. A dynamic model of Earth includes centrifugal force, a fact which seems to have been ignored in popular assumptions and supporting computations. Because Earth spins [like everything in the universe], it has a bulge at its equator as evidence of this force partially overcoming Gravity. Earth would have also slowed its spin rate over time, so there is no doubt Earth was spinning more rapidly in the past and probably disk shaped. Since Gravity would have even less effect at higher rates of spin, heavy elements could not possibly move into the center of proto-Earth's spinning mass, molten or frozen. Iron would only be found in proto-Earth's surface layers; where it is found today in approximately the expected galactic proportions and remains as physical evidence of the improbability of any iron being in Earth's core.

3. Of course, if proto-Earth did not spin, there would be no pesky centrifugal force. Then, Gravity might have forced iron to move into proto-Earth's core, IF Earth was molten to the core and IF such an illogical excess of iron had existed. Unfortunately, under the same assumed conditions, it is doubtful that ALL other elements heavier than iron would somehow stay behind. They, being heavier, might even arrive in the core first.

4. So why not a Gold Core or Uranium Core? Using the same theory-assumption-guess of Gravity forcing iron into Earth's core, gold, uranium and other elements heavier than iron would have also been forced into Earth's core and probably be alloyed with the iron. Then Earth's core would have a far greater density than it appears to have today. So the Gravity only model seems highly unlikely.

5. Currently, no one really knows the composition or temperature of Earth's interior. No one really knows if there are actually any radioactive elements there to heat the interior with their decay. Earth's interior might in fact be very cold and the only perceived heat flow be originating within continental surface layers and hydrogen-oxygen reactions within Earth's crust.

In response to JANUS' claim, "There is the fact that you need a large amount of ferris (iron) material spinning at the center of the Earth to generate its magnetic field. ETC.,"

To JANUS and others: Sorry, this "Fact" is another incorrect assumption. In fact, you don't need any amount of ferric material in Earth's core to create a magnetic field. In fact, recent discoveries appear to indicate the "Fact" of "ferris" material being in the core is only an assumption resulting from historical ignorance.

1. The initial assumption of Earth's core being of iron was based on the discovery of Earth having a magnetic field when scientists only knew of iron being the only element able to create Earth's magnetic field. However, it was later discovered that Hydrogen can also become a magnetic metal as well as incredibly dense at core pressures, easily capable of generating Earth's magnetic field without any spinning being necessary.

2. Earth having an iron core was at first only a logical, albeit ignorant guess, whether true or not. Then a misunderstood calculation by Sir Robert Boyle was used by some scientists to support their assumption that Earth's temperature increased with increasing depth to the degree that Earth's core was also molten. Actually, Boyle only calculated the rate at which temperature increased with increasing depth in Wales tin mines, as a means of settling a miner's pay scale dispute. He also concluded temperatures only increased with increasing depth due to the miner's heat energy input and the decreasing efficiency of air conditioning as depth increased.

3. Unfortunately, Boyle's pay scale calculation of temperature increasing with depth was used by self-serving scientists to "prove" their assumption of Earth's core also being molten; to explain how iron could have flowed into the core. Of course, then there was the question of how Earth's core managed to remain molten for billions of years.

4. Well, about 100 years ago, the discovery of radioactivity decay was assumed to be the heat creating factor in the mantle which kept Earth's core molten and the answer as to how the core could have stayed molten for billions of years. Unfortunately, radioactive elements are largely located in continental surface layers. A fact which seems to have been conveniently ignored by the Hot Iron Core enthusiasts.

5. Then there is the fact that natural openings and sealed, abandoned mines and bore holes in Earth's continental layers get cooler with depth. Nothing except the mines and bore holes being worked will increase in temperature with increasing depth and even they cool off when not being worked, i.e., no longer being injected with heat generating energy.

6. More recently, the assumption of increasing heat with increasing depth was complicated by the fact that iron heated above 800C can't generate a magnetic field.

7. Therefore, another assumption claimed Earth's inner iron core was rotating within Earth's outer iron core and thus generating a magnetic field. However, the fact is, non-magnetic iron spinning inside non-magnetic iron still can't generate a magnetic field.

8. Currently, many self-serving scientists and their graduate students, who can't risk disputing obvious inconsistencies, are now producing experiments and calculations which "prove" the initial assumptions of Earth having a hot iron core and generating Earth's magnetic field by spinning inside its outer iron core are correct. Unfortunately, any calculation, however complex and/or supported by any number of experiments, which includes just one assumed factor, will only produce a result with no validity; except to unquestioning believers.

9. So I came to believe the mass of Earth's inner core spinning inside Earth's outer core, surrounded by mantle material at incredible pressures, was science fiction at best. I also came to believe such an illogical series of assumptions supporting the initial assumption of there being an iron core inside Earth were totally unnecessary when a simple, highly possible and most likely core of magnetic, metallic hydrogen is considered as a viable alternative.

10. Metallic hydrogen had long been theorized before I learned in the 1950s that Russian researchers had produced small quantities, perhaps even before 1950. They reported it was a "silvery metal" and could exist at ambient temperatures and pressures, plus it had magnetic properties. How they produced it then was not known. However, USA researchers have produced quantities of metallic hydrogen more recently. Therefore, it appears the tremendous pressures within other giant planets may not be required to produce metallic hydrogen on Earth.

11. I suspect should hydrogen be compressed slowly to the pressures found within Earth's core, its density should become equal to that required for the core and generate Earth's magnetic field as well. However, I don't believe this experiment has been done as yet, but it may be done soon.

12. Many years ago, experimenters at Carnegie Institute did apply near-core pressures to iron and reported the iron molecules became far too dense to compose Earth's core. Then, a critical firestorm from their peers erupted over their report and forced the experimenters to recant, at least for a moment. A good example of dogma believers refusing to even fairly consider the work of those who discover viable alternatives and/or the impossibility of popular assumptions.

13. In response to my earlier posts, no one has yet tried to explain how an enormous excess of iron somehow passed thru many other, heavier elements to somehow become Earth's relatively massive core, leaving behind a reasonable amount in Earth's continental layers, or why we don't also have a core of gold or uranium or heavier elements alloyed with this excess of iron IF Gravity were the dominate factor.

Just try to consider metallic, magnetic hydrogen as an alternative core material and see what happens.

To ALL: If any want to expand their beliefs beyond the popular assumptions regarding Earth's core, there are books and articles by Neil B. Christainson and C. Warren Hunt and others which explain the probability of Earth having a hydrogen core in both greater detail and far better than I. My book on the subject was written too long ago to be a useful reference today. I should also add the possibility of Earth having a hydrogen core was considered very likely by scientists many centuries before the recognition of Earth's magnetic field led to the illogical assumption of Earth having an iron core.

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

In response to a request from BUFFY, I have combined my Introduction Posts into a new thread for Earth Science enthusiasts to review.

1. The most popular theory [assumption, concept, guess, etc.] about Earth's composition appears to be based solely on a static model. In this theory, it is assumed that Gravity somehow forced an enormously excessively amount [in comparison to known galactic proportions] of mainly iron to move inward thru molten mantle materials [with temperature only an assumption], leaving other, heavier elements behind [physically impossible], and form proto-Earth's core. This is illogical to the core. [Pun.]...
Regards, CharlieO

Hi Charlie. The only reason you can even discuss the concept of a 'core', is that seismographic evidence demonstrates it is so. Said evidence produced no less than by those "self-serving scientists." It doesn't help your case either that you start with ad hominem and unsupported generalizations and mischaracterizations such as "...appears to be soley based on...", "...assumed gravity somehow forced...", etcetera.

Get a lava lamp for a little one-on-one time with the effects of temperature, differential density, and gravity on 'stuff'. Cost of lamp,~$17.95; value of lessen = priceless. IMHO, of course; blued pun intended.

[Boerseun]

Take a dynamite stick. Take a lot of random stuff. Chuck al lthe random stuff in a pile over the dynamite stick. Light the stick. Run like hell.

After the loud, ear-splitting BOOM, go back to the remains of your pile. See what you have left.

It seems the lightest of the stuff is blown away. The heaviest pieces will lie closer to the center of the explosion than the rest. That anvil that was standing next to the dynamite has moved a few feet, but the polystyrene box is gone.

Same thing happened when the proto cloud that collapsed and formed the sun exploded, sending lotsa hydrogen outbound whilst keeping more of the heavy stuff close. This, as well as the amount of mass floating around in a bigger orbit as opposed to a small one, accounts for the outer planets having much more hydrogen than the inner planets. The inner planets are made of the heavier stuff closer to the star, the lighter stuff got blown out.

Also, simple convection and density also plays a role. Take a bucket of mud. Let it stand. See the heavy things sink and the light things float on top. So. If you see a rock on the Earth's surface, what would you suppose the things deeper under the surface would consist of? Big polystyrene boxes or seams of styrene beans?

The inner structure and composition of the Earth is not only the result of many years of geologic data, seismic probing, deep drilling and the like, but also the result of applying our minds to what the data tells us.

[CharlieO]

With all due respect for the sincerity of those who take the time and trouble to respond to my inadequate explanations of physical facts as well as my personal assumptions, rest assured your advice and examples are appreciated, even when illogical.

Unfortunately, no one has yet offered an understandable explanation of the primary issue: IF Gravity is the dominate factor in Earth's formation and present composition, WHY isn't Earth's core filled with elements materially heavier than iron? According to the popular theory, an enormous excess of iron flowed inward into the core, while also passing thru gold, lead, uranium and many other elements heavier in physical weight. By the same method, these heavier elements, reacting to the force of Gravity, should have beat iron into the core. If so, Earth's core should have far greater density and be massively more heavier than it appears to be today.

Unfortunately, after reading some of the illogical explanations, I have little confidence my question on Gravity will ever be answered in this forum. Not surprising, after 40+ years of posing the same question to major professors, professional geologists and many sincere scientists.

On the latter point, I must apologize for using the term 'self-serving scientists,' albeit I've known many. I'll include 'serious scientists,' among whom I've known a few and greatly respected them. Hopefully, there are sincere scientists among you who can answer the Gravity-only question as to why Earth's doesn't also have gold, lead, uranium, etc., in its core today. Such would be most welcomed.

For those who can seem to understand how centrifugal force behaves in a free floating mass, you have my sympathy. The fact is, the separation of elements in free floating masses, be they bird shot formed in a shot tower or planets and/or suns condensing out of a galactic cloud of hydrogen and other elements, is a physical fact.

Lava lamps? Explosions? Please try to be more relevant to the core issue. [Pun.]

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

...Unfortunately, after reading some of the illogical explanations, I have little confidence my question on Gravity will ever be answered in this forum. Not surprising, after 40+ years of posing the same question to major professors, professional geologists and many sincere scientists.
...
Lava lamps? Explosions? Please try to be more relevant to the core issue. [Pun.]

Regards, CharlieO

Ok Charlie, here goes with the relevancy. Unfortunately it is unlikely at this junture that any such potent questions will have their answer on this or any other forum. Either one has what it takes to sway major professors, geologists, etcetera in their venue or one does not.

I will leave the arguing of your particulars to others more enthusiastic as our threads here on 'Hydroplate Theory' and 'Expanding Earth' have sucked me dry of all such inclination. Good luck.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

IF Gravity is the dominate factor in Earth's formation and present composition, WHY isn't Earth's core filled with elements materially heavier than iron?

Because iron is much more common, on earth, in the solar system, and in the universe, than heavier (greater atomic mass) elements?

Earth is about 32% iron, 1.8% nickle, and 1.2% other elements that include about silver, gold, mercury, lead, bismuth, thorium and uranium. There’s no reason to assume that the Earth’s mantle and core doesn’t contain a high concentration of these heavier elements, but given there lower abundance, the core is still expected to be mostly (89%) iron, 5.8% nickle, 4.5% sulfur, and less than 1% other elements. (Source: wikipedia article “Earth”)

Originally Posted by CharlieO

According to the popular theory, an enormous excess of iron flowed inward into the core, while also passing thru gold, lead, uranium and many other elements heavier in physical weight. By the same method, these heavier elements, reacting to the force of Gravity, should have beat iron into the core.

Correct. There should be a lot of gold, lead, uranium, and other elements denser than iron in the core.

Originally Posted by CharlieO

If so, Earth's core should have far greater density and be massively more heavier than it appears to be today.

No, because:

1. even if all of the Earth’s primordial gold, lead, etc. was in its core, they would still be much less abundant than iron
2. At a density of about 19.1 g/cm^3, even uranium is only a few times more dense than iron, at about 7.8 g/cm^3

It’s helpful to consider why (according to most widely accepted theory) iron is so much more abundant in a stellar system such as ours: Stellar nucleosynthesis builds only small amounts of elements heavier than iron. In short, as has been noted in this and other forums, the stelliferous universe can be considered a ultimately gigantic “hydrogen to iron factory”.

It’s also useful to consider why (according to most widely accepted theory) smaller planets such as Earth contain so little of the light elements much more common in the solar system than iron: a combination of solar wind and early-forming giant planets remove most of the available hydrogen and helium from the vicinity of the still-forming smaller planets. Even were a lot of free hydrogen available, a small planet like ours has too little mass, and hence gravity, to prevent it escaping from the atmosphere, given the Earth’s fairly high atmospheric temperature. Essentially and terrestrial hydrogen not chemically bound to other elements is lost to space.

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Hopefully, there are sincere scientists among you who can answer the Gravity-only question as to why Earth's doesn't also have gold, lead, uranium, etc., in its core today. Such would be most welcomed.

I’m only an amateur science enthusiast, but am sincere, and believe I’ve answered this question in the preceding part of this post. To restate: Earth does have gold, lead, uranium, etc. in its core – just not, as a fraction of its total mass, much of it.

Originally Posted by CharlieO

For those who can seem to understand how centrifugal force behaves in a free floating mass, you have my sympathy. The fact is, the separation of elements in free floating masses, be they bird shot formed in a shot tower or planets and/or suns condensing out of a galactic cloud of hydrogen and other elements, is a physical fact.

Having a bit of experience in the mechanics of gravitationally and elastic collision bound systems (see these forums for some of my gravity and collision simulators), I think I have an adequate understanding of mass and centrifugal pseudo-force. I share the objection Janus raises in this post: for centrifugal force to cause mass segregation, it must exceed the force of gravity. If a cloud of primordial planet stuff rotates so fast that the centrifugal force exceeds the centripetal force of its gravity, no planet forms. In order to use a centrifuge to segregate materials by density, it must be bound by forces stronger than gravity. This is the case for such systems as the small (by planet standards) mechanical centrifuges used to segregate materials ranging from blood parts to radioactive isotopes, but not for planets, which are, especially during their early formation, essentially “gravitationally bound gravel piles”, with very little overall tensile strength.

[CharlieO]

CraigD: Excellent answer, albeit with a few well reasoned assumptions, perhaps better than mine. I'll attempt to explain when I have more time. Right now, we are having a major snow storm and I'm a bit busy arranging electrical connections to prepare for a potential power outage and possible medical emergency. Lucky to still have an active Internet connection for now.

I'll leave you with the thought that you might want to brush up on current developments in Geology. Oven the past few years, geophysical measurements have concluded Earth's core is far too light to be of largely iron and the iron assumed to be in Earth's core must be alloyed with lighter elements. Hydrogen is the current assumption favored by many, with others also being considered. If so, heavier elements may be even less common within the core than you might want to believe.

Best Regards, Charlie

[OneShotAl]

alot of assumptions and no way to prove any of it. if someone had actually been around 5 or 10 billion years ago to see the solar system form we would "know" how it formed.
we would also know how the earth formed. as for me, i have always felt that jupiter is a captured proto-star, and has a chance to continue to turn into a star 5 or 10 billion years into the future. maybe only a small chance but one chance in a billion is better than no chance.
and since i feel jupiter to be a captured proto-star, why couldn't earth also be captured?
again, no one was there. so no way to prove it either way.

[CharlieO]

CraigD: I'll try to answer your analysis. You have been more thought provoking that most. I thank you for that.

You wrote: Earth is about 32% iron, 1.8% nickle, and 1.2% other elements that include about silver, gold, mercury, lead, bismuth, thorium and uranium.

CharlieO here: This is at best only an assumption, as it appears to include the amount of iron assumed to be in Earth's core. No one really knows if there is any iron in Earth's core.Meanwhile, published iron content ratios for Oceanic and Continental crusts vary with researchers and/or oil companies doing the reported core drilling and/or mine analysis. The key point is we still don't know it there is any iron in Earth's core and what iron we can find in the crusts appears to be more in proportion to galactic ratios and therefore most likely to be the total amount within Earth.

You wrote: There’s no reason to assume that the Earth’s mantle and core doesn't contain a high concentration of these heavier elements.

CharlieO here: I believe it is more logical to assume Earth’s mantle and core FAIL to contain a high concentration of these heavier elements, if any.

You wrote: The core is still expected to be mostly (89%) iron, 5.8% nickle, 4.5% sulfur, and less than 1% other elements.

CharlieO here: These ratios are clearly more assumptions based on assumptions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

CharlieO here: Oh yes, for those who pointed out the data from seismographic analysis 'proves' this or that, you are preaching to the choir. I'm well aware of seismology as largely guess work, being a child of Oklahoma oil fields, student at Oklahoma University and initially employed by Shell Oil. A seismograph has long been not much better than the skill of its operator/interpreter, however computer assisted devices are doing much better of late.

For those with an interest in the device, it was first used in China, around the year 100. That's One Hundred AD. However, the Chinese still depend on hydrogen effusion devices to warn them of impending earthquakes as well as daily observations of bird behavior. When birds leave an area, earthquakes often occur soon afterward. It is their hydrogen effusion devices which can warn to some degree of the expected intensity. It is a fact that when significant amounts of hydrogen gas can be detected in test holes, this is cause for concern. The rate at which hydrogen gas appears has also been correlated with the intensity of earth movement. Apparently, hydrogen can still be found within our Earth.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *

CraigD wrote: It’s also useful to consider why (according to most widely accepted theory) smaller planets such as Earth contain so little of the light elements much more common in the solar system than iron:

CharlieO here: I consider this to be another most widely accepted assumption, which may be false.

You wrote: A combination of solar wind and early-forming giant planets remove most of the available hydrogen and helium from the vicinity of the still-forming smaller planets.

CharlieO here: This is not only an assumption, but illogical. Both our sun and giant planets would have to first form into cohesive masses far beyond their present size to attract any available hydrogen and helium from still forming smaller planets.

You wrote: Even were a lot of free hydrogen available, a small planet like ours has too little mass, and hence gravity, to prevent it escaping from the atmosphere,

CharlieO here: True and this can be demonstrated to be a constant occurrence, albeit it varies widely over time. In fact, there has been an enormous amount of hydrogen constantly venting from within Earth over eons and this obvious hydrogen venting continues to this day. Certainly good evidence of hydrogen still being a major element in Earth's composition.

You wrote: Essentially and (any?) terrestrial hydrogen not chemically bound to other elements is lost to space.

CharlieO here: True, see above.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CharlieO here: Sorry, I'm going to have to ignore your explanation on centrifugal force.

The facts are: Earth has been slowing in its rate of rotation and therefore once rotated much faster. Agreed? At least one researcher claims to have established Earth's rate of rotation as an 8 hour day during the time of dinosaurs. Some have estimated Earth was disk shaped in the not too distant past. Logical, but, in fairness, these could be assumptions. I have too often known of research that became tainted by expectations far different than reality.

However, the fact is, all matter spins, from atoms to galaxies, and our solar system is no different. Given these galactic clouds of elements, mainly hydrogen, can be seen spinning and stages in the evolution of these clouds clearly show a slow condensation of elements, mainly hydrogen, can you agree our solar system condensed in a similar manner from a similar cloud of elements, mainly hydrogen?

Assuming our solar system condensed in a similar fashion, as it condensed, the mass of elements, mainly hydrogen, would begin to spin faster, due to increasing density as the cloud of elements condensed into a smaller diameter of elements, mainly hydrogen. If so, where did the largest mass of hydrogen accumulate? In the center? Last time I checked our Sun was mainly hydrogen and contained around 95% of the hydrogen in our solar system.

Assuming all planets in our solar system condensed from eddies within the spinning cloud of elements, mainly hydrogen, rotating around a central point that later became our sun, can you agree they would all do this within the same time frame? If so, can you agree then there would be no giant planets or a sun with any mass or developed gravitational attraction or solar wind which might enable them to destroy the hydrogen/helium of a few smaller, still forming planets?

Given that hydrogen molecules can bond together to form a metallic, magnetic phase, might it be most likely for these magnetic hydrogen molecules to be among the first to gather within this spinning cloud of elements? Once enough hydrogen molecules gathered together and formed a viable mass, wouldn't this spinning mass of magnetic, metallic hydrogen only then be able to attract the molecules of heavier elements within the spinning cloud of elements?

Therefore, unless you know of a physical method different than is currently in evidence within our galaxy and universe, I must assume ALL planets in any solar system or galaxy first developed from accumulating hydrogen molecules, which later develop enough mass to attract heavier elements. If so, any spinning planet evolving from a spinning mass of elements, mainly hydrogen, would first have a relatively large hydrogen core; surrounded by a thinner layer of heavier elements, which could only be retained by the gravity of the developing mass as its rate of spin decreased.

That is why I believe Earth initially developed a hydrogen core and there is considerable evidence that much of this magnetic, metallic hydrogen core is still there today, albeit constantly venting hydrogen gas thru Earth's crust and reducing its mass as time goes on.

As OneShotAL so elequently put it: A lot of assumptions and no way to prove it, or at least what may have happened in the past. However, I can prove hydrogen is still a major factor in Earth's composition today.

Regards, CharlieO

[Turtle]

Here's a sample of links and quotes resulting from a Google search for "Earth's core is Hydrogen. (This thread is the 5th link. )

The consensus appears that Hydrogen is in the core, but not instead of iron, but rather combined with it. Now we'll let the quibbling resume and all, but I'm wanting to hear the other shoe drop first. That is, what's the motive in saying the core is Hydrogen? Well...here's that information; bolding mine:


GEOSCIENCE: Enhanced: Hydrogen: An Important Constituent of the Core? -- Wood 278 (5344): 1727 -- Science

Hydrogen Partitioning into Molten Iron at High Pressure: Implications for Earth's Core -- Okuchi 278 (5344): 1781 -- Science

Originally Posted by Takuo Okuchi

Because of dissolution of lighter elements such as sulfur, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, Earth's outer core is about 10 percent less dense than molten iron at the relevant pressure and temperature conditions. To determine whether hydrogen can account for a major part of the density deficit and is therefore an important constituent in the molten iron outer core, the hydrogen concentration in molten iron was measured at 7.5 gigapascals. From these measurements, the metal-silicate melt partitioning coefficient of hydrogen was determined as a function of temperature. If the magma ocean of primordial Earth was hydrous, more than 95 mole percent of H2O in this ocean should have reacted with iron to form FeHx, and about 60 percent of the density deficit is reconciled by adding hydrogen to the core.

High Pressure Research Opportunities

Originally Posted by sciencedaily

In 1980, using high pressure, researchers managed for the first time to produce an compound of iron and hydrogen, iron hydride. This was a surprise, since this compound does not occur under natural conditions. In other words, it is fully possible that hydrogen exists in the iron core of the earth. ...

Quantum Mechanics Explains Solubility Of Hydrogen In Earth's Iron Core

Originally Posted by D. J. STEVENSON

Only about 1% by mass of hydrogen is required in the Earth's core to explain the density deficit, and this corresponds to a hydrogen−iron mass ratio that is only about one-tenth of that present in type I carbonaceous chondrites3. ...

Hydrogen in the Earth's core