Haven't you seen The Core?!scalyblue said:why is there an assumption that the earth will be destroyed if/when its core/mantel were to cool down?
Laserbeams from space is what will happen, man!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Haven't you seen The Core?!scalyblue said:why is there an assumption that the earth will be destroyed if/when its core/mantel were to cool down?
Womble said:Awesome, so essentially the sun will toast us with its red giant before the Earth's own heat dies.
Netheralian said:Womble said:Awesome, so essentially the sun will toast us with its red giant before the Earth's own heat dies.
It would appear so - for the core at least...
GreatLich said:Haven't you seen The Core?!scalyblue said:why is there an assumption that the earth will be destroyed if/when its core/mantel were to cool down?
Laserbeams from space is what will happen, man!
Actually, I think adding Driver Hell to the scene with the nuclear reactor would've been appropriate.scalyblue said:GreatLich said:Haven't you seen The Core?!
Laserbeams from space is what will happen, man!
At least the consulting team convinced the directors to not have WINDOWS on the ship.
Milgram experiment anyone -Womble said:..... I. Am. A. Geologist. I know what i'm talking about on this one.
Do you mean the material itself is in a solid state? However the environment forces it in to granular formation to act like sand, where the grains are smaller?Womble said:But anyway, this that i am going to use to back this up....
P wave and S wave velocities - These dip down a bit in the asthenosphere with the 5% melt but then they rocket up as the go deeper into the mantle. The S waves bomb out at the Guttenburg discontinuity (core-mantle boundary) as the outer core is molten. The fact that the body waves speed up is indicative of the mantle being solid. The mantle IS solid, but because of the intense heat and pressure (the core of the planet if hotter than the surface of the sun) and as a result of this over geological time it convects and behaves like a liquid. The Atlantic ocean is growing at about the same rate human finger nails grow.
Actually, the hypothesis that the earth is cooling and that we are decreasing the length at which the planets core temperature to support life is quiet valid. Even if the length is small and past the red giant phase of the sun. That is irrelevant to what I was trying to calculate.Womble said:It was as far from a hypothysis, in fact so far as to be a highly misinformed ramble. I did read your first post, and when I did it was almost like one of those cartoon moments when the eyes come out on stalks"¦..i even yelled some manner of abuse at my laptop at reading it, so I'm taking it easy whilst posting.
Okay, now I am confused? What is this about drilling? I have to my knowledge not made any statements about drilling.Womble said:As for your loony notion of us drilling to the core let me correct you on that creotard level fallacy. The furthest we have ever drilled has been a few km (I can't remember exactly off the top of my head and if you really want to know you can google it yourself), we've not even scratched the surface in terms of drilling, the geothermal gradient is quite steep you see"¦.there's all this heat down there that will last for a few more billion years.
[/quote]Womble said:And besides, I'm being witty and creatively inventive with my insults, grow a spine"¦
That's kind of what I am driving at. I was pointing out that that gap is caused from the fact that I have not studied in this field as you have for most of my life. Where the last time I was taught anything about geology was at GCSE level.Womble said:oooOOOooo"¦"¦.who's making the assumptions now?? I made NO assumptions about your knowledge other than you having a huge howling gap"¦. And don't go making assumptions about what goes on in a classroom, because I'll own you on that front too. And regardless of what you think is productive or helpful it is at least entertaining for myself and a few others.
There must be something wrong with your brain. Since I asked you to provide evidence that it was taught at GCSE level. Yet the books review and other guidelines clearly state these books are all for A level courses in Geography or earth sciences.Womble said:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Geoscience-Understanding-Geological-Dee-Edwards/dp/0340688432/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255711765&sr=1-2
pwnage"¦
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Geology-Pupils-Work-Book/dp/0050036645/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255711795&sr=8-1
double pwnage"¦.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Geological-Science-Andrew-Mcleish/dp/0174482213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255721538&sr=1-1
and for shits and giggles triple pwnage"¦..
YOU WOULD HAVE COVERED IT IN A GEOGRAFY CLASS AT A LEVELS. You books already pointed that out. Unfortunately not everyone decided to study geography at A level.Womble said:Now it's been a while since I read that level of text in detail but I certainly remember covering the fact that radio active decay produced the heat that kept the earth going in my a-level. And whilst I've not studied the WJEC's GCSE spec in detail but I'm sure it's there. Oh and I doubt that GCSE Geography will cover it as that's a humanities subject, and you see Geology just happens to be a science. So these books won't be used for teaching Geography (as that's just colouring in) but they will in a Geology lesson.
So essentially you're a teacher at a specialist school. Wow, does that cover the fact that the national guidelines don't seem to cover this topic in the age range I specified. Does it change the fact that at College level (A Levels) There are hundreds of courses and that specific knowledge you keep harping on about is only taught at this level in the UK?Womble said:The best bit is the fact I'm a teacher, so I know what goes on in schools, and I just happened to go to the only place that does ITT for people that have Geology as their science specialism.
Which only shows how immature you actually are.Womble said:Awww"¦"¦.bless"¦..you know I find your lack of initial research disturbing. {10 Womble points to whoeer gets that paraphrased quote}
Maybe not, but it might be easier to tell if you state your sources of information (or some of the most relevant at least).Tsunamie said:Milgram experiment anyone -
I am simply asking for an explanation to a field I can understand. What you stating contradicts all the material I have seen so far. So asking for more information was not that unreasonable.
No, the material is solid but not granular, more like viscous. Due to the temperature and pressures it get some strange properties. I suggest a chemistry book or possibly a material physics book. Or a geology book...Tsunamie said:Do you mean the material itself is in a solid state? However the environment forces it in to granular formation to act like sand, where the grains are smaller?
As that's how I understand your explanation. You also justify it by observations of wave refraction?
If you look at my first post you see pretty quickly that it will effect the age of the earth with a very unsignificant amount of time. But as stated earlier in the thread, the oil will migrate upwards with time, and the tectonic plates doesn't move very fast.Tsunamie said:Actually, the hypothesis that the earth is cooling and that we are decreasing the length at which the planets core temperature to support life is quiet valid. Even if the length is small and past the red giant phase of the sun. That is irrelevant to what I was trying to calculate.
Then it's time to head to the library and read up. If you want to understand this it will take us more time to provide you the info, than you reading up on your own.Tsunamie said:I gathered that there is enough heat for several billion years. However, I was hoping to find how long that is rather then say a few billion more years.
Tsunamie said:Netheralian,
So when would be the expected date the tectonic plates fuse? Apart of my argument is that environments that produce huge amounts of heat with several chemicals being pushed together to form basic blocks for life are at volcanic location. If these environments disappear, then would it not be safe to assume that a decrease in probable new life will disappear and bio-diversity will take a hit?
As more advanced creatures die out and only mutate based on the survivor. I was thinking of bio-diversity in the beginning of life. I obviously assume that RNA and DNA are being created by natural process now in these environments.
scalyblue, My hypothesis does not really bet on the planet not sustain life after the surface temperature goes down as the core cools. My hypothesis drives at our survival rating going down because of the lack of diversity provided by the environments such as gisers or underwater jet streams that are thought to be the environments the first life on this planet was generated from.
I also still am trying to work out if basic life can live in an environment where the surface temperature is entirely dependent on the sun for heat.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:..... I. Am. A. Geologist. I know what i'm talking about on this one.
Milgram experiment anyone -
I am simply asking for an explanation to a field I can understand. What you stating contradicts all the material I have seen so far. So asking for more information was not that unreasonable.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:But anyway, this that i am going to use to back this up....
P wave and S wave velocities - These dip down a bit in the asthenosphere with the 5% melt but then they rocket up as the go deeper into the mantle. The S waves bomb out at the Guttenburg discontinuity (core-mantle boundary) as the outer core is molten. The fact that the body waves speed up is indicative of the mantle being solid. The mantle IS solid, but because of the intense heat and pressure (the core of the planet if hotter than the surface of the sun) and as a result of this over geological time it convects and behaves like a liquid. The Atlantic ocean is growing at about the same rate human finger nails grow.
Do you mean the material itself is in a solid state? However the environment forces it in to granular formation to act like sand, where the grains are smaller?
As that's how I understand your explanation. You also justify it by observations of wave refraction?
Tsunamie said:Womble said:It was as far from a hypothysis, in fact so far as to be a highly misinformed ramble. I did read your first post, and when I did it was almost like one of those cartoon moments when the eyes come out on stalks"¦..i even yelled some manner of abuse at my laptop at reading it, so I'm taking it easy whilst posting.
Actually, the hypothesis that the earth is cooling and that we are decreasing the length at which the planets core temperature to support life is quiet valid. Even if the length is small and past the red giant phase of the sun. That is irrelevant to what I was trying to calculate.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:As for your loony notion of us drilling to the core let me correct you on that creotard level fallacy. The furthest we have ever drilled has been a few km (I can't remember exactly off the top of my head and if you really want to know you can google it yourself), we've not even scratched the surface in terms of drilling, the geothermal gradient is quite steep you see"¦.there's all this heat down there that will last for a few more billion years.
Okay, now I am confused? What is this about drilling? I have to my knowledge not made any statements about drilling.
I gathered that there is enough heat for several billion years. However, I was hoping to find how long that is rather then say a few billion more years.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:And besides, I'm being witty and creatively inventive with my insults, grow a spine"¦
I have one thanks. I am just pointing out how arrogant you are.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:oooOOOooo"¦"¦.who's making the assumptions now?? I made NO assumptions about your knowledge other than you having a huge howling gap"¦. And don't go making assumptions about what goes on in a classroom, because I'll own you on that front too. And regardless of what you think is productive or helpful it is at least entertaining for myself and a few others.
That's kind of what I am driving at. I was pointing out that that gap is caused from the fact that I have not studied in this field as you have for most of my life. Where the last time I was taught anything about geology was at GCSE level.
My assertion was that your expectation of everyone knowing the world's core temperature is powered by radioactive decay is unrealistic given the current education specifications.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Geoscience-Understanding-Geological-Dee-Edwards/dp/0340688432/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255711765&sr=1-2
pwnage"¦
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Geology-Pupils-Work-Book/dp/0050036645/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255711795&sr=8-1
double pwnage"¦.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Geological-Science-Andrew-Mcleish/dp/0174482213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255721538&sr=1-1
and for shits and giggles triple pwnage"¦..
There must be something wrong with your brain. Since I asked you to provide evidence that it was taught at GCSE level. Yet the books review and other guidelines clearly state these books are all for A level courses in Geography or earth sciences.
I asked you to provide books that explained radioactive decay for 16 year olds at GCSE level because that would have been the most reasonable age. Unless you take a specialist course in the subject. Which I already pointed out to you.
Since the reference was made to as thought I had wasted tax payers money, the only age rage that that could have happened is between the age of primary school and the end of secondary school. Which you have yet to prove.
So the 3 points you racked up were discounted because of fouls. ! Point to me for pointing out your obvious mistakes.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:Now it's been a while since I read that level of text in detail but I certainly remember covering the fact that radio active decay produced the heat that kept the earth going in my a-level. And whilst I've not studied the WJEC's GCSE spec in detail but I'm sure it's there. Oh and I doubt that GCSE Geography will cover it as that's a humanities subject, and you see Geology just happens to be a science. So these books won't be used for teaching Geography (as that's just colouring in) but they will in a Geology lesson.
YOU WOULD HAVE COVERED IT IN A GEOGRAFY CLASS AT A LEVELS. You books already pointed that out. Unfortunately not everyone decided to study geography at A level.
http://www.wjec.co.uk/uploads/publications/8053.pdf
The teachers guide to geography at GCSE level does not include the study of how the core creates and generates heat. I therefore make the assertion that this material would not have been taught 8 years ago either. Which is when I studying at this level.
Which kind of re-inforces the point that you were being unreasonable in expecting a level of knowledge that is taught at a specialist course level.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:The best bit is the fact I'm a teacher, so I know what goes on in schools, and I just happened to go to the only place that does ITT for people that have Geology as their science specialism.
So essentially you're a teacher at a specialist school. Wow, does that cover the fact that the national guidelines don't seem to cover this topic in the age range I specified. Does it change the fact that at College level (A Levels) There are hundreds of courses and that specific knowledge you keep harping on about is only taught at this level in the UK?
You don't seem to be a very competent teaches in this case if you don't even know what level your subject is taught at.
Tsunamie said:Womble said:Awww"¦"¦.bless"¦..you know I find your lack of initial research disturbing. {10 Womble points to whoeer gets that paraphrased quote}
Which only shows how immature you actually are.
Tsunamie said:Netheralian,
So when would be the expected date the tectonic plates fuse?
Tsunamie said:Apart of my argument is that environments that produce huge amounts of heat with several chemicals being pushed together to form basic blocks for life are at volcanic location.
Tsunamie said:If these environments disappear, then would it not be safe to assume that a decrease in probable new life will disappear and bio-diversity will take a hit?
Tsunamie said:As more advanced creatures die out and only mutate based on the survivor.
Tsunamie said:I was thinking of bio-diversity in the beginning of life.
Tsunamie said:I obviously assume that RNA and DNA are being created by natural process now in these environments.
Tsunamie said:scalyblue, My hypothesis does not really bet on the planet not sustain life after the surface temperature goes down as the core cools.
Tsunamie said:My hypothesis drives at our survival rating going down because of the lack of diversity provided by the environments such as gisers or underwater jet streams that are thought to be the environments the first life on this planet was generated from.
Tsunamie said:I also still am trying to work out if basic life can live in an environment where the surface temperature is entirely dependent on the sun for heat.
Tsunamie said:I am simply asking for an explanation to a field I can understand.
scalyblue said:I've heard the consistency of the mantle of the earth described as 'plastic' by smarter people than I. I've also heard the quite sensible description that the crust is what we get from the mantle melting.
aeroeng314 said:So in doing a bit of reading on Wikipedia about the Earth's mantle, I get the idea that its phase lies in some kind of strange intermediate between solid and liquid, but closer to solid. What I gather is that the flow of the mantle isn't like a conventional fluid flow where the stresses are related to shear rates but are related to actual plastic deformation of the solid itself. So, am I correct in my understanding that it's a solid under conditions which cause it to exhibit some fluid-like properties?
Womble said:aeroeng314 said:So in doing a bit of reading on Wikipedia about the Earth's mantle, I get the idea that its phase lies in some kind of strange intermediate between solid and liquid, but closer to solid. What I gather is that the flow of the mantle isn't like a conventional fluid flow where the stresses are related to shear rates but are related to actual plastic deformation of the solid itself. So, am I correct in my understanding that it's a solid under conditions which cause it to exhibit some fluid-like properties?
Sounds like you've got it. It's a bit of a mind bender at first but it's not so hard once you get used to it.
kf00kaha said:Womble said:Sounds like you've got it. It's a bit of a mind bender at first but it's not so hard once you get used to it.
Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive (and quite short ) description of non-Newtonian fluids (i.e. fluids that don't behave like water). This could help a bit to understand the above subject.
Also I could point out that plasma is not a good word, since this is when the electrons in a gas get excited enough to break free from the nucleus and move freely in the gas (ionic gas).
Reminding of the nightmares of classes on fluid dynamics and materials...aeroeng314 said:So in doing a bit of reading on Wikipedia about the Earth's mantle, I get the idea that its phase lies in some kind of strange intermediate between solid and liquid, but closer to solid. What I gather is that the flow of the mantle isn't like a conventional fluid flow where the stresses are related to shear rates but are related to actual plastic deformation of the solid itself. So, am I correct in my understanding that it's a solid under conditions which cause it to exhibit some fluid-like properties?
Oh yeah *shudder*borrofburi said:Reminding of the nightmares of classes on fluid dynamics and materials...