Why is the Earth Round?

[nasher168]

What two obvious consequences will result from such a reformation of the Earth's mass?

The Socratic Method, eh? Well this is a novel experience, and I'll confess I only have a very vague idea of where this might lead.

Anyway:
Impossible for me to say with any certainty. The most obvious resulting scenario to me is a cataclysmic mass-extinction. Earth would also likely become a toxic hell-hole from the gases released by huge volcanic activity around the world.

 

[Stripe]

Impossible for me to say with any certainty. The most obvious resulting scenario to me is a cataclysmic mass-extinction. Earth would also likely become a toxic hell-hole from the gases released by huge volcanic activity around the world.

Think the mass of the Earth. Like the rocks inside it. What would happen to them if the Earth was reformed from non-spherical?

I agree that anything on the surface would be severely inconvenienced.

 

[Inferno]

My guess where this is going?

Stripe: "Evolution said that at one point a huge object struck the earth and consequently formed the moon. That must have obliterated everything on life ergo life the way evolutionist say happened could not possible be correct."

How close am I?

 

[Stripe]

My guess where this is going?Stripe: "Evolution said that at one point a huge object struck the earth and consequently formed the moon. That must have obliterated everything on life ergo life the way evolutionist say happened could not possible be correct."How close am I?

:think:

Ummm .. not really. But there might be something in that to think about.

 

[Inferno]

Then ask your fricking question and be done about it already... All those "what if" games are annoying. In all probability, the event you're asking about has completely different conditions than "a chunk of earth being teleported away" so we'll need to correct the premise.

 

[Stripe]

Then ask your fricking question and be done about it already...

:shock: Chill out, bro. I asked the question already.

The Earth would reform itself into a sphere upon being rendered significantly non-spherical. What two things would most obviously accompany such a reformation. And we're concerned with the mass of the Earth, not its surface. So what would happen to the rocks?

These are all very simple questions.

 

[sgrunterundt]

The oceans would rush into the hole and evaporate, filling the bottom of the hole with dense supercritical water.

The rock would eventually displace this dense atmosphere back around the globe.

A lot of gravitational energy would be freed as the rock reaches equilibrium, leading to a partial melting of the crust and mantle.

In the course of a thousand years or so the earth cools and the oceans rain back.(1)

For a long time thereafter the Earth has weird gravitational anomalies.

Eventually plate tectonics resume, life may or may not arise again.(1)


1: Or maybe the brighter sun of the present day will prevent the re condensation from happening, leaving earth like Venus with a dense atmosphere and huge greenhouse effect.

 

[australopithecus]

The Earth would reform itself into a sphere upon being rendered significantly non-spherical. What two things would most obviously accompany such a reformation. And we're concerned with the mass of the Earth, not its surface. So what would happen to the rocks?

These are all very simple questions.

What would the change in shape of the earth have to do with it's mass, pray tell? You're not giving us much info are you? Has more material been added? Taken away? Details, please.

And really, we've been taken down the road of leading questions before, so I suggest (as has already been suggested) that if you have a point, make it.

 

[nasher168]

So what would happen to the rocks?.

The ones that plug the gap would melt again under the heat and pressure. The inside of the Earth would gradually start to resemble this again:

 

[Stripe]

The oceans would rush into the hole and evaporate, filling the bottom of the hole with dense supercritical water.

You think? Supercritical water is an extremely difficult thing to manufacture. I doubt any of that would get made, but you're right about the water flowing into the hole.

Wasn't all that interested in surface processes, but.

The rock would eventually displace this dense atmosphere back around the globe.

Yup. All this moving rock. What would that generate?

A lot of gravitational energy would be freed as the rock reaches equilibrium, leading to a partial melting of the crust and mantle.

BINGO! Heat (from friction) are the two obvious results from a gravity driven reformation of the Earth.

Last question. And here is where the fun starts.

Why is the inside of the Earth hot?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Last question. And here is where the fun starts.

Why is the inside of the Earth hot?

Some of the heat is from the primordial formation of the earth and some is from radioactive decay.

 

[Stripe]

Some of the heat is from the primordial formation of the earth and some is from radioactive decay.

Primordial formation was Allegedly 4.5 billion years ago, right? Heat from the initial collisions would dissipate far more quickly than subsequent material could insulate. Not to mention the fact that the accretion theory has several terminal problems.

Radioactivity should be explained by the process also.

Can you think of a better possible explanation?

I can.

 

[nasher168]

You missed the part about the radioactive decay.


The core of the Earth can be compared to a fission reactor. Atoms of heavy elements decay into atoms of other elements, creating a heating effect from the energy released when this happens.

But I can see where this is going now... :|

 

[Stripe]

You missed the part about the radioactive decay.

No, I didn't.

But I can see where this is going now... :|

Great! So can you think of a better explanation for the heat inside the Earth?

And have you given up the accretionary model?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Radioactivity should be explained by the process also.)

Explain.

 

[Inferno]

Great! So can you think of a better explanation for the heat inside the Earth?

A better one than "the earth is young"? Yup.

And have you given up the accretionary model?

No. Why should I?

And what has this got to do with "teleporting stuff away from the earth"?

 

[australopithecus]

Primordial formation was Allegedly 4.5 billion years ago, right? Heat from the initial collisions would dissipate far more quickly than subsequent material could insulate.

Evidence this claim.

Not to mention the fact that the accretion theory has several terminal problems.

Which are? Just so you're aware, your word is not enough. You want to make a claim then back it up with evidence.

 

[australopithecus]

Here's the numbers concerning radioactive decay and energy release and the amount of energy lost by convection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Heat

I'm sure someone more versed in mathematics than I can work out the appropriate numbers.

 

[nasher168]

No, I didn't.

Ah, I missed it. My mistake.

Radioactivity should be explained by the process also.

The heavy elements are created when stars explode. These heavy elements are inherently unstable and will decay over time. Many of these elements decay at a very slow rate, with half-lives of billions of years.
The Earth formed from a dust cloud which contained heavy elements thrown out by dying stars. When it condensed under gravity, the heavier elements predominantly fell towards the centre in the Iron Catastrophe.

Great! So can you think of a better explanation for the heat inside the Earth?

No. If the Earth was much, much younger as I'm sure you believe, the surface should be molten from the increased radioactivity. As things are, the core's temperature is decreasing, but won't solidify like Mars for billions of years.

And have you given up the accretionary model?

Of course not. It's the only one that adequately explains the facts.

 

[sgrunterundt]

The oceans would rush into the hole and evaporate, filling the bottom of the hole with dense supercritical water.

You think? Supercritical water is an extremely difficult thing to manufacture. I doubt any of that would get made, but you're right about the water flowing into the hole.

No it is not dificult to produce. Just increase heat and pressure to above the critical point. In this hole both would certainly be higher.

You missed the part about the radioactive decay.

He didn't miss it, but he handwaved it.

Uranium-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. Therefore half of it is still left from the earths formation, and it now decays at half the rate producing half the amount of heat in a given period of time.