coden3

No text appeared using conventional cut and paste action. I also clicked on the clipboard symbols at the top right of the toolbar with no effect, repeating the cut and paste action. Is there an explanation as to how to cut and paste for new topics which might be different from that employed by Word? I had no problem using cut and paste for adding comments to other posts. I also added the email notices to my profile, thank you.

I tried to post a question about Carolina Bays as a new Geology topic. I composed the question off-line in Word, then tried to cut and past the simple text into the box. Nothing appeared. I read where newbies should eliminate any URLs in a first post, which I did. Still nothing by using cut and paste. Please advise? Will I receive an email if my question is answered, so I don't have to search for it?

Currently, many scientists believe high pressure winds formed these structures, which would be impossible simply because of the circular nature of the structures. Strong winds can form sand dunes, but not circular structures of widely varied sizes, surrounded by elevated borders of sand; some with concentric circular structures within the same depression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay In addition, the uniform direction of the long axis of the oval depressions is always aligned with the slope of the surrounding soils over wide areas, further demonstrating the impossibility of thousands of cosmic fragments impacting in the same direction or by strong jets of wind. Google Earth LIDAR images and http://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm. Over the past several years, teams of researchers have drilled holes in and around many of these depressions. Substantial amounts of hydrogen gas were measured emerging from the soil inside their borders and very little or none outside. This was the same result in similar depressions tested in the USA [North & South Carolina, Kansas, Nebraska], Russia, Ukraine and Africa. What I found more interesting was the fact that little or no hydrocarbons were found, yet, when some areas within these depressions were set on fire by lightening or man, the fires could burn over a relatively large area and appeared nearly invisible. This is a characteristic of hydrogen gas fueled fires, unlike the more colorful fires resulting from decayed vegetation gases or natural gas. Water was also associated with hydrogen emissions in these depressions, which would be understandable since hydrogen is a reactive gas and can combine with oxides to form water [HOH]. In Africa, the existence of oasis water holes was considered to be evidence of hydrogen emissions. One oasis village had a well drilled in the hope of finding a source of pure water. The drillers were surprised to find 98% hydrogen. So they rigged up a hydrogen powered generator to supply the local village with electricity. When they asked the village chief what he wanted most from the new found electricity, he answered, “Refrigeration to make Ice Cream.” NH2E.com One possible answer to the evolution of a relatively flat plain becoming populated by circular depressions is based on the fact that hydrogen atoms are small enough to uniquely reside within the atoms and molecules of many other elements. Their presence creates no increase in apparent mass; only increased density. However, when stressed by earth tides, a result of our Moon's gravity, the hydrogen atoms can effuse from within the other elements and form hydrogen molecules between grain boundaries. This would expand a region inside Earth's crustal layers, then vent from its surface, then escape into space. This behavior of hydrogen is known in the materials industry as Hydrogen Embrittlement, a continuing threat to the strength of materials. This is especially common in drilling equipment utilized in deep wells, which are often saturated with hydrogen gas. http://www.uni-saarland.de/fak8/wwm/research/phd_barnoush/hydrogen.pdf Dr.-Ing. Afrooz Barnoush, December 1, 2011 I suggest that Carolina Bay type depressions appear to have been formed by hydrogen emissions which had a greater flow rate in the past. These emissions could have been substantial enough to expand the soils and elevate the surface level of the ground in a circular manner; a hydrogen bubble. If so, the elevated surface would eventually become weathered and exfoliated surface materials would be deposited around the elevated portion. Then, with a decrease in the flow rate of hydrogen emissions, the now eroded surface would deflate and become a circular or oval depression. This process has obviously been repeated several times within some depressions over extended periods of time. Fact remains, the interiors of every Carolina Bay type structure tested by researchers are venting hydrogen and they are all surrounded by borders of previously exfoliated surface materials, usually sand. So I believe the origin of Carolina Bays type structures is the result of internal hydrogen emissions, sub-surface expansion, the weathering of expanded surfaces and subsequent deflation. If anyone has a better idea, I would appreciate their explanation.

Unfortunately, being a 24/7 care-giver for my wife, my time has recently become extremely limited and I now have too little to spare for exploring alternatives to the Hot Iron Core theory. In the past, with some experience in hydrogen properties, hydride behavior and hydrogen embrittlement, it seemed very likely to me that a hydrogen core could provide the means for behaviors observed on Earth’s surface, which a hot iron core could not. While I still consider unproven assumptions of Earth’s interior temperature and composition to be just that, I would only request that you remember this alterative that was discussed, or some small part of it. If I may add, in regard to Neil Christainson’s theory which may, repeat, may revise density requirements for Earth’s core so as to make hydrogen a more viable alternative for Earth’s core and iron even more improbable: We are taught to treat the earth as a large liquid drop, even though seismic S-waves show the earth to be a rigid solid down to the Gutenberg discontinuity. Since seismic waves show the mantle to be a rigid solid, the mantle can be treated as a hollow sphere, such that, it can be divided in half along any diameter to form two hemispheres, each with its own center of gravity. Hence, the pressure at the base of each hemisphere can be calculated using Newton's equation for deriving the gravitational force between two bodies, divided by the area of their contact surface. Try it, you may be amazed by the pressure produced. Over the coming years you may learn some facts that add to or corroborate something here and I believe breakthroughs may come from areas not believed worth exploring today. Whatever they are and wherever they are, I sincerely offer my best wishes to those interested in finding them. For now, I learned a lot from your responses and questions, I only wish I could find the time to continue. Regards, Charlie

Ophiolite: I sincerely appreciate your clearly apparent academic knowledge and scholarly effort. However, I fear I will not be able to convince you that any alternative to the present dogmatic view of Earth’s formation and compositition should ever be considered. I believe one must first get to a position of doubt themselves, before one can open mindedly explore any issue different than what they have taught and come to believe as proven physical facts. You undoubtedly know of all the problems and difficulties in altering a paradigm as per Kuhne and the restriction towards alternatives being published due to the peer review system. I believe we both can assume that, most likely, alternatives do not get a fair hearing. Scepticism towards an alternative belief, however logical it may prove to be in time, is not generally allowed in many areas at first. Understandable, albeit frustrating, and that may be useful for the needed testing. It was not too long ago in man’s history that the concept of a Flat Earth was the accepted fact and openly suggesting Earth to be round could get you killed. About the same time, some of those who disputed the fact that Earth was the center of the universe did get killed. Take Jupiter for example: Jupiter is widely believed from repeated physical observations, albeit at some distance, to have a largely magnetic, metallic hydrogen core with no iron. Jupiter is much larger than Earth with a diameter of 88,732 mi vs Earth's at 7,916 mi. Jupiter has a magnetic field. In fact it's magnetic field is 19,000 times stronger than the earth's. One might wonder how can Jupiter have a largely hydrogen core with such an intense magnetic field, but hydrogen is widely assumed to be an impossibility for Earth? Indeed, hydrogen on Earth is usually considered to be a primordial left-over that scarcely exists today. As a side issue concerning a planet’s spin rate and angular momentum: Based on the current calculations used for Earth’s density, spin rate and angular momentum, the much, much larger Jupiter should have a slower spin rate than Earth, but it doesn't. Instead, Jupiter rotates completely in 9 hours and 50 minutes. Should not this information at least start the process of wondering whether we really understand Earth's core when we have so little direct physical evidence to go on? Originally Posted by coden3: I really don't know if Earth has a cold core of Hydrogen. However, I’m willing to consider alternative theories when there is physical evidence suggesting such a possibility might exist. Comment by Ophiolite: As am I. I would therefore welcome a list of proper citations, rather than references to dead Roman geographers, 'French scientists', anecdotal experience, UPI press releases, and the like. Originally Posted by coden3: In the early 1950's, Russian researchers suggested the possibility of metallic hydrogen becoming dense enough under core pressures to be in Earth’s core, but were unable to physically produce it. Comment by Ophiolite: P.Loubeyre, et al reported in a 1996 letter to Nature that solid hydrogen did not become metallic at the pressures and temperatures to be found in the core. Metallic hydrogen is a necessary prerequisite if the Earth's magnetic field is to be generated within the postulated hydrogen core. Having a cold core only exacerbates the problem. Coden3 Response: First, metallic hydrogen has already been produced at Livermore Labs and may have been created before by Russian researchers. Second, your reference is only a dated opinion, proven to be dead wrong. In addition, exactly what is the pressure and temperature at the core? Of course, no one really knows. The best "scientific" evidence is that the pressure at the core is 350 Gigapascals which is 3,500,000 earth surface pressures (ATM's). One perspective on this would be the crush pressures at the deep ocean bottom, which are only about 500 ATM's. Admittedly, there is a lot of pressure in Earth’s core. However, static pressure, no matter how great, cannot create heat so the center of Earth could be very cold. The density of iron at the surface (translated to pounds per cubic foot for perspective ) is 491 pounds whereas to make the total density of the earth come out right, geoscientists believe iron densifies to about 800 pounds per cubic foot in the inner core. This seems to indicate that iron compresses only about 60% under 350 Gigapascals of pressure. However, hydrogen has been shown to compress much more at equivalent anvil pressures applied in laboratories. So there should be some more doubt here too. Problem 1: The hypothesis must explain how the magnetic field is generated within solid, non-metallic hydrogen, or liquid, non-metallic hydrogen. Coden3 Response: Why non-metallic hydrogen? There seems to be ample evidence that metallic hydrogen can exist at core pressures, even be reproduced at ambient temperatures in laboratories. Why can’t anyone consider the possibility of the simple situation of having a magnetic, metallic hydrogen core, which is also affected by the Sun’s magnetic field; to the extent of polar wandering and even reversals. This makes for a much simpler and more understandable explanation than assuming an iron core is freely spinning inside Earth at incredible core pressures. Having to reverse its rotation to reverse polar orientation makes a spinning iron core even more absurd. Originally Posted by coden3: The Shell results were circulated in the 1970's, drawing little interest. In 1980, Steven Solter reported on his related research at Cornell in THE DEEP EARTH GAS HYPOTHESIS, with Tom Gold. Later, geologist Charles Warren Hunt also published similar articles suggesting Earth had a hydrogen core, as did Neil Christianson. Comment by Ophiolite: My understanding of Gold's hypothesis is that methane is exuded by the mantle and becomes converted to more complex hydrocarbons (possibly by the action of deep resident extremophiles) as it migrates through the crust. He made no mention - that I can find - of a possible hydrogen core. Coden3 Response: Gold, Tom; "Oil from the Centre of the Earth," New Scientist, p. 42, June 26, 1986 Comment by Ophiolite: (By the way, who is Steven Solter - I can find no references to him?) For example, Gold,T. PNAS Vol.89 1992. Coden3 Response: Steven Solter was a researcher at Cornell University, who got little credit for the DEEP EARTH GAS HYPOTHESIS. Not an unusual situation when dealing with Tom Gold. Comment by Ophiolite: Charles Warren Hunt appears to believe that deep hydrogen originates from hydrides in the mantle and has nothing to say about a hydrogen core. C. Warren Hunt Response: That is correct only directly, however, due to the hot core theory of standard science, this ripples through to a belief that initially entrapped hydrogen would have long ago been significantly depleted, or destroyed, or changed by the heat. No matter what, the hot core would make for a minimum of hydrogen in the core and mantle. I must dispute that. The article you referenced has a graphic. The "heat" is shown with darker being colder and lighter being hotter. This shows my belief in a cold core with plumes of hydrides moving up through the mantle. The heat that we see is primarily a near surface lithosphere effect where the rising plumes meet much less pressure and alter their state, and react with oxygen, as the article explains. See Table II. I have also become much taken with the Christenson’s theory by personal correspondence. Gold also did not specifically speculate on the cores’ make up that I know of, but his work indicates that at the testing level we can experiment on, there is much more hydrogen rising and available than the current theories of a hot core would allow. The new Huygens discovery of surface lakes of Methane (CH^4) on Saturn's moon, Titan, is also another clear indication that at least much Methane is not a "fossil" fuel. Again, evidence supporting doubt for the theory of a hot non hydrogen core. Problem 2: Your quoted sources do not in any way support the cold hydrogen core hypothesis. Indeed Hunt's at least appears antithetical to it. C. Warren Hunt Response: At that time, I only recognized that huge quantities of hydrogen are resident in the earth's interior and on occasion burp out (Environment of Violence, 1990) Originally Posted by coden3: Hydrogen molecules can create intense heat [3200F] and water by exothermic reaction with oxides in crustal layers. OR hydrogen can combine with carbon to form hydrocarbons. Comment by Ophiolite: Please provide a citation to support the generation of such high temperatures within the solid phases of a crustal setting. I do not see how reaction rates in these conditions could be fast enough to generate such temperatures. (Please note: this is not an Argument from Incredulity, but a request for evidence to support your claim.) Coden3 Response: The request for a citation seems unnecessary in view of the widely recognized existence of melted rock or lavas emerging from Earth’s crust. How else could melted rock be created excepting by oxidation of hydrides escaping into the crust from the mantle? Again, please review that Hunt article which is a synapsis of the book, Hydridic Earth, the Geology of our primordially hydrogen-rich planet. by Vladimir N. Larin, translated by C. Warren Hunt, 1993 (available through information in that article). Also hydrides of Silicon and Carbon meeting oxygen and releasing heat as per Table II. Problem 3: Where is the evidence for these high temperatures being generated within the crust by this mechanism? Coden3 Response: The existence of Lava or the heating of melted rock is clearly evident by its ejection. Where's the doubt that it exists? It must have been created by some means that generated the intense heat necessary to melt rock, which has not been found anywhere in the regions below a volcano’s cone. What alternative is there? Originally Posted by coden3: However, if horizontal gravity is considered, as an additional force to be overcome, then the moment of inertia of a condensed, cold-core cross section, last taught by Rene Descartes, becomes a viable alternative. Comment by Ophiolite: This is from Christianson's paper. Despite his credentials from the Titan missile program, I am left somewhat apprehensive by a further quote - "...the workings of a condensed cold-core model matched well events reported by paleaontologists, archaeologists, geologists and historians. They also matched well events reported in the Bible, including future events foretold by the prophets." Problem 4: Horizontal gravity? Overall credibility of this 'expert'? C. Warren Hunt Response: So, only the credentialed can make discoveries? Christenson may well be an amateur as were Copernicus, Newton, and Darwin in their day when they made their principal discoveries. He also sees evidence of geologic catastrophes due to a pulsing earth effect. An expert knows everything worth knowing and thus restricts belief in new areas. A review of the history of science literature would reveal that most breakthroughs come from amateurs or those new to the field. Whether this theory becomes important or not it is irrelevant to whether an outsider can connect the dots in a previously unseen manner, worthy of further refinement. Coden3 Response: FYI, Neil has just submitted his theory of horizontal vectors and revised density tables for Earth to a journal for peer review. It will be interesting to see if it is accepted. Originally posted by coden3: Of course, some of you may already know of laboratory experiments which clearly indicate Iron becomes too dense at core pressures to be Earth's primary core material. Comment by Ophiolite: Dr. Ho-Kwang Mau's preliminary investigations were conducted in 1980. If these were corroborated by subsequent studies we can be confident that there would have been a massive re-evaluation of our thoughts on Earth structure. Coden3 Response: These results have been corroborated many times and have led to a fairly widespread belief that iron becomes too dense to be the primary element in Earth’s core and the core may be an alloy of iron and hydrogen. So how do you explain where the hydrogen came from that is now assumed, repeat, assumed to be alloyed with iron in Earth’s core? And, yes, there is a re-evaluation as to the composition of Earth’s core currently being tested in many countries and universities. Problem 5: Your rejection of an iron-nickel core is based upon provisional results that do not appear to have been corroborated. C. Warren Hunt: Previously answered. Re-read Kuhne. Originally posted by coden3: Thus, the now popular, albeit illogical, theory that an enormous excess of Iron somehow sank thru a molten Earth to form its core was born; as if other, heavier elements would have stood still for this. Gold core anyone? Comment by Ophiolite: You appear to have no understanding of; a) the postulated impurities present within the core; b) the lithophile/siderophobe and siderophile/lithophobe character of many elements; c) The small quantities of minor denser elements that are present. Coden3 Response: I don't understand? Consider, C) “The small quantities of minor denser elements that are present” is a complete assumption that begs the question of your understanding. In addition, am I to believe centrifugal spinning forces the lighter elements to the outside? Again, I am offering the possibility to consider an alternative to accepted dogma - not proof, because standard science hasn't presented "proof" either. The way things work in all surface experiments, just may or may not also function at depth, and seismic interpretations of Earth’s interior as to composition, temperature and formation by self-serving scientists with investments in the current dogma which are just that, interpretations a.k.a. assumptions. Problem 6: Your logic is faulty because you do not understand the geochemistry. Therefore you need to offer another explanation for why the iron core should not form. Coden3 Response: I don’t understand geochemistry? Clearly someone doesn’t. However, I think this explanation exists. Published experimental results (published about 1961), which I cannot quote, but remember with certainty proved that particulate iron condensing out primarily from a granitic melt does not have sufficient excess weight to settle out. This was determined on earth's surface, where gravitational force is maximal. As said force diminishes to zero at earth center, there is no feasible way for (only) iron to have segregated from other elements to form the core. Originally posted by coden3: Obviously, they (hydrogen from within) still do as the hydrogen escaping into space every day has to come from somewhere. Comment by Ophiolite: The quantities of escaping hydrogen are miniscule and are fully accounted for by breakdown of water vapour by UV radiation. Coden3 Response: Well, if you start with a great mass of hydrogen in the inner and outer core of the earth, it is not hard to see that you need but a very little (a small %) venting thru the crust to form the oceans and the atmosphere, and related compounds and have some constantly escaping to space, etc. How exactly this is taking place is less relevant than first accepting the premise that it is possible, and then working on the refinements. Problem 7: Where is all the mobile hydrogen from this cold core? C. Warren Hunt: Hydrogen nuclei under mantle pressures penetrate the outer electron rings of metals. This transmutes the metals to "intermetals." Intermetals are fluids. They are much denser than the original metals and account for the density of the mantle and core (Hydridic Earth, V.N. Larin). Charles Warren Hunt http://www.polarpublishing.com Coden3 Response: I don’t fully agree with a few of the concepts about which C. Warren Hunt has written, but I agree with most as I am personally aware that Hydrogen has the unique ability to infuse into the molecules of mantle materials, forming hydrides, then travel outward towards areas of less pressure, most likely seen as magma plumes, then effuse into grain boundaries between molecules as pressures lessen, whereupon hydrogen can react with other elements, such as oxides, creating intense heat which enables melted rock to vent thru Earth’s crust as lavas, while the ejected hydrogen compounds rise into the stratosphere and the hydrogen escapes into space. These are proven facts, which I have personally tested in similar experiments under laboratory conditions for Shell (Oil) Development in the 1950's. Thus I began to suspect the sacred concept I was taught about Earth having a hot iron core might not be the correct concept. So, having some experience with the properties of hydrogen, more than most researchers, and the possibility that magnetic, metallic hydrogen might exist in Earth’s core, as it does on other planets, I consider the possibility of Earth having a hydrogen core. Still not totally convinced, however, as I am still learning and willing to consider any alternatives, which is more than I can say for some.

doG: Magma is easy to explain, since it has been so well studied over the years. The heat created by the combination of hydrogen with oxides can reach 3200F, more than enough to melt rock. Add to this the pressures of hydrogen effusing from below and you get one very hot, explosive situation. Scientists have concentrated on lava and volcanic mountains. I have concentrated on the amount of gases vented by volcanoes, which can exceed 30 times the weight of the volcano itself. Thus, I see volcanoes as simply vents for hydrogen compounds and their magna as simply melted rock, no different that the slag surrounding a hole blasted thru an iron plate by a cutting torch; which uses cold hydrogen to provide the heat. Consider this, no liquid 'magma' has been discovered deep within a volcanic cone, nor has any magma reservoir been identified beneath a volcano. The greatest heat has only been found in the upper regions of volcanic lakes, with temperatures decreasing with depth, with no 'throat' found in the depths, only solid rock. T. A. Jagger, MY LIFE WITH VOLCANOES. However, I suppose 'scientists' will continue to look upon the trivial deposits of lava as the primary evidence for a molten interior filled with 'magma,' while I will continue look upon the far greater mass of gases venting into space as evidence for a cold hydrogen interior. Regards, Charlie

I really don't know if Earth has a cold core of Hydrogen. However, I’m willing to consider alternative theories when there is physical evidence suggesting such a possibility might exist. Unfortunately, dogmatic believers, like Creationists, usually dismiss any alternatives without thinking. The reason I joined this ‘discussion’ was the initial reference in this thread to a book written by Neil B. Christianson; claiming Earth has a cold core of hydrogen. I’ve read his book and, while I do not fully agree with him, I’m at least aware such a theory is not uncommon. There are records before the time of Christ suggesting Earth has LIGHT elements inside and volcanoes are only vents for their gases. Strabo, for example. Hydrogen, by name, was later mentioned by French Scientists as being the most likely element to be found in both Earth's core and the Sun soon after it's physical properties were identified. In the early 1950's, Russian researchers suggested the possibility of metallic hydrogen becoming dense enough under core pressures to be in Earth’s core, but were unable to physically produce it. In the late 1950's, the physical properties of hydrogen, atomic, liquid and gaseous, were researched at Shell (Oil) Development. [bet you'll never guess who was part of that team.] The Shell results were circulated in the 1970's, drawing little interest. In 1980, Steven Solter reported on his related research at Cornell in THE DEEP EARTH GAS HYPOTHESIS, with Tom Gold. Later, geologist Charles Warren Hunt also published similar articles suggesting Earth had a hydrogen core, as did Neil Christianson. Hydrogen is an interesting element, possibly capable of being both Earth's solid metal inner core and liquid outer core, except for yet to be established density considerations and the yet unknown properties of metallic hydrogen. However, atomic hydrogen from Earth’s core would have no difficulty infusing into the molecules of mantle elements, then rising thru these molecules, eventually effusing as hydrogen molecules between crystal grain boundaries as pressures decreased. This process is called hydrogen embrittlement, a problem in industry to this day. Hydrogen molecules can create intense heat [3200F] and water by exothermic reaction with oxides in crustal layers. OR hydrogen can combine with carbon to form hydrocarbons. [Of interest to Shell.] These hydrogen compounds are usually vented by volcanos and other means thru Earth's crust. Then, most hydrogen compounds, largely as water and methane gases, with lots of hydrogen sulfide, rise into the stratosphere where atomic hydrogen escapes into space and CO^2 descends to Earth's surface. [Lighter H+O+H and CH^4 becomes heavier CO^2 and escaping H (only) under solar radiation.] All of this has been observed and tested under laboratory conditions, except for the core density problem. However, Neil Christianson, former head of the USAF Titan Missel Program, has been working for some time on including horizontal gravitational vectors with vertical vectors for Earth's density. He has just reported the results of his calculations. I’m reprinting a portion of his findings: Now, geodesists contend no lateral gravity exist within the earth—because in their three dimensional analysis of internal forces, all radial vectors are vertical; hence, there can be no lateral (horizontal) vectors. Further analysis showed the flattening of the earth dictates a small moment of inertia. So, earth’s mass must concentrate in her core; which in turn, portends a molten core to allow heavy materials to sink to her center to accommodate a small moment of inertia. In reviewing their mathematics, I discovered they only used the vertical attraction of gravity at the earth’s equator in their calculation. However, if horizontal gravity is considered, as an additional force to be overcome, then the moment of inertia of a condensed, cold-core cross section, last taught by Rene Descartes, becomes a viable alternative. If you want to pursue my logic go to: http://members.cox.net/nchristianson3/part0.ppt By: Neil B. Christianson, Author of: “EARTH HAS A COLD HEART’ (1989) and “TWO HUNDRED YEARS ASTRAY” (2005). Of course, some of you may already know of laboratory experiments which clearly indicate Iron becomes too dense at core pressures to be Earth’s primary core material. Among others: 1980, May 9, United Press International news release: "One of the initial results of the high pressure apparatus at the Carnegie Institute of Washington was to squelch the long held idea that Earth's core consisted of an alloy of iron and nickel. Dr Ho-Kwang Mao was the first to show that an IRON-NICKEL mixture COULD NOT EXIST IN THE CORE because the alloy changes density under great pressure and would become far too dense to exist in Earth’s core." Meanwhile, I am but one of many individuals interested in a more logical alternative for Earth's ‘Hot Iron Core.’ Many others, extending back hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, have been steadfast in their belief of Earth having a hydrogen core, like the Sun, from the beginning of its formation. Unfortunately, the existence of Earth's magnetic field led others, ignorant of the magnetic property of metallic hydrogen, to ASSUME Earth’s core must only be of ferromagnetic metals. Thus, the now popular, albeit illogical, theory that an enormous excess of Iron somehow sank thru a molten Earth to form its core was born; as if other, heavier elements would have stood still for this. Gold core anyone? This might be fine if Earth were static, as seen in classrooms which teach such dogma and ignore centrifugal force. In fact, Earth rotated very rapidly in the past; to the extent it was initially disk shaped, as are today other galactic bodies in the process of formation. This explains why ‘normal’ proportions of Iron and other heavier elements are found in continental layers and not in oceanic layers; with none left over to 'sink' into a spinning ‘molten’ Earth and form its core. Later, scientists realized a Tcurie of 580C made it impossible for Earth's supposedly intensely heated inner Iron core to be magnetic, even less possible for a 5,000C molten outer core. So, the same seismic recordings used to 'prove' molten plumes of ‘magma’ were rising from the core, were then used instead to 'prove' Earth’s inner core was spinning inside a molten outer core and thus generating Earth's magnetic field. Problem is, the latest ‘interpreted’ seismic movement of Earth’s inner core is 2 Km per year, about that of a snail on a cold day. If the concept of anything spinning inside Earth's core, under core pressures, isn't dumb enough, the current rate of seismic movement should prove it. Interestingly, 2 Km per year is close to the rate at which I personally infused hydrogen atoms into a variety of materials in the 1950's so the seismic movement appears to be only hydrogen infusion. Now, hydrogen atoms don’t move very fast thru other molecules, but one hellava lot could past thru Earth’s mantle from the core during the past four plus billion years. Obviously, they still do as the hydrogen escaping into space every day has to come from somewhere. Meanwhile, metallic hydrogen was produced in the US only recently. From this, others, including myself, hope to use its physical properties in experiments and calculations which may, repeat may, prove that metallic hydrogen is the most likely core material; especially since Iron cannot be, by laboratory tests made many years ago. Something which doesn't seem to have 'sunk in' yet for many Hot Iron Core believers.

It is quite obvious that the earth's innards are hot. This seems to be the most common ASSUMPTION about Earth's composition to date. In reality, I believe NO ONE knows in fact what is Earth's present interior temperatures at any level below the crust. It would be kind of someone to inform me as to how Earth's interior temperatures were measured. If there are no physical measurements, then any claim of cold or hot must be an ASSUMPTION. Another thing that has been found out about the earths core is it actually spins or rotates faster then the earth ever so slightly. Actually this spinning movement was interpreted from seismic recordings AFTER the same seismic recording of movement at core boundaries was FIRST interpreted as plumes of rising magma. The second ASSUMPTION was apparently made to reinforce the illogical ASSUMPTION that an improbable, if not imposssible, spinning of Earth's inner HOT IRON core generated Earth's magnetic field. Talk about psuedoscience going mainstream! Another interpretation is that this movement is a hydrogen phase change from metallic to molecular. The hydrogen is then ASSUMED to rise thru the mantle and, in fact, effuses thru the crust, then, in fact, escapes into space. Each of these three interpretations are still just ASSUMPTIONS as none are proven, but at least hydrogen effusion and escape is a constant ongoing, physically observed process which indicates there is a hydrogen reservoir within Earth, which could be the core. More later on calculations which will give a lower density for the core due to gravitational attractions of both horizontal and vertical vectors WITHIN a mass of elements. There appears to be a substantial difference between using only gravity's vertical vectors and then including horizontal vectors to establish density at different points within a mass. I believe this will establish the likelyhood of compressed, metallic hydrogen at core pressures being able to equal the recalculated density required for Earth's core.

Observational data too often seems to reflect the current scientific dogma to provide much in the way of physical proof. In reality, NO ONE really knows what is in Earth's core, nor what its temperature might be. Could be Hydrogen and very cold for all we KNOW. Should have written: 7 miles is relatively deep in continental crust, yet there seemed to be a lack of radioactive materials, but lots of Hydrogen and its compounds. There is no missing mass. Experiments have indicated Iron became too dense to be in Earth's core, thus the recent effort to ASSUME an alloy of Iron and Hydrogen. I suggest that metallic Hydrogen, compressed to the density by pressures suggested for Earth's core, might become dense enough to equal a revised calculated density for Earth's core, IF gravitational forces between molecules located horizontally in addition to those now only calculated vertically are considered. Again, I'm curious if anyone can inform me as to what proerties of Iron led scientists to ASSUME Iron was located in Earth's core? Could it have been the existance of Earth having a magnetic field? If so, it would be understandable that scientists, ignorant of the magneitc properties of metallic hydrogen, might ASSUME Earth's core must be Iron since they only knew of ferromagnetic materials being magnetic? Then one has to wonder why intense heat was ASSUMED when Tcurie renders Iron non-magnetic. Still curious.

So why not at least consider hydrogen as an alternative for Earth's core? 1. What happened to the theory I was taught over 60 years ago that ALL cosmic bodies condensed from within spinning clouds of particles and/or gases, wherein a varied balance of gravity and centrifugal force would result in the lightest elements gathering in the center of a developing mass and heavier elements collecting to the outside? 2. I was also taught this manner of formation by condensation was true in the beginning of Earth's formation, just as it was true for the Sun's formation and still seems to be the only manner of physical mass formation observed in the cosmos. Only with Earth, somehow temperatures were ASSUMED to become intense enough to melt the entire planet and then an enormous excess of Iron, compared to galactic proportions, is ASSUMED to have flowed inward, thru all the other heavier elements with lower melting points that somehow stayed put. Then, this excess of Iron is ASSUMED to have formed Earth's core by vaporizing ALL the lighter paleo-elements within and forcing them to the outside where they were blown away by solar winds. The first seemed logical at that time and may still be true. The second seems to be an illogical series of assumptions that fits in well with pseudoscientific dogma. More than 50 years ago, I was involved in researching problems with drilling deep boreholes, some nearly five miles deep then. Hydrogen was a major problem in the deepest boreholes, but very little in the way of radioactive materials were found there. Since then, I've read that physical analysis of oceanic crust has found only very small amounts of radioactive materials in deep boreholes, whereas the majority of radioactive materials seem to be found mainly in continental crustal layer boreholes. More recently, the Kola very deep borehome went down some seven miles and found lots of water (H+O+H) and molecular hydrogen (H+H), but no significant amount of radioactive materials seemed to have been found. Two questions: 1. If there are only limited or no radioactive materials to be found below continental layers, why ASSUME these will be found within Earth's interior? 2. If hydrogen and its compounds are still found in significant quantities relatively deep within Earth's crust and significant amounts of hydrogen are currently escaping into space, doesn't that physically indicate Earth still has a reservoir of hydrogen within, possibly the core? Currently, I've read of another relatively recent ASSUMPTION that Earth accreated thru a GRAND BOMBARDMENT of smaller masses, which turned Earth into a molten mass due to the heat created by their violent impacts, after which time stratification of the elements contained within these masses occured and an enormous execss of Iron, by galactic proportions, is ASSUMED to have collected in the core with the lighter elements remaining as gases in Earth's atmosphere. Two more questions: 1. How were all these smaller masses formed prior to Earth being formed by them? [Chicken and egg problem.] 2. What physical property caused Iron to be ASSUMED to be in Earth's core in the first place? Just curious.