David Levy

Thanks Now it is clear, however it seems that there is a real paradox in the final formula for Cooling time - T(cooling). Let's start with Stefan-Boltzmann law . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html#c1 "Here P is the power emitted from the area, and E is the energy contained by the object. For very hot objects, the role of the ambient temperature can be neglected. If the hot temperature is more than 3.16 times the ambient, then the contribution of ambient terms is less than 1%. For example, for 300K ambient on the earth, an object of temperature higher than 1000K can be treated like a pure radiator into space." Hence, based on Stefan-Boltzmann law : P = dE/dt = function of: T(hot)4 – T(ambient)4 Hence, based on Stefan-Boltzmann law the : T(ambient)4 is neglected with regards to T(hot)4 If T(hot) = 1000K and T(ambient) = 300K we will neglect the T(ambient). Therefore, it is assumed (by error of less than 1%) that: P = dE/dt = function of: T(hot) 4 Hence, the power is a direct function of the high temperature T(hot), without any influence of T(ambient). However, in order to calculate the Cooling Time it is needed to set an integral from T(hot) to T(final). The result of this integral is that: Cooling time is function of: 1/T(final)3 – 1/T(hot)3 Hence, 1/T(hot)3 is neglected with regards to 1/T(final)3 Therefore it is stated: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime2.html#c1 "If the hot temperature is more than 3.16 times the final temperature, then the contribution of the high temperature term is less than 1%. For example, for the 300K ambient on the earth, an original temperature higher than 1000K would make the second temperature in the expression above negligible". Now the T(hot) had been neglected and this is a real paradox! There must be an error in this process. We have to find it. One possibility is that it was forbidden to neglect the T(ambient) from Stefan-Boltzmann law. I would like to verify what might be the outcome of the Integral without neglecting the T ambient (although its contribution is less than 1%). I can prove that there is a paradox in the formula of T(cooling) as follow: Let's assume that there are two identical stars. The T(hot) of the first one is 20,000K and the T(hot) of the other one is 1000K Based on the T(cooling) formula, both should have almost the same cooling time. Is it real???

O.K. So what is the level of T(hot)? I would like to understand the calculation In the formula, it is expected to see the following function: (1/T (final) >3 – 1/T(hot)>3) But it isn't there. Why?

Please see the following article about Kelvin Cooling Time for the Earth: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime2.html#c1 It is stated that: "The Kelvin cooling time for the Earth is then about 30,000 years" The formula is very clear. All the signs are also clear. Full explanation is given by http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html#c1 However, the temperature calculation it's not fully clear to me: I assume that T (final) = 300K, But what is the value of T (Hot)? Is it 1000K? Why we can't see it in the calculation? It should be a function of ( 1/T (final) >3 – 1/T(hot)>3)

Well, in this entire article I couldn't find even one word about Mars. The title is - Thermal Aspects of Lunar origin by giant impact. They also claim - Our goal here is to assess whether the moon we know is compatible with the Moon that might form following a giant impact. Therefore, I would expect that they had intention to discuss about the Moon' heat dissipation. Therefore, it might be some kind of a typo error. However, let's assume that it is Mars. In any case, Earth mass is bigger than Mars by about 10 times. Therefore, if 100 My is needed for Mars than 1,000 My is needed for Earth to cool down. It is stated: The cooling time is on the order of accretion time (100my) or longer. What is the meaning of longer? Is it 10, 100, or 1,000 My? It seems that they are not fully sure about the total requested time for heat dissipation under the Crust heat conductance factor. The minimum time is 100 My, but the maximum is not defined. To summarize; This article gives a solid evidence that by taking in account just one factor, the requested cooling time (for Mars) is at least 100 My. This is an indication that the cooling time for Earth under the Crust heat conductance factor could be more than 1,000 My. By adding the other factors as Atmosphere and sun radiation increase (The Earth was closer to the sun in the past), the cooling time for the Earth must be even longer. This is a waking call for the science community to verify those key factors. It is needed to make more realistic simulation in order to understand the real age of Earth. The current assumption that only 30 My (or even 100 My) is needed for the Earth as cooling time is absolutly incorrect!

Yes, it is the Moon The title of this article is: "Thermal Aspects of Lunar origin by giant impact" "The bulk of the evidence and modeling suggests hot initial conditions for nearly all the lunar." "Our goal here is to assess whether the moon we know is compatible with the Moon that might form following a giant impact." "leading to bodies of the 1M (lunar mass) as the building blocks for making Earth."

Thermal Aspects of Lunar origin by giant impact https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8i44zjcKm4EC&oi=fnd&pg=PA179&dq=%22giant+impact%22+%26+%22cooling%22&ots=7J7G5oM4kO&sig=wwNA70Ueg5akNq0HCdlX_wD6fPU#v=onepage&q=%22giant%20impact%22%20&f=false It is an excellent example how the Crust heat conductance could affect the heat dissipation of the Moon. In pg 181 it is stated: "Interestingly, lava takes on Hawaii typically show effective radiating temperatures of around 500 K (because of thin skin overlying…) "To summarize, substantial bodies (1M or even 0.5 M) must be extensively partially molten in order to lose heat efficiently, and would be even more molten if they failed to lose heat efficiently. The cooling time is on the order of accretion time (100my) or longer. "From the number mentioned previously, it is evident that an incoming mass of order 1 M has sufficient energy to melt all of Earth". Hence, If we take in account this factor by itself, the cooling time (for the moon) is in order of 100 My or more. Therefore, it is clear that the cooling time for the Earth must be significantly longer as it's mass is about 80 times the mass of the moon. So if we just multiply it by 80, the cooling time must be more than 8000 My or 8 By. If we add to this the other factors, than the cooling time must be even much longer!

There is no need for spoon, as the evidences are clear. The science didn't take in their account for the fast Earth heat dissipation ALL the following factors: Atmosphere on Earth, Crust heat conductance and Sun radiation. Please also be aware that as the Earth is drifting away from the Sun, it is expected that 4.5 By ago the Earth was closer to the sun. Therefore, the total heat from sun radiation was higher. In any case, without taking in account the impact of all the factors, T4 formula is not realistic. Hence, it is needed to set more accurate calculation/formula!

It's unbelievable. I ask you a simple question and you direct me to speculation. Please be aware that I didn't say even one word of speculation. Therefore, let me repeat my question: Did the science take in the account of the fast Earth heat dissipation (T4 formula) the following factors: Atmosphere on Earth, Crust heat conductance and Sun radiation Yes or no? Why is it so difficult to answer?

Yes, I read it carefully, but unfortunately it seems that the science didn't take in the account for the fast Earth heat dissipation (100 My) the following main factors: Atmosphere on Earth, Crust heat conductance and Sun radiation Please advice if you confirm this verification.

So far I didn't get an answer to my following question: Based on T4 formula, scientists had proved that the Earth could potentially be cooled down from the 6000 to 32 in about 30 My. However, did the scientists add to this formula the impact of the following factors: -Atmosphere on Earth -Crust heat conductance -Sun radiation

Thanks That explanation is perfect for the current time calculation. However, I'm not sure that in the following formula there is any influence of the atmosphere on Earth - 4.5 By ago. This formula had been used to proof the short cool down period on Earth. In any case, do we know the real atmosphere on Earth - 4.5 By ago? Did we use it in our calculation? Please let me know if I have missed something.

O.K. Let's agree that It is relevant to Venus. However, we are using this formula to prove why the Earth had been cooled down in less than 100 My. So would you kindly explain why by using the same formula on Venus, we find that Venus isn't cool enough to sustain water (even after 4.5 By)?

Well, sorry if I missed the reply. But, would you kindly answer the following: Oldest rock on Earth – The oldest rock which had found on Earth is about 4.4 Billion years. However, the Earth is very active planet, as its rocks are weathered, eroded, folded, and remelted. Now add to that the convection process. Therefore, it is expected that all the oldest rocks are located at least several km below the surface of the Earth or even destroyed long time ago. Hence, from statistical point of view, the rock which had been found couldn't be the real oldest one. Therefore, do you agree that we have to make some statistical calculation and get better estimation about the real age of the oldest rock on Earth? Do you agree that the real old rocks might be located deep below the surface of the Earth? Venus - The age of Venus is similar to Earth, they are located nearby and they are quite similar with their mass. We know for sure that the temperature on Earth was cold enough to sustain water for at least 4.4 By. However, we also know that Venus is significantly hotter. Therefore, do you agree that T4 formula is not relevant to Venus? And as it is not relevant to Venus, how can we trust it for the Earth? Atmosphere - it must have a significant impact on our calculation for the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature: "The Earth has an albedo of 0.3, meaning that 30% of the solar radiation that hits the planet gets scattered back into space without absorption" How do we know what was the albedo of the Earth during the first 100 My? Crust heat conductance - Let's assume that a thin crust covers the earth at a temp of 500 while the whole internal Earth temperature was 6000. This should have a great impact on our calculation for black body's thermodynamic temperature. Now we have to use 500 instead of 6000. Therefore, Do you agree that this factor by itself could set a significantly change in the requested time which is needed to cool down the Earth?

Thanks Mordred Why can't we just focus on Earth? Think about the following: Oldest rock on Earth – The oldest rock which had found on Earth is about 4.4 Billion years. However, the Earth is very active planet, as its rocks are weathered, eroded, folded, and remelted. Now add to that the convection process. Therefore, it is expected that all the oldest rocks are located at least several km below the surface of the Earth or even destroyed long time ago. Hence, from statistical point of view, the rock which had been found couldn't be the real oldest one. Therefore, we could make some statistical calculation and get estimation what might be the age of the real oldest rock on Earth. Venus - The age of Venus is similar to Earth, they are located nearby and they are quite similar with their mass. We know for sure that the temperature on Earth was cold enough to sustain water for at least 4.4 By. However, we also know that Venus is significantly hotter. Therefore, it is quite pathetic to convince our self by some kind of T4 formula. It didn't work for Venus and therefore, it might not be applicable for Earth. There are several other indication that the Earth is older, so what? Why the science insists that the age of the Earth must be younger than 4.6 By. Why is it? What kind of catastrophic could happen if it is 6, 10 or even 12 billion years? (I had an impression that as long as it is younger than the age of the universe based on BBT than it is O.K.) So, why the scientists are in panic?

Thanks for the support We have discovered that Venus and Earth are quite similar (Sister planets), but there is significant different in their surface temperature. Therefore, it might be a mistake to use a formula without deep understanding on the real process on each planet. There are so many factors to discover before using those kinds of formulas. I have already highlight some factors but there are more. Those factors are not constant. There are changes over time. For example – Atmosphere and Crust heat conductance, -Atmosphere must have a significant impact on our calculation for the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law#Temperature_of_the_Earth "This gives an effective temperature of 6 °C on the surface of the Earth, assuming that it perfectly absorbs all emission falling on it and has no atmosphere." The Earth has an albedo of 0.3, meaning that 30% of the solar radiation that hits the planet gets scattered back into space without absorption However, we don't know for sure what kind of atmosphere the Earth or Venus have 4500 My ago. -Crust heat conductance Let's assume that a thin crust covers the earth at a temp of 500 while the whole internal Earth temperature was 6000. This should have a great impact on our calculation for black body's thermodynamic temperature. Now we have to use 500 instead of 6000. Therefore, this factor by itself can set a significantly change in the requested time which is needed to cool down the Earth.

Thanks for the question. Let's look at the "sister planet" - Venus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Magnetic_field_and_core Venus is a terrestrial planet and is sometimes called Earth's "sister planet" because of their similar size, mass, proximity to the Sun and bulk composition" It has no real magnetic shield: "Venus's small induced magnetosphere provides negligible protection to the atmosphere against cosmic radiation." The main reason for that is none functionality of the dynamo at Venus. However, the requirements for dynamo are as follow: "A dynamo requires three things: a conducting liquid, rotation, and convection." Without the dynamo, there is no magnetic shield: "No internal geodynamo is available to drive a magnetic field. Instead, the heat energy from the core is being used to reheat the crust" Hence, Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system: "mean surface temperature of 735 K (462 °C; 863 °F), Venus is by far the hottest planet in the Solar System" The dynamo is requested three elements: a conducting liquid, rotation, and convection." Without those elements, there is no dynamo, there is no magnetic shield and there is a significant increase in the temperature. Those three elements had not been developed properly in Venus. Hence, without those elements, it is expected that also on earth the temperature could be significantly high. Therefore, it isn't just an issue of formulas and mathematics. It's an issue of fundamental requirements on Earth to establish the basic elements for heat dissipation and protection. The science must proof that all the requested elements had been developed in Earth in a very short time before starting any calculation. How could it be that in Venus (even after 4500 My) those elements had not been properly developed, while in Earth (which is nearby and has similar size) it had been developed almost instantly?

Thanks I'm not sure that I fully understand your following explanation Therefore, let's summarize the evidences: The Earth had been formed about 4,550Myr ago. In less than 100 My (or even 30 My?) it's temperature had been decreased dramatically from 6000 to about 32. However, after cooling down to 32 it keeps that temperature for the coming 4,400 My. Please also be aware that it took some time to the Earth to establish the magnetic core. Therefore, during this time it had been bombarded by significant amount of heat from the Sun. Therefore, it is expected that the temperature of Earth should actually increase in its first phase of life. However, just after setting the magnetic shield it had a real chance to decrease its temperature. So, with all this information please answer the following: How long it took the Earth to establish the magnetic shield? (Not just the iron core but real shield) Without this shield, how the temperature on Earth should be affected? After setting the shield, what is the expected heat dissipation which is requested to decrease the Earth temperature from over 6000 to 32? How could it be that the Earth had been set the magnetic shield and cooled down dramatically in less than 100 My, while it keeps its temperature at the same level for the coming 4400 my. Please explain and proof by evidence.

I want to understand the real age of Earth. Somehow, 4.6 Billion is not enough.

Excellent answer! So we have two elements: -"Sun heat contribution" and -"The heat loss falls off, as the temperature difference decreases". Let's start with the first element: Sun heat contribution – for the last 4.4 Billion years the sun keeps the earth at the same temperature (more or less). With this assumption, even if we go back 100 Billion year, than the temperature on Earth should be the same. However, somehow, we must increase this temperature. Therefore, let assume that the max temperature to hold life is 50 °C. That was 3.5 Billion years ago. So, 3.5 Billion years ago, the temperature was 50 °C. If the temperature today is 30, then it had been decreased by 20 °C in 3.5 Billion years. Now, let use the second section: The heat loss falls off, as the temperature difference decreases- So, in 3.5 Billion, the temperature had been falls by 20 °C . Let's use 3.5 Billion year as a constant time segment and the 20 °C as heat increase segment. Let's assume that as we move backwards in time, for each constant time sector, the heat increase should be doubled. Hence, At 7 billion years ago, the temperature was 50 + 2x20 = 90 °C (Heat increase 90-30= 60 °C) At 10.5 billion years ago, the temperature was 90 + 2x60 = 210 °C (Heat increase 210-30= 180 °C) At 14 billion years ago, the temperature was 210 + 2x180 = 570 °C (Heat increase 570-30= 540 °C) At 17.5 billion years ago, the temperature was 570 + 2x540 = 1650 °C (Heat increase 1650-30= 1620 °C) At 21 billion years ago, the temperature was 1650 + 2x1620 = 4890 °C Therefore (under those assumptions) about 20 billion years are needed to decrease the temperature from about 5000 to 30. Somehow, 100 M years is not enough!

Where was it in the first 100 My?

O.K. Let's agree that the Earth had been cooled down from 6000 °C to 32 °C in 100 My. Hence, by average, the temperature had been decreased by 59.68 °C per My. As the space is still very cold, it is expected that the Earth will continue with its rapid heat lose. Therefore, after 110 M years the temperature should be around -68 °C and after 150 My -266.4 °C. However, based on our knowledge, this isn't the case. So, the Earth had been cooled down from over 6000 °C (or even 10,000 °C) to 32 °C in less than 100 My, and for 4.5 Billion years it holds the temperature at the same level (more or less). Wow, is it real?

Thanks Let's assume that in the past the earth was covered by ocean of magma at the same temperature as the core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis "There remain several questions concerning the best current models of the giant impact hypothesis, however.[6] The energy of such a giant impact is predicted to have heated Earth to produce a global 'ocean' of magma" How could it be that it cools down dramatically in only 100 million years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_heavy_bombardment "Later calculations showed that the rate of collapse and cooling depends on the size of the rocky body. Scaling this rate to an object of Earth mass suggested very rapid cooling, requiring only 100 million years.[14] The difference between measurement and theory presented a conundrum at the time". Is it real that by so short period of time a magma ocean had been replaced by real water ocean?

What is the real age of Earth? By wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth "According to evidence from radiometric dating and other sources, Earth was formed around four and a half billion years ago. Within its first billion years,[37]life appeared in its oceans and began to affect its atmosphere and surface, promoting the proliferation of aerobic as well as anaerobic organisms and causing the formation of the atmosphere's ozone layer." Is it possible that in just one billion year from its creation, the Earth was cool enough to sustain ocean? The temperature at the center is as follow: "At the center, the temperature may be up to 6,000 °C (10,830 °F),[78] and the pressure could reach 360 GPa.[79] Because much of the heat is provided by radioactive decay, scientists postulate that early in Earth's history, before isotopes with short half-lives had been depleted, Earth's heat production would have been much higher. This extra heat production, twice present-day at approximately 3 byr,[76] would have increased temperature gradients with radius, increasing the rates of mantle convection and plate tectonics, and allowing the production of uncommon igneous rocks such as komatiites that are rarely formed today" Hence, in the past, the temperature at the center was much higher than 6000 °C. However, the Earth has Iron inner core. "Earth's interior remains active with a solid iron inner core, a liquid outer core that generates the magnetic field, and a thick layer of relatively solid mantle" This might be an indication that the earth was a full hot star in order to concentrate the iron in the core (by gravitational force). Gradually, the earth cool down and set his unique structure: Earth-cutaway-schematic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-cutaway-schematic-english.svg So, how long it should take the Earth to cool down from a full hot star at high temperature of over 6000 °C? How could it be that in just one billion year it was cool enough to sustain ocean and even the first form of life? Did we try to make a simulation of this important process?

Thanks

Sorry for my message Let me ask again How it could be that with all the advanced technology there is no real signal from the dark matter which matches the simulation in the galaxy? Outside the galaxy, the density of the dark matter should be significantly lower. Why the science has full evidence for dark matter outside the galaxy but not in the galaxy.