Earth's core consisting of hydrogen

[Thot]

Ah, but didn't you say radioactive particles were forced outwards by the centrifuge effect? if they have time to percolate down that far then so does the rest of everything and wew would be in the situation the scientific consensus says we are in.

They're in the shell surrounding the core, not the core itself. Sure they've been forced outwards. Actually, they don't even need to be near the core, as long as they do form a more or less closed shell.

 

i realise this but context does not negate the laws of physics and chemistry.

Correct, but without context you can't know whether or not they are actually violated.

 

do you have any peer reveiwed articles on the subject? i suspect they will be easier to read and actually contain some maths that i can peruse.

I've searched, but haven't found any yet. Which is not to say that there are none, perhaps you'd be able to dig something up.

 

Rest is answered in the text, so I'll spare myself quoting from there - you've seen the result. You might have a point, though.

 

€: What I have found is someone else's attempt at discussing the hypothesis. Haven't read much of it yet, though, so I can't say anything about the quality. Probably easier to read, though.

[YT2095]

numbers mine.

1) I've searched, but haven't found any yet.

 

2) Which is not to say that there are none, perhaps you'd be able to dig something up.

 

1: don`t hold your breath!

 

2: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and in this Case the onus of Proof belongs to You!

[insane_alien]

and if there is this magical superfluid helium that manages not to freeze or evapourate and has the most massive liquid range ever observed(and i'm sure if i look up the phase diagram for it i will see that it doesn't) why don't we see more of it in volanic outgassings? this stuff will leak through anyhting. especially rocks. we detect helium4 for sure because that is produced by radioactive decay but we see no helium-3 which is specified in the 'article' which isn't even peer reviewed.

[coden3]

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.

[iNow]

So why not at least consider hydrogen as an alternative for Earth's core?

 

It has been considered, and it's been shown not to fit with observational data.

[Bignose]

I don't see how you can say that 7 miles is "relatively deep within the Earth's crust" when the diameter of the earth is almost 8000 miles.

 

Please answer this also: one of the main reasons we know the mass of the earth is because we know how it moves around in it's orbit. If it had significantly less mass, it's orbit would be significantly different. The density of liquid iron is around 7200 kg/m^3 (Taken from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/oxfordtours/workitoutnet/castaid/spruecalculator/densci.htm and converted units). The density of liquid hydrogen is around 67.8 kg/m^3. (Taken from http://www-safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/hydrogen.html and converted the units) Even taking some of the less dense blends of iron on that table linked above, the density difference between liquid hydrogen and liquid iron is one hundred fold. How to you explain this missing mass?

[coden3]

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.

[Edtharan]

Please answer this also: one of the main reasons we know the mass of the earth is because we know how it moves around in it's orbit. If it had significantly less mass, it's orbit would be significantly different.

Actually the Mass of the Earth is irrelevent when considdering it's orbit around the Sun (as the extra force from the mass of the Earth is exactly mached by the inertia of that same mass). However, if the Mass of the Earht weas different then it would effect the orbits of the Moon and Satalites around the Earth.

 

For the satalites in the GPS system, we have to know their orbits extremely accurately. Therefore we need to know very prcicely the Mass of the Earth. To have the orbitial periods for the satalites we have means that the Earth must have a certain mass, and undern known physics, the only way this can be achieved is if we have a core of a certain size made of iron.

 

If the core was made of metalic hydrogen, then it would be a different mass, or if that hydrogen was a gass, it would also be a different mass which would mean that the orbits of the satalites would be different.

 

Observational data too often seems to reflect the current scientific dogma to provide much in the way of physical proof.

There is a really good reason for this: The current scientific "Dogma" was derived from observation.

 

So essentiually what you are saying is that current observations match past observations. That is in no way suprising at all .

 

The current "Dogma" is just a (mathematical) descrition of those past observations. The very fact that the mathematical descritions of those past observations allow us to predict current (and future) observations is simply just conformation that those descriptions are accurate.

 

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.

For all you know maybe, but based on observation (orbit of the moon and satalites, chemistry and how atoms combine and the forces involed): There is no way that the centre of the Earth can be made of Hydrogen (as far as science knows).

 

Here are the aguments straight up:

 

1) The orbits of the Moon and Satalites place a strict limit on the Mass of the Earth. If the Mass of the Earth was different, then the orbital periods would also be different. So working backwards from the Observed orbital periods, you can determin the exact mass of the Earth.

 

2) Chemistry and Atomic Physics (how atoms behave in certain conditions) means we can work out how various elements will behave in situations like at the centre of the Earth. We can calculate densities at various temperatures and pressures and also work out the Mass that these would have. We have machiens that can create massive pressures (diamond anvils, laser traps, etc) and temperatures so we know how these elements behave in these circumstances.

 

3) Sizemic data allows us to work out what materials are actually within the Earth. As vibrations caused by earthquakes travel through the Earth (they not only travel on the surface but also travel through the core too), we can measure how long these waves take to travel (giving us a density measurement) and how they are distorted (giving us data about what the material actually is and whether it is a solid, liquid or gas).

 

Useing the information from (2) and (3) we can quite accurately work out what the centre of the Earth is made from as well as the Density and structure (Solid, Liquid or Gas). Using the Information from (1) we can also place a limit as to what the mass of the whole thing and it can act like a double check of our conclusions form (2) and (3).

 

All three together means that the core of the Earth must consist of a solid iron inner core surounded by a liqud iron outer core followed by a semiliquid mantle and finally a solid crust.

 

For the Observations made in (1), (2) and (3), this is the only way it can be.

[Bignose]

... IF gravitational forces between molecules located horizontally in addition to those now only calculated vertically are considered.

 

So now gravity has been calculated wrong, too, eh? You're going to have to prove this as well. The calculations are fairly easy, actually, so I'm very interested to see where those went wrong.

[John Cuthber]

Just for the record and as a clue as to the overall plausibility of this idea. When asked to come up with one simple paragraph that explained the (strange) idea that the middle would stay colder than the outside notwithstanding the laws of physics the proponent started with "All heat pump cycles work by compression and decompression. "

 

Simply flat wrong, ask anyone using a Peltier cooler.

 

BTW, hydrogen has a really anoying habit of leaking out of containers because the molecules are small.

The idea that it's just sat there in the middle of the earth is untennable.

[foodchain]

Physics as applied in geophysics has revealed much about the earths core. Seismic waves have regular properties, they can reveal much about the earths interior because they travel through it also on predictable in general ways. So from just those alone you can figure out from current understanding what material in what condition could produce X on interacting with a type and or energy of a seismic wave. Another thing that has been found out about the earths core is it actually spins or rotates faster then the earth ever so slightly.

 

There is some competition to the exact what is the core of the earth if memory serves. In general though the iron core stance is the accepted and supported one.

[insane_alien]

There is some competition to the exact what is the core of the earth if memory serves. In general though the iron core stance is the accepted and supported one.

 

IIRC it is to the exact composition. it is accepted that it is mostly iron/nickel. the exact ratios and presence of other elements is under debate although this will never really leave debate unless we can get a sample of the core because of their small quantity.

[Realitycheck]

I still don't see how you propose that 1) the lightest element is supposedly drawn to the center, especially when all other light elements in any substantial amounts are in the atmosphere and 2) how hydrogen is supposed to remain trapped in the core when it is gaseous at room temperature. It is quite obvious that the earth's innards are hot. The pressure of all of the earth's innards would obviously squeeze the hydrogen gas out to the outer atmosphere since it is definitely never going to get cold enough to become liquid. If a few molecules of hydrogen are bound up in crustal minerals, so what?

[coden3]

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.

[foodchain]

It is quite obvious that the earth's innards are hot.

 

 

 

 

Its not only this but what about geologic history or morphology? What could produce the cratons? Also the earth is very active thermologically and has been so since the earth has existed I think. Temperature at the core is astounding(hot as the sun? anyone?), so is the pressure.

 

So a simple question to test your idea would be to take the known masses involved and in ratios of what. I guess you could start out with some spherical sphere, but its hardly like the earth is that way, that’s just the atmosphere somewhat in a picture. If you had as you suggest a hydrogen core, could you see the earth as is existing in such a model? Also I think your model would suggest that gravity does not operate properly as it does in the real world.

 

Would you get metallic hydrogen in the core?

[Edtharan]

This seems to be the most common ASSUMPTION about Earth's composition to date.

Not it is not an assuption. Based on the known mass and size of the Earth (and therefore it's density) we can determine quite accurately what the density of the Earth is. As we know the density, then we can work out what posible substances make up the core (Nickel and Iron).

 

Looking at the Sismic data we can determine whether the insides of the Earth are liquid or solid (which turns out that there is a liquid outer core).

 

So, we know that the core is mostly made up of liquid iron. We also know the metling point of iron (whichis really hot) and how this metling point is effected by pressure (it increases with pressure).

 

So based on these Observations, we know that for a liquid iron core to exist, the temperatures must be very high.

 

It is not an assuption at all. It has been inferred through observation and (extensivly tested and confirmed) theory.

 

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!

So when the correct scientif method is applied to new data and old ideas are thrown out because they don't match the observations. This is psudo science?

 

In science if observational data contradicts a theory, then that theory is revised or if the new data shows that the theory is completely wrong, it is thrown out.

 

What occured was that one theory about the Earth's core was presented based on the data that they had at the time. When new data was aquiered that showed that the theory was wrong, they revised the theory.

 

First you want science to change to accept your theory because you think you have data that contredict the current theory, but then you present evidence where science has done this in the past, and then you criticise it for doing so!

 

So do you or doe you not want science to change in light of new observational data?

[John Cuthber]

Is there a competition for the weirdest and least plausible theory on this site?

 

This thread seems to be a challenge to what I for one thought was the leading contender there. I'm sure many of you remember having a real laugh at the idea that nuclear explosions were a coonspiracy theory. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29808&highlight=nuclear

 

Now that theory just required a lot of people to be very gullible and a lot more people to be exceptionally good liars for half a century or so.

This one about the earth being full of supercold hydrogen not only strains belief on the "surely someone would have noticed" front, but it also drives a coach and horses through the laws of thermodynamics.

Are there any other contenders for this "honour" that I have missed?

[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. 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.

[Edtharan]

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.

Ok, lets look at the cetrifugal (really centripital) forces and compare them to gravity.

 

Now, if the Earth formed from a collection of dust and gasses (like current theory and observations indicate), then for this to occure, then gravity must be greater than the centrpitial (centrifugal) force. If the centripital force was greater, then it would have prevented the gas and dust from clumping.

 

But, as we know a spinning object rotates faster as you make it smaller (the angual momentum has to be conserved). This is seen with iceskaters.

 

However, if at any point in this process the centripital forces equals the gravitational force, this contraction will halt (as the forces balance out the inward pull of gravity will be exactly matched by the outward "push" from the rotation.

 

But if the centripital forces ever exceed the gravitational forces, then the whole thing will start to expand (fly away from each other). However,as it expands, the centripital forces will be reduced and gravity might take over again.

 

So we have 3 scenarios here.

 

1) Gravity is Stronger than the centripital forces and the whole thing collapse. This would make the heavier elements move towards the centre. This is the scenario accepted by current scientific theory.

 

2) Gravity and Centripital forces exactly cancel. The result of which is that there would be an even distribution of elemnts. As the forces cancel, we can assume that it would be like micro gravity. In fact, this is exactly the situation needed to maintain a stable orbit around the Earth. If this was the situation, then we would not be experiencing any gravity on the surface of the Earth.

 

3) Centripital Forces exceed the Gravitational Force. In this scenario lighter elements would move towards the centre and the Heavier elements would move towards the outside. This is the scenario of the Hydrogen core proposition. However, Centripital forces exceed Gravity. This means that we would be flung out, the Pull of gravity would have to be less than the the Centripital Forces (or we would be in scenario 2 which doesn't allow for a Hydrogen core). We would not be on the surface of the Earth, but instead be flung off it.

 

Actually you can examine this in your car (get someone else to drive, don't try this is you are the driver ) with a really simple experiment.

 

1) Get a Helium filled balloon and Makr it with a "He" (for Helium).

2) Get a Balloon and fill it up with air and Makr it with "Air".

 

You will notice that the Helium balloon will float and the air filled one will sink.

 

3) Attach the balloons by string to the inside of the car (in the back seats for saftey so it doesn't disturb the driver).

4) Watch the balloons as the driver goes around corners.

 

When the car goes around corners, the He balloon will move away from wher the forces seem to be pushing you (in this case the centripital force) where as the Air filled balloon will move in the same direction as the force.

 

The reason for this is density.

 

As you go around a corner in a car, all the atoms within that car experience the same forces, includeing the ones in the air inside the car. Because it is inertia that is causeing the percieved outwards push, the heavier atoms and molecules will be "pushed" harder and end up onthe outside. Where as the lighter one will not be able to mvoe into the area occupied by the heavier one.

 

As Helium is lighter than Air, it ca't move towards the outside and so is forced towards the inside. The Air filled balloon is heavier (as Air + the Runnber of the balloon is heavier than just Air it's self) will be pushed towards the outside.

 

Now with the Earth there are only 2 forces we are considdering here. Centripital forces caused by rotation and Gravity. Because of this, there are only 3 possible scenarios (as I stated above) and only one of them provides a stable structure, that is the one where Gravity dominates (which leads to a iron core rather than a hydrogen core).

 

So even if the Earth rotated fast enough in the past to be a "disk shape", at some point gravity must have exceeded the centripital force or the surface of the Earth would either be flung off before life had even the chance to start (and therefore we wouldn't be here), or there would be an exact ballance between Gravity and the Centripital forces and the surface of the Earth would essentially be "in orbit" around it's self (and with no gravity to hold an atmosphere we would have trouble breathing, not to mention that jumping would send us flying off into interplanetary space ).

 

Actually, if the Earht is a sphere now and was disk like in the past, then Gravity must have dominated or it would not have been able to go from a Disk to a sphere at all as the disk represents a ballance between forces and to shift it from one to the other requiers some kind of imballance (gravity dominating - and if gravity dominates we end up with an iron core).

 

Sorry, none of your post actually has any supporting evidence for an Earth with a Hydrogen core. The laws of physics (arrived at through observation and testing) just don't permit it to occur (and if you are going to abandon the laws of physics, then that is a whole something else). The Universe just does not work that way.

[doG]

I've come across an interesting hypothesis regarding the earth's composition, specifically that it's core does not consist of iron, but of hydrogen and is not hot, but cold.

 

What origin does this hypothesis suggest for magma?

[coden3]

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

[Klaynos]

There must be one hell of a temperature gradient going on down there.

 

So what are these gases and in what ratio are they being released from volcanos?

 

And I want cited numbers not made up ones cheers.

[doG]

doG: Magma is easy to explain....while I will continue look upon the far greater mass of gases venting into space as evidence for a cold hydrogen interior.

 

So you would have us believe that at the very center of our core where pressure is the highest, it is cold, and as you move towards the surface where the pressure decreases that the gas gets hotter, so hot that it melts rock? Kind of like anti-refrigeration?

[Ophiolite]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Problem 1: The hypothesis must explain how the magnetic field is generated within solid, non-metallic hydrogen, or liquid, non-metallic hydrogen.

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.

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. (By the way, who is Steven Solter - I can find no references to him?) For example, Gold,T. PNAS Vol.89 1992.

Charles Warren Hunt appears to believe that deep hydrogen orignates from hydrides in the mantle and has nothing to say about a hydrogen core. For example, http://eearthk.com/Articles03.html

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.

 

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.

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 ecidence to support your claim.)

Problem 3: Where is the evidence for these high temperatures being generated within the crust by this mechanism?

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.

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'?

 

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.

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.

Problem 5: Your rejection of an iron-nickel core is based upon provisional results that do not appear to have been corroborated.

 

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?

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.

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.

Obviously, they still do as the hydrogen escaping into space every day has to come from somewhere.

The quantities of escaping hydrogen are miniscule and are fully accounted for by breakdown of water vapour by UV radiation.

Problem 7: Where is all the mobile hydrogen from this cold core?

[John Cuthber]

"Hydrogen molecules can create intense heat [3200F] and water by exothermic reaction with oxides in crustal layers. "

What oxides? For iron oxide (as an example) the reaction generally goes the other way; passing steam over hot iron produces hydrogen and iron oxide. For any element more reactive than iron (Al, Si, Mg, Ca etc) the story is even less likely. The reaction may be forced the other way at very high pressures so the idea isn't utterly absurd but I'd like some sort of evidence rather than being asked to take it on trust.

 

It hardly matters anyway, Edtharan's point about density renders the idea "highly speculative". Oh, I almost forgot, the laws of thermodynamics would make the system about as stable as a baked Alaska.