Earth's core consisting of hydrogen

[coden3]

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.

[Edtharan]

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.

It was the scientists that were being attacked for proposing that the Earth was round and was not at the centre of the Universe. It was the religious establishment at the time that was doing the killing. There is a big difference between how that religious establishment and modern science operates. You are building a massive strawman argument here.

 

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.

Actually, there is believed to be an iron core in jupiter (iirc about the size of Earth - but it is believed to be solid). So this line argument is compltely disproved.

 

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?

Jupiter is much bigger than the Earth and the pressures at the core are also much greater.

 

Also, Jupiter is massive enough to have gravity strong enough to hold onto hydrogen. Yes that right: Bleow a certain mass limit a planet is unable to retain Hydrogen at all. This includes through it's formation. The lower the gravity, the faster it will loose any "primeval" hydrogen.

 

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?

Well, lets look at gravity anf angular momnetum. Gravity will pull material in towards the centre of the planet. As this material moves towards the centre the faster it spinss.

 

The mass of Jupiter means that whatever mass it has pulled in, will be more compressed, so the ratio of mass distrabution in Jupiter will be tighter than it is with Earth. If we assume an equal amount of mass distribution to start with (for both planets before they formed), then as Jupiter has more mass closer to the centre, then it will be spinning faster.

 

So there is absolutly no problem with the current situation. There is no need to postulate a Hydrogen core for Earth as observation matches curent theory.

 

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.

Well the heat that is mealting the mantle is coming from the boundary between the solid iron/nickle inner core and the liquid iron/nickle outer core.

 

How does this work?

 

Well inside the Earth Heat has nowhere to go except towards the surface. However, when you heat up fluids they rise to the surface because the hot fluids are less dense than cold fluids. So in the liquid outer core, and hot iron will rise outwards from the centre and any colder iron will sink towards the centre.

 

Now, when a fluid changes state from liquid to solid, it releases a lot of energy (heat). But because this will be happening at the surface of the inner core, it has nowhere else to go. It releases the heat into the surrounding liquid outer core heating it up!

 

This hot liquid nickle/iron fluid will rise and colder material will sink in to replace it. As the hot liquid nickle/iron liquid meets the inner mantle, it releases some of it's heat, which is enough to melt the material of the mantle and the cooler Nickle/Iron fluid sinks towards the inner core again.

 

And so the cycle continues.

 

What is also important, is this same process occures within the mantle which raises the hot liquid mantle up towards the crust. However, the crust is still thin enough that some of this hot liquid mantle can melt it's way up through it and we see that as volcanoes.

 

So "How else could melted rock be created excepting by oxidation of hydrides escaping into the crust from the mantle?", By applying Thermodynamics and Hydrodynamics and having a Hot Iron core.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

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?

It is not the existance of Lava that is under question, but the method which by it is produced. The fact is that Lava by itsself does not prove your claims as there are other known processes (as I described above) that allow for the production of Lavas. These processes fit withing all known laws of physics and are possible within the environment of a planet's core (like Earth).

 

The processes originate thousands of killometers underneith the volcanos, but because the heat has nowhere else to go but Up, then this raises the material up to the volcano (and actually causes the volcano to be created).

 

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.

You are forgetting that there is an Inner and Outer core. The Inner core is solid and the Outer core is liquid. How do the pressures stop the solid inner core from existing? ALso, Iron is a much more rigid material than Hydrogen, so if the pressures are too much for Iron, then it also must be too much for Hydrogen.

 

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.

I don't know what you mean by "Horizontal Gravity". DO you mean that this is the gravitational force exerted by the mass of the Earth that lies to the side of any particular point within the Earth? Or is it some new concept introduced as an explaintion of how this could occur.

 

If it is just looking at the mass that is on either side of a location within the Earth, then there is no net force. This is becaus the mass on one side will be the same as the mass on the other side. So the gravitational pull from one side will be the same as the pother side and there will be no net force experienced and so no Horizontal gravity.

 

If however, it is a new concept introduced, then you first have to show that there is and actual new force before using it as an explaination.

 

I can't say: Unicorn horns exist because if Unicorns exist they have horns. This does not prove that Unicorn Horns exist. Thus you couldn't say: "The Earth has a hydrogen core because if horizontal gravity exists then it allows for hydrogen to accumulate in the Earth's core".

 

Unless you can show that Horizontal gravity does exist (and as I have said it has to be a completely new and prviously unobserved phenomina as gravity from masses to the sides of a loction within the Earth will be canceled out and have not net force) you can't use it as an explaination of why yout claims are true.

 

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?

Well, if you understand fusion at all, then you will know that when elements fuse they release energy. However, the type of atom effects how much energy is released. Hydrogen releases the most energy in fusion, adn the heavier the element is the less energy it releases.

 

It works out that with Iron, it no longer releases enough energy to sustain fusion. This any attempt at fusion with Iron will not be able to sustain a fusion reaction without outside energy being put into the system.

 

So as stars fuse elements, this process stops around Iron. However, if a star goes supernova, then enough energy can be put into it to fuse Iron into the heavier elements. But this means that the Heavier elements will be much rarer than Iron.

 

So you have lots of Iron and lighter elements, and very few heavier elements. There would not be enough heavier elements to make up a core for a planet, but there would be enough Iron.

 

So yes there are probably lots of heavy elemtns within the core of Earth, however, compared to the amount of Iron they don't really make up much of the volume.

 

And as for how these elemnts can occur within the crust, well if you have ever water into oil (water being more dense than oil) you will see that sometimes bubble of water can be trapped within the oil, even though the water is more dense. Turbulance and other aspces of fluid dynamics can allow for this.

 

In addition, am I to believe centrifugal spinning forces the lighter elements to the outside?

No! This is completely wrong!

 

Cetrifugal forces would cause the lighter element to the inside. It is gravity that would force the lighter elemnets to the outside.

 

If centrifugal forces were strong enough to allow Hydrogen to exist within the centre of the Earth, then they wouold have been strong enough to fling the rest of the matter of Earth into space!

 

The only way a planet can form is if Gravity dominates centrifugal forces, but this means that the heavier elements will end up in the centre, not the lighter ones including Hydrogen.

 

On this alone we can rule out any possibility of Hydrogen being in the centre of the Earth because of planet formation (which means you need a way to produce hydrogen within the Earth, but it will also still have that core of Iron).

 

interpretations a.k.a. assumptions.

Interperetation are not Assumptions. Interperetation must use logic and known scientific theories to reach conclusions.

 

you are making another Strawman argument here.

 

by self-serving scientists with investments in the current dogma

:confused:

So a strawman used as an Ad Hominin...

 

So accoring to you all scientists are selfserving, greedy, corrupt individuals that are only out to work their own agenda. What if that agenda is to work out what the Earth is really made of? This would be the agenda" of the vast majority of scientists.

 

Science is all about pushing the bounds of current knowledge. It is this aspect that has given us the modern world. Science is not dogmatic, it is the exact opposite of it. It chalenges the dogma and forces it to prove its self again and again and agin without rest. A scientific theory is only valuable if it can be tested (if it can't it is not a scientific theory).

 

So you can see that your Strawman of "the current dogma" is a massive strawman. Sure, there will be some individuals that cling to dogma, it is human nature, but the vast majority of scientists don't. They love overturning established dogma.

 

And yes, science may seem resitant to change, but it is not. The reason that it can seem resitant to change is that you have to show evidence of your hypothisis. Science has this in palce so that you can't just make stuff up if it sounds good.

 

Science isn't interestind in having theories that "sound good", or "fit with common sense". Science is about trying to find out how the Universe really works, and that means challenging every concept, including new one posed by other people. It is the need to challenge everything that some people take as an attack against them and then they claim that science is dogmatic. Because sciecne didn't accept their hypothisis that "sounded good" to them.

 

The "I see this as self evidence, therefore it must be true" is not a good arguemnt that what you think is "self evident" is really true. "It's true because I say it's true" is not evidence.

 

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.

Well most asteroids have a large Iron content. Earth formed from the accretion of many such asteroids (billion of billions of them ) When they collided they melted. Sure when it was small the gravity would not have been enough to seperate out the elemnets, but over time it would have become larger and gravity would ahve been sufficient to begin this seperation process, and as throughout this time there would have been many more asteroid collisions it would have kept the proto Earth melted and allowed the elements to seperate.

 

So this Iron did not come form granit melt! Granite is the leftover "crud" from when the planet was molten during it's formation. It wasn't that the Iorn "setteled out" from the other stuff, but the other stuff rose to the surface (which as you admit has enough gravity to do the job)

 

So I woudl say that you don't understand because you have just demonstrated a lack of understanding (or cherry picking the data to fit your claims).

 

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

Yes it does. It comes form the break down of water due to UV radiation, and there are some small amound of Hydrogen trapped within the earth.

 

Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe, and yet, there is a suprisingly small amount to be found here on the Earth.

 

while the ejected hydrogen compounds rise into the stratosphere and the hydrogen escapes into space.

Whether or not Hydrogen can excape this way depends on it's molecular weight.

 

So a hydrogen atom has a molecular weight of 1. Actually it would exist as a molecule of 2 hydrogen atoms so we will call it a weight of 2. Oxygen would have a molecular weight of 32 (An oxygen molecule has 2 oxygen atoms in it).

 

So what would be the result of a collision between them:

P=MV

 

For this we will assume that they are both going at 1m/s

 

For the Oxygen moving and the Hydrogen stationary:

P=32amu*1m/s=32amu/m/s

 

So the Hydrogen would end up traveling:

V=P/M

32amu/m/s / 2amu = 16m/s

 

Now lets look atif the Hydrogen was moving and the Oxygen was stationary:

P=2amu * 1m/s = 2amu/m/s

 

Which gives the Oxygen a velocity of:

V=P/M

2amu/m/s / 32amu = 0.0625m/s

 

If a molecule has enough mass, then collisions with the atmosphere will (on average) not be enough to cause the molecule to reach escape velocity (11km/s). If the molecule does not reach escape velocity, then it will fall back into the atmosphere.

 

But Silicon is a common element so lets have a look at that:

Silicon has a valency of 4 so this means that 4 hydrogens could potentially react with it (note this is the lightest solution for silicon and hydrogen). This would give it a molecular weight of 32. Well this is the same as an Oxygen molecular weight so we can just use the results of that. We know that Oxygen doesn't easily excape into space (or we would have a hard time breathing ), so if this was a product of the reaction, then it would not easily leave Earth. We should see lots of Silicon/Hydrogen molecules hanging around. But we don't. Pretty much all the Hydrogen we can find is as part of Water (and we have already acounted for the amount of Hydrogen production from water by UV light).

 

So as you can see, if there were enough Hydrogen within the Earth reacting to produce the Lava we see, then we should clearly see much more of it on the surface. But as I said, the amount of hydrogen found on the surface of the Earth is quite small (water included) Considdering it costitute the vast majority of the matter that makes up the Universe.

 

So if there is a lot of Hydrogen reacting with the Mantle and producing Lava (that is the Hydrogen must be forming chemical bonds with the surounding rocks to produce the heat necessary), then where is it all?

 

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.

I too am willing to considder alternatives, but this does not mean that I instantly believe ayn alternative that comes along. Like scientists, I requier that any alternative must still be physically possible.

[insane_alien]

Silicon has a valency of 4 so this means that 4 hydrogens could potentially react with it (note this is the lightest solution for silicon and hydrogen). This would give it a molecular weight of 32. Well this is the same as an Oxygen molecular weight so we can just use the results of that. We know that Oxygen doesn't easily excape into space (or we would have a hard time breathing ), so if this was a product of the reaction, then it would not easily leave Earth. We should see lots of Silicon/Hydrogen molecules hanging around. But we don't.

 

while i don't have any issues with the rest of your post. this bit is ever so slightly gumph.

 

Silane(SiH4) and higher order silicon hydrides are extremely reactive. so much so that they spontaneously combust on exposure to air. resulting in silicon dioxide and water.

 

that said, there is still the possibility that it could be formed under the conditions proposed and it could vent to ground level. if this were the case then we should see glass mounds around these vents as the silicon dioxide condenses out of the atmosphere.

[Edtharan]

while i don't have any issues with the rest of your post. this bit is ever so slightly gumph.

 

Silane(SiH4) and higher order silicon hydrides are extremely reactive. so much so that they spontaneously combust on exposure to air. resulting in silicon dioxide and water.

But Silicon Dioxide is heaier than Silicon hydrides. I was looking for the lioghtest combination of silicon and hydrogen to show how hard it would be to actually remove such a substance from the atmosphere.

[insane_alien]

yes i know, but silicon hydrides will not exist in the atmosphere. you could use nitrogen, it is a lighter molecule than oxygen but makes up 79% of our atmosphere. or even water vapour which is lighter still. the planet holds onto both of those quite well.

[John Cuthber]

Coden 3, I see you say

"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. "

It has been considered, at some length in this thread. It has been found to contradict the observable facts. It's time to ditch it. And I note you seem not to have answered my questions about the chemistry of hydrogen.

[insane_alien]

he hasn't answered ANY question that would show him wrong.

[foodchain]

The question I think also goes into planet formation. Now I don’t know enough to know if galaxies and orbital systems that spin happen to be the norm across the observable universe or what is the exact norm but it seems the inner planets happen to be terrestrial and actually somewhat similar. Then you have an asteroid belt then gaseous giant planets. So I would imagine this would come to bear in formation of our planets composition is all, and for a hydrogen core to exist I would think would also depend on this. Again going from how gravity operates alone, to nucleation to anything else back down on the earth itself from the simple reality that a hydrogen core would be visible to current seismic means I think to the reality that I doubt it could hardly explain in any way the natural formations of the earth. To give you an idea about the pressure in the earth current technology can barely allow for human based mining operations at depths that are tiny fractions of what could exist really. Just like how people figured out DNA exists and what makes a microwave work the current model of the earth is based on empirical observations combined with how science for instance understands nature to work. A hydrogen core seems an impossibility giving the reality of the earth as understood by such. Also to contest this would require basically a higher degree of positive thinking on the issue to be true via scientific method like chemistry and all that neat stuff.

[coden3]

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

[Edtharan]

While I still consider unproven assumptions of Earth’s interior temperature and composition to be just that

Ok imagine that you ahve a sealed shpere and you want to find out what its insides are made of. Because you can't open it you will have to use indirect methods to determine what it is made from.

 

First, you would probably weigh it. This would tell you how much mass it has.

 

Next, you probably would measure it. This tells you the size of it.

 

These two methods would tell you the average density of the sphere.

 

You might also examine what the outside of the shpere is made of. You might examine a bit of it under a microscope, tap it and listen to it (this can tell you a lot of information, like rigidity by how fast the vibrations travel through it, thickness by the pitch of the vibrations, and so forth).

 

Knowing the size, composition (and therefore the density of the outside container), we know more accurately the density and composition of the inside of the shpere.

 

Now, if you did all this and found that the insides were not very dense, then with knowldege of chemistry you could work out what posible substances or combination of substances it could be.

 

This would not be a guess, but you would have to use mathematics to caclulate what it could be.

 

You could check this by carefully listening yo the vibrations when you tap it. You could identify the vibrations from the caontainer and account for them, then you could examin all the other vibrations and these would be vibrations that had to travel through the insides.

 

Using mathematics again, you could work back from this data and work out what the structure of the insides are. When waves (vibrations are waves) move from one substance to another, they change direction, chage frequency and shape. Looking at these changes can tell you exactly what the substances are (no guessing).

 

Do you kow what. They have done all this with the Earth.

 

We can "weigh" it. The satalites in orbit have a very specific orbit which is dependant on what the mass of the Earth is.

 

We can measure the size of it. Again Satalites in orbit and survayour on the ground can give us this data.

 

We have a good idea of what the crust (the container if you will) of the Earth is made up of as we can go out and dig it up and Earthquakes give us vibrations that we can use to further examine and check out findings on the structure, size and composition of the crust of the Earth.

 

Knowing what the crust is made from we can now adjust the density data to acount for it. ALso, Earth quakes send vibrations through the Earth and this allows us to examine the interals, just like it would have for the sealed sphere.

 

In fact, we use this "Send vibrations through objects" to look a them in all sorts of other situations. Ultrasound machines used by doctors use this exact sdame idea. Having an Ultra Sound to see inside us is no more a geuss at what is in side us as using Earthquakes to see inside the earth is a Guess.

 

The Earthquake "Ultrasound" (actually it is considdered more of an Infrasound with Earthquakes, but the idea is the same) allows us to see inside the Earth. What we see is a Hot Iron Core not a Hydrogen Core (hot, cold or otherwise).

 

Sorry, to call current knowledge about the Earth's core "unproven assumptions" is to call all diagnosis using medical Ultrasounds "unproven assumptions".

 

Even without the data from Earthquakes, ther eis enough opthe evidence to completely rule out any form of Hydrogen Core in the Earth, it is just that with the Earthquake data we know very accurately what the core is made from and it is scientifically rigourous as any medical ultrasound.

 

It has been considered, at some length in this thread. It has been found to contradict the observable facts. It's time to ditch it.

Yes the Observable fact completly negate any possibility of there being a Hydrogen core to the earth. That is unless you are saying that the theories and technologies that underly medical ultrasounds are also wrong.

 

So either you don't accept that medical ultrasounds work and allow for the possibility of a hydrogen core, or you accept that medical ultrasounds work and that a hydrogen core is an absolute impossibility.

[John Cuthber]

"he hasn't answered ANY question that would show him wrong."

Surely you jest insane alien?

Anyway, here's another chance for him to explain this interesting chemistry that he caims.

Mind you, his explaining the failure of the laws of thermodynamics would be more interetsing to most people here.

Any plausible mechanism for the formation of a hydrogen cored silicate clad earth would make for an exciting story too. All the ideas I can think of would have the slica sink or the world fall apart.

Clearly you can't have the hydrogen arive later and burrow into the earth- even if you ignore the lack of any mechanism it contradicts the observation that hydrogen is known to leave the earth (slowly).

On the other hand, if the hydrogen got here first, unless it was really cold, it wouldn't have enough gravity to hold it together- effectively it would boil off into space. However, since it has to have formed from the graviational agglomeration of hydrogen present as an initial gas cloud, you need to explain how it "fell" down to the proto earth but lost enough of the (formerly graviational, now kinetic) energy without getting absurdly hot.

This thread still looks like a contender for absurd theory of the year to me.

[Klaynos]

And we're still only in March *sigh*

[insane_alien]

does anyone know the diffusion coefficient and solubility of hydrogen in rock? i could work out how fast it should be leaking if i can find that data. seems to be scarce though.

 

And we're still only in March *sigh*

 

well, the mad march hare and all that.

 

EDIT: ok, i was bored, i calculated the diffusion rate based on a 500km radius hydrogen core surrounded by solid iron(yes, solid iron) at moderate temperatures(STP) and a pressure of 300GPa. so this is very very very very conservative and simplistic.

 

basically, the earth would be leaking 39.616 kmol/s of hydrogen.(assuming the iron was already saturated with hydrogen, else it would all dissolve in the iron.) thats around 80kg/s over the surface of the earth.

 

may not sound like much, but the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. and its leaking at 2.5 million metric tons per year

 

thats 1.136*10^19kg of hydrogen lost. quite a bit i think you'll agree. and this is in the most obscenely favourable circumstances.

 

i think you'll agree the earth is not a solid sphere of iron with a small chunk out in the middle. i think you'll also agree the core is somewhat larger. a few thousand kilometers in radius in fact. and that semi liquid rock is far far more permeable than solid iron at room temperature.

 

couple this with the fact that the ground is NOT saturated with hydrogen(i'm pretty sure we would notice). you have a lot to explain.

 

even still i have not taken into account hydrogen bubbling up through the mantle(it is certainly fluid enough and there is definitely enough hydrogen according to you).

 

so, where is it? where the hell is it? i'd be willing to bet if i found the proper solubilities and coefficients for granite then applied them then we should already have lost an earth mass of hydrogen several times over.

[jsispat]

yes it may be possible that core of earth has very low temprature that we are thinking about.

2. reg temprature of magma and lava . it is extra material which should be erupt out for the life of earth. this is like a peak comes out side from human body.this is manfatured only in mantle.

[insane_alien]

no, it is impossible for the earths core to be a very low temperature and still have volcanoes.

 

i also see you still think the earth is alive. quit posting that as fact. it is not fact.

[Marc Caillot de Chadbannes]

A big enough "leak" from the earths core followed by electrical storms seem a more credible theory to me than comits or asteroids as earths main source of water also.

[Moontanman]

A big enough "leak" from the earths core followed by electrical storms seem a more credible theory to me than comits or asteroids as earths main source of water also.

 

 

I would suggest you read the entire thread instead of assuming it coincides with what you think is true... The Earths core does not and cannot consist of hydrogen...