On May 7, 8:55 pm, Dave Typinski <d...@nospam.net> wrote:

On 7 May 2007 13:55:53 -0700,

BULK, similiar as a large rock in a fireplace.

Cooling takes a long time and radioactivity adds heat.

Radioactivity adds heat??

Yep.

From what?

The Earth is loaded with radioisotopes. Almost all the energy
released as these isotopes decay is converted to heat as the reaction
products interact with surrounding matter. An exceedingly small
amount of energy escapes into space before it has a chance to interact
with the lithosphere or atmosphere.
There's a lot of radioactive crud inside the planet. Nuclear decay
within the lithosphere generates somewhere around 40 Terawatts of
heat, give or take a coupla tens of TW.
--
Dave Typinski

The only thing loaded is your response. Scientists scooping up raw
magma from volcanos get instantly radioisotoped to death every time.

Talk about a load. Keep that tinfoil hat secure.

My answer withstands the tests of dummies.

On May 7, 8:55 pm, Dave Typinski <d...@nospam.net> wrote:

On 7 May 2007 13:55:53 -0700,

BULK, similiar as a large rock in a fireplace.

Cooling takes a long time and radioactivity adds heat.

Radioactivity adds heat??

Yep.

From what?

The Earth is loaded with radioisotopes. Almost all the energy
released as these isotopes decay is converted to heat as the reaction
products interact with surrounding matter. An exceedingly small
amount of energy escapes into space before it has a chance to interact
with the lithosphere or atmosphere.
There's a lot of radioactive crud inside the planet. Nuclear decay
within the lithosphere generates somewhere around 40 Terawatts of
heat, give or take a coupla tens of TW.
--
Dave Typinski

The only thing loaded is your response. Scientists scooping up raw
magma from volcanos get instantly radioisotoped to death every time.

Sam is basically right.

Nope, if the earth were 1/100th its size with the so called
"radiation" the same, the earth would be fractions cooler. Sam's
argument is the same as people saying that tides greatly effect the
moon's movements.

In article <1178573318.446674.77...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> writes:

On May 7, 4:55 pm,

BULK, similiar as a large rock in a fireplace.

Cooling takes a long time and radioactivity adds heat.

Radioactivity adds heat?? From what? The earth is in a microwave oven?
My answer stands. If the earth were exactly the same, with the same
type of molten core, but the size of a baseball, it would cool very
rapidly.

Sam is basically right. There is a substantial amount of U-238 (half-
life ~ 4.5 billion years) in the core. Radioactive decay causes
heating, which is transfered to the crust by convection currrents,
leading to volcanoes, earthquakes, plate tectonics, seafloor
spreading.

Cooling is not important. If there were no radioactivity, the earth
would have become geological dead long ago. Kelvin tried to calculate
the age of the earth by determining how long it would take to cool.
His answer was off by 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.

Don't forget the thorium. The lifetime is longer than this uf
uranium, but there is way more thorium around.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The_Man wrote:

On May 7, 4:55 pm,

BULK, similiar as a large rock in a fireplace.

Cooling takes a long time and radioactivity adds heat.

Radioactivity adds heat?? From what? The earth is in a microwave oven?
My answer stands. If the earth were exactly the same, with the same
type of molten core, but the size of a baseball, it would cool very
rapidly.

Sam is basically right. There is a substantial amount of U-238 (half-
life ~ 4.5 billion years) in the core. Radioactive decay causes
heating, which is transfered to the crust by convection currrents,
leading to volcanoes, earthquakes, plate tectonics, seafloor
spreading.

No he's not. ...So what do you have to say to the criticisms:-
1. that gravity determines the layered structure of the shells of the
Earth, and where these radioactive particles end up (their location),
and therefore any heat realeased is an *EFFECT* of that primary
*CAUSE*, and therefore cannot act to undo what put them there (break
the crust up and move it around).

2. These radioactive particles are bound up in minerals; any heat
they release therefore involves them as part of the system. That is,
if the 'system' rises (/convects) on account of the them, then they
rise too.

3. At any one time (therefore) there is far more heat *SOURCES*
towards the outside of the system than there is in the 'inside' of the
system. i.e., there is no longer any heat *source* at depth to do
anything - no plumes, no convection.

They might fall back down, but
then they've lost their heat, ...and a 'once fallbackdown' is not
convection.

And then you have to explain too why they must move
across halfway across the Earth to do that, when logically they should
just fall back where they rise - like water off a duck's back.

Cooling is not important. If there were no radioactivity, the earth
would have become geological dead long ago. Kelvin tried to calculate
the age of the earth by determining how long it would take to cool.
His answer was off by 5 or 6 orders of magnitude.

4. "Cooling is not important"? According to Plate Tectonics Cooling
is the all-important driver for gloabl deformation.

No cooling, no
sinking slabs, and *AS EVERYBODY KNOWS* (Even Sam there - and if he
doesn't he can ask Stu) it is the sinking slab that drive the whole
Plate Tectonic engine. And as everybody also knows (ask Stu, Nasa,
and the USGS) it is because the continental lithosphere is *pushing*
it (this 'slab') down. (And as everybody also knows, Plate Tectonics
crumples the crust). And what's more, that slab is not a slab, but
after 200 earthquakes a day going off for nearly 300 million years,
more like a heap of dross from the coal yard! What concerted power
exists in that little lot to do anything?

5. Get it? If you're a physicist

then you'd better understand how
Plate Tectonics is perverting physical laws, and what therefore you
are defending: the crust pushes the mantle down, which pushes back and
crumples it into mountains.

It's the old 'cooling Earth crumples the
crust theory' dressed up in radioactivity to make it look good, but
it's nonsense whichever way you look at it.

6. And of course, the first order deformation of the planet is simply
ignored by Plate Tectonics in the whole equation as having any smaller
scale expression whatsover, ..anything to do with reflecting its
deformation..

7. Why are you at pains to defend such nonsense? And do you still
think Sam is right?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -