| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 May 2007 11:41:43 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Question? |
*On 3 mai, 20:58, (Wiley Coyote) wrote:
*I'm a rookie here and I know that I have got a lot to learn.
*My first geology question is:
*
* What keeps the earth's core hot?
*
*I've heard several explanations but I'm not sure which one is true.
*
* Here is what I've heard:
*
* a) radioactive decay of isotopes of Nickel and Iron.
*
* b) transfer of angular momentium via magnetic fields.
*
* c) we keep sending assholes like Hitler and Pol Pot to hell
* and the devil can't keep the place hot enough
*
* Of course- C is a joke but I would like to know the real reason.
*
* Cheers,
*
* Wiley
*
* ---
* Wiley Coyote, Acme Inc
*
None of those my dear friend ! Further any proposed solution by the
Official Sci000nce is just as childish and infantile (including
sectarians' vision ) than that minds producing such !
You cannot understand nor come close to the correct solution unless
accointed to the UPL or Universal Pressure Law.
I have read Aidan Karley 's answer, and he 's dripping at the mouth
with all those unfunded childish ! Sickening, all the more since it
completely devaluate Scotland at large !
Nom de Dieu, mais c'est pas possible ! ... I mean the present state of
mental, intellectual and moral degeneracy the Earth has fallen to !
Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer
Discoverer of Telfer, Nifty & Kintyre mines in the Great Sandy Desert
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Mobile +33 650 171 464
Founder of the True Geology
~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~
for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 10:14:44 AM |
|
|
* What keeps the earth's core hot?
BULK, similiar as a large rock in a fireplace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 10:45:54 AM |
|
|
wrote:
* What keeps the earth's core hot?
BULK, similiar as a large rock in a fireplace.
Cooling takes a long time and radioactivity adds heat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 03:55:53 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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 04:01:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
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.
Tell us what happens to the kinetic energy of the alpha, beta and
gamma radiation, effacers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 06:25:12 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 2:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tell us what happens to the kinetic energy of the alpha, beta and
gamma radiation, effacers.
Depends on the dosage (of course). Surely you're not that dumb to
leave out that key info. Well you did!
But regardless, the amounts of radiation to heat up this puppy would
be so enormous we wouldn't be here talking about it.
So as before my answer stands: the earth is hot because it was hot ..
and it's huge mass keeps it hot for a long time. Simple yet correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 10:35:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On May 7, 2:01 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Tell us what happens to the kinetic energy of the alpha, beta and
gamma radiation, effacers.
Depends on the dosage (of course). Surely you're not that dumb to
leave out that key info. Well you did!
But regardless, the amounts of radiation to heat up this puppy would
be so enormous we wouldn't be here talking about it.
So as before my answer stands: the earth is hot because it was hot ..
and it's huge mass keeps it hot for a long time. Simple yet correct.
Or you are dumber than a box of rocks. A calculation is worth more
than a thousand guesses, effacers! Do some calculations!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 06:43:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1178571353.197545.94610@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, writes:
BULK, similiar as a large rock in a fireplace.
Cooling takes a long time and radioactivity adds heat.
Radioactivity adds heat??
Certainly.
From what? The earth is in a microwave oven?
What does microwave overn has to do with it?
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.
Of course it would. One doesn't contradict the other.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 07:15:47 PM |
|
|
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.
Of course it would. One doesn't contradict the other.
Mass=radiation. I learned something today. The center a baseball sized
earth with the same junk in it would be as hot today. Ok you Einsteins
win. All small meteorites are red hot inside ok. BTW where did you buy
your physics books from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 07:18:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1178583347.195644.10900@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
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.
Of course it would. One doesn't contradict the other.
Mass=radiation.
No, that's not it.
I learned something today.
It doesn't appear so.
The center a baseball sized earth with the same junk in it would be as
hot today.
No, certainly not. Think about volume/area ratio.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 09:24:00 PM |
|
|
In article <1178583866.204968.315740@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, writes:
On May 7, 5:18 pm, wrote:
In article <1178583347.195644.10...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
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.
Of course it would. One doesn't contradict the other.
Mass=radiation.
No, that's not it.
5 Minutes ago it was. Now it's not.
It was? Well, in this case I trust you can show where it was. And,
while you're at that, you may explain what this has to do with
microwave oven.
I learned something today.
It doesn't appear so.
At least I was being intentionally sarcastic.
That's nice. Now, when you'll have something to be sarcastic about,
that will be even nicer.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 07:24:26 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 5:18 pm, wrote:
In article <1178583347.195644.10...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
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.
Of course it would. One doesn't contradict the other.
Mass=radiation.
No, that's not it.
5 Minutes ago it was. Now it's not.
I learned something today.
It doesn't appear so.
At least I was being intentionally sarcastic.
The center a baseball sized earth with the same junk in it would be as
hot today.
No, certainly not. Think about volume/area ratio.
I was. You need to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 09:24:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1178584161.419541.117070@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, writes:
Tell me what keeps a larger rock hotter in a fireplace than a small
one?
Plutonic Gamma rays?
No.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 07:38:54 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 8:24 pm, wrote:
On May 7, 5:18 pm, wrote:> In article <1178583347.195644.10...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
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.
Of course it would. One doesn't contradict the other.
Mass=radiation.
No, that's not it.
5 Minutes ago it was.
Nobody said that but you. You are badly misunderstanding
a correct statement. Why don't you quote the actual statement
that you think says this, and we'll walk you through it?
The center a baseball sized earth with the same junk in it would be as
hot today.
No, certainly not. Think about volume/area ratio.
I was. You need to.
The opposite statement was made. A basketball sized earth
would cool quicker.
Look, try writing shorter posts which may have the
effect of limiting the number of misconceptions and
misstatements per post. Then we can go through it
point by point.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 08:06:36 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178584734.020804.8420@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 8:24 pm, wrote:
On May 7, 5:18 pm, wrote:> In article =
<1178583347.195644.10...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, =
writes:
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.
Of course it would. One doesn't contradict the other.
Mass=3Dradiation.
No, that's not it.
5 Minutes ago it was.
=20
Nobody said that but you.
You are dead, Poe. Way out of your depth, fuckhead, and too dumb to see =
it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 07:44:32 PM |
|
|
Look, try writing shorter posts which may have the
effect of limiting the number of misconceptions and
misstatements per post. Then we can go through it
point by point.
- Randy
Wow grasping that mass keeps the earth warm is too tough huh?
That's the only point except people's heads here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 07:56:07 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 8:44 pm, wrote:
Look, try writing shorter posts which may have the
effect of limiting the number of misconceptions and
misstatements per post. Then we can go through it
point by point.
- Randy
Wow grasping that mass keeps the earth warm is too tough huh?
That's the only point except people's heads here.
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze? The answer is that there must be an input of
energy from somewhere. It isn't just storing the initial
heat of its formation. It's been getting heat steadily
ever since.
The dominant input source for energy in the interior of
the earth is radioactive decay.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 08:06:36 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178585767.029535.104740@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 8:44 pm, wrote:
Look, try writing shorter posts which may have the
effect of limiting the number of misconceptions and
misstatements per post. Then we can go through it
point by point.
- Randy
Wow grasping that mass keeps the earth warm is too tough huh?
That's the only point except people's heads here.
=20
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
=20
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
=20
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
=20
So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?=20
A nice insulating rocky crust? It sure keeps the heat away me.
Also, I stay at blood heat all night long, no exercise. All I need
is a duvet. What keeps the atmosphere warm?
Well...see, there's this big ball in the sky...
You will always be a fuckhead, Poe.
The answer is that there must be an input of
energy from somewhere. It isn't just storing the initial
heat of its formation. It's been getting heat steadily
ever since.
=20
The dominant input source for energy in the interior of
the earth is radioactive decay.
=20
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
07 May 2007 08:12:21 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 9:06 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178585767.029535.104740@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 8:44 pm, wrote:
Look, try writing shorter posts which may have the
effect of limiting the number of misconceptions and
misstatements per post. Then we can go through it
point by point.
- Randy
Wow grasping that mass keeps the earth warm is too tough huh?
That's the only point except people's heads here.
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?
A nice insulating rocky crust? It sure keeps the heat away me.
Also, I stay at blood heat all night long, no exercise. All I need
is a duvet. What keeps the atmosphere warm?
Well...see, there's this big ball in the sky...
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
Or didn't you know that caves and deep ocean are cool even
in midsummer?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 03:52:13 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178586740.972406.134360@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 9:06 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1178585767.029535.104740@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 8:44 pm, wrote:
Look, try writing shorter posts which may have the
effect of limiting the number of misconceptions and
misstatements per post. Then we can go through it
point by point.
- Randy
Wow grasping that mass keeps the earth warm is too tough huh?
That's the only point except people's heads here.
OK, that's a good start. Two sentences, only one
misconception.
What you mean by "mass keeps the earth warm" I guess
is that it would take a certain amount of time for the earth
to cool from its formation to its present temperature, due
to the size.
That is true. However, the lifetime of the earth is orders of
magnitude more than that "certain time". The earth's core
should have gone cold long ago.
So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?
A nice insulating rocky crust? It sure keeps the heat away me.
Also, I stay at blood heat all night long, no exercise. All I need
is a duvet. What keeps the atmosphere warm?
Well...see, there's this big ball in the sky...
=20
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
=20
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
Who said there were no stupid questions, only stupid answers?
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
Or didn't you know that caves and deep ocean are cool even
in midsummer?
Didn't you know wells are warm even in midwinter?
Fucking idiot...
Water at 20=B0 C 0.0014=20
Silver 1.01=20
Copper 0.99=20
Brick,insulating ...=20
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/thrcn.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 11:44:59 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 1:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
(ADDRESSING RANDY POE)
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
amen
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
bravo
Two thumbs up. Although the crust DOES play a significant role, MASS
and time are the key players. Peeling the crust off the earth would
indeed cool it faster, but I don't think too much faster. It would be
like peeling the skin off a hot potato .. it doesn't make too much
difference .. compared to the SIZE.
Experiment: microwave a small and large potato to the same core heat
(not same time in microwave). Peal off the skin of the larger potato.
See how long each takes to cool. I bet the peeled larger potato cools
slower.
BTW I understand that potatos don't have molten cores and oceans so
the analogy isn't too good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 05:12:31 PM |
|
|
<effacers@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1178642699.126463.314300@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 1:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
(ADDRESSING RANDY POE)
=20
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
amen
=20
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been =
enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
bravo
=20
Two thumbs up. Although the crust DOES play a significant role, MASS
and time are the key players. Peeling the crust off the earth would
indeed cool it faster, but I don't think=20
Neither does Blind Poe think, he's often said so. =20
I'm somewhat bemused by people who openly declare they do not think
yet still have opinions.=20
Engage brain before opening mouth, or you'll find your own foot in it.
These two newsgroups have "sci" prefixes. That means "produce the =
evidence",
not spout your personal opinions, or no new knowledge will ever be =
obtained.
too much faster. It would be
like peeling the skin off a hot potato .. it doesn't make too much
difference .. compared to the SIZE.
Experiment: microwave a small and large potato to the same core heat
(not same time in microwave). Peal off the skin of the larger potato.
See how long each takes to cool. I bet the peeled larger potato cools
slower.
=20
BTW I understand that potatos don't have molten cores and oceans so
the analogy isn't too good.
A better analogy is the shell of an egg. Try spinning a raw egg and=20
a boiled one and see which spins longest.
As to ocean, paint the egg, but spin it while the paint is still wet.
See if it makes any difference.
=20
Just below the crust is magma. We know that from volcanic activity,
and the crust is enough to insulate us from its heat, we are not =
dependent
upon it (except in Iceland, where the heat is tapped for domestic use).=20
What the core is made of can only be guessed at, albeit intelligently =
from=20
density considerations, but we can find a discontinuity (Google =
Mohorivic)=20
from S and P seismic waves.
We do not know the temperature of the core or even if it rotates at the =
same
speed as the crust, but it does seem likely from the positions of the =
magnetic
poles that it rotates at the same rate. As the magnetic poles wander,
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2889127.stm
that would imply some slippage between crust and core, heating the =
mantle from=20
friction, melting the crust which then cracks along weaknesses because =
it is=20
pulled out of shape by tidal forces, through which cracks the magma =
rises to=20
the surface and the heat energy radiated into space.=20
This slippage is observed on the face of the sun.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/exercises/sun_rot_big.gif
Yet all of this is just theory, nobody actually KNOWS. Nobody.
=20
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 08:02:03 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 3:12 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
Neither does Blind Poe think, he's often said so.
I'm somewhat bemused by people who openly declare they do not think
yet still have opinions.
Engage brain before opening mouth, or you'll find your own foot in it.
These two newsgroups have "sci" prefixes. That means "produce the evidence",
not spout your personal opinions, or no new knowledge will ever be obtained.
A better analogy is the shell of an egg. Try spinning a raw egg and
a boiled one and see which spins longest.
As to ocean, paint the egg, but spin it while the paint is still wet.
See if it makes any difference.
Just below the crust is magma. We know that from volcanic activity,
and the crust is enough to insulate us from its heat, we are not dependent
upon it (except in Iceland, where the heat is tapped for domestic use).
What the core is made of can only be guessed at, albeit intelligently from
density considerations, but we can find a discontinuity (Google Mohorivic)
from S and P seismic waves.
We do not know the temperature of the core or even if it rotates at the same
speed as the crust, but it does seem likely from the positions of the magnetic
poles that it rotates at the same rate. As the magnetic poles wander,
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2889127.stm
that would imply some slippage between crust and core, heating the mantle from
friction, melting the crust which then cracks along weaknesses because it is
pulled out of shape by tidal forces, through which cracks the magma rises to
the surface and the heat energy radiated into space.
This slippage is observed on the face of the sun.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/exercises/sun_rot_big.gif
Yet all of this is just theory, nobody actually KNOWS. Nobody.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agree with about everything you said. Very good. Someone with brains
in a NG ?!
Miracles never seize. Thanks for the breath of fresh air. God knows,
it's needed here!!
Unfortunately trying to educate door nobs is easier than penetrating
NG troll head caps with wisdom so don't try too hard. It's futile at
best. Good luck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 03:23:02 AM |
|
|
<effacers@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1178672523.644970.277620@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
=20
Agree with about everything you said. Very good. Someone with brains
in a NG ?!
Miracles never seize. Thanks for the breath of fresh air. God knows,
it's needed here!!
Unfortunately trying to educate door nobs is easier than penetrating
NG troll head caps with wisdom so don't try too hard. It's futile at
best. Good luck.
"I frame no hypotheses" -- Sir Isaac Newton.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 09:33:36 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 4:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
<effac...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1178672523.644970.277620@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Agree with about everything you said. Very good. Someone with brains
in a NG ?!
Miracles never seize.
Yes, they rarely "seize". Sometimes they even "cease".
Thanks for the breath of fresh air. God knows,
it's needed here!!
Unfortunately trying to educate door nobs
or door knobs!
is easier than penetrating
NG troll head caps with wisdom so don't try too hard. It's futile at
best. Good luck.
"I frame no hypotheses" -- Sir Isaac Newton.
He framed paintings, instead.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 01:03:53 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 12:44 pm, wrote:
On May 8, 1:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
(ADDRESSING RANDY POE)
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
amen
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
bravo
Two thumbs up. Although the crust DOES play a significant role, MASS
and time are the key players. Peeling the crust off the earth would
indeed cool it faster, but I don't think too much faster. It would be
like peeling the skin off a hot potato .. it doesn't make too much
difference .. compared to the SIZE.
Experiment: microwave a small and large potato to the same core heat
(not same time in microwave). Peal off the skin of the larger potato.
See how long each takes to cool. I bet the peeled larger potato cools
slower.
BTW I understand that potatos don't have molten cores and oceans so
the analogy isn't too good.
Right. So the person validating your theories is Androcles,
a guy who disbelieves in just about everything.
So far the list includes (off the top of my head) not only
radioactive heating and relativity, but the chemical
nature of human vision, free space loss from transmitting
antennas, the mass of the electron, and the 1859 calculation
of the discrepancy between predicted and observed
precession of Mercury's orbit.
Well-done. Good choice of "scientist".
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 05:12:57 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178647433.341722.156480@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 12:44 pm, wrote:
On May 8, 1:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
(ADDRESSING RANDY POE)
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
amen
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been =
enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
bravo
Two thumbs up. Although the crust DOES play a significant role, MASS
and time are the key players. Peeling the crust off the earth would
indeed cool it faster, but I don't think too much faster. It would be
like peeling the skin off a hot potato .. it doesn't make too much
difference .. compared to the SIZE.
Experiment: microwave a small and large potato to the same core heat
(not same time in microwave). Peal off the skin of the larger potato.
See how long each takes to cool. I bet the peeled larger potato cools
slower.
BTW I understand that potatos don't have molten cores and oceans so
the analogy isn't too good.
=20
Right. So the person validating your theories is Androcles,
a guy who disbelieves in just about everything.
=20
So far the list includes (off the top of my head) not only
radioactive heating and relativity, but the chemical
nature of human vision, free space loss from transmitting
antennas, the mass of the electron, and the 1859 calculation
of the discrepancy between predicted and observed
precession of Mercury's orbit.
=20
Well-done. Good choice of "scientist".
=20
- Randy
Bitter? Jealous? Highly emotional, at least.=20
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 06:10:52 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 6:12 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178647433.341722.156480@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 12:44 pm, wrote:
On May 8, 1:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
(ADDRESSING RANDY POE)
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
amen
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
bravo
Two thumbs up. Although the crust DOES play a significant role, MASS
and time are the key players. Peeling the crust off the earth would
indeed cool it faster, but I don't think too much faster. It would be
like peeling the skin off a hot potato .. it doesn't make too much
difference .. compared to the SIZE.
Experiment: microwave a small and large potato to the same core heat
(not same time in microwave). Peal off the skin of the larger potato.
See how long each takes to cool. I bet the peeled larger potato cools
slower.
BTW I understand that potatos don't have molten cores and oceans so
the analogy isn't too good.
Right. So the person validating your theories is Androcles,
a guy who disbelieves in just about everything.
So far the list includes (off the top of my head) not only
radioactive heating and relativity, but the chemical
nature of human vision, free space loss from transmitting
antennas, the mass of the electron, and the 1859 calculation
of the discrepancy between predicted and observed
precession of Mercury's orbit.
Well-done. Good choice of "scientist".
Bitter?
Nope.
Jealous?
<snort>
Really not.
Highly emotional, at least.
Eh... nope. 0 for 3. Up to your usual standards.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
09 May 2007 03:02:59 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1178665851.886484.263150@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 6:12 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in =
messagenews:1178647433.341722.156480@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 12:44 pm, wrote:
On May 8, 1:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
(ADDRESSING RANDY POE)
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
amen
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been =
enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
bravo
Two thumbs up. Although the crust DOES play a significant role, =
MASS
and time are the key players. Peeling the crust off the earth =
would
indeed cool it faster, but I don't think too much faster. It would =
be
like peeling the skin off a hot potato .. it doesn't make too much
difference .. compared to the SIZE.
Experiment: microwave a small and large potato to the same core =
heat
(not same time in microwave). Peal off the skin of the larger =
potato.
See how long each takes to cool. I bet the peeled larger potato =
cools
slower.
BTW I understand that potatos don't have molten cores and oceans =
so
the analogy isn't too good.
Right. So the person validating your theories is Androcles,
a guy who disbelieves in just about everything.
So far the list includes (off the top of my head) not only
radioactive heating and relativity, but the chemical
nature of human vision, free space loss from transmitting
antennas, the mass of the electron, and the 1859 calculation
of the discrepancy between predicted and observed
precession of Mercury's orbit.
Well-done. Good choice of "scientist".
Bitter?
=20
Nope.
Empirical evidence shows otherwise. Look at what you wrote above
and imagine our roles reversed.
=20
Jealous?
=20
<snort>
Really not.
Back on the cocaine again?
=20
Highly emotional, at least.
=20
Eh... nope. 0 for 3. Up to your usual standards.
=20
Assume I'd validate the OP's theories without waiting for the =
evidence...=20
"You really are as dumb as the come... incredible."
He validated my observation by "amen".
Heck, you even believe it takes a bus longer to stop than a car because
a government document says so, never mind a controlled experiment
the proves otherwise.=20
No theory involved, you are empirically stupid.
=20
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 06:06:09 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 12:44 pm, wrote:
On May 8, 1:52 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics.co.uk>
wrote:
(ADDRESSING RANDY POE)
Which does not do a lot for heating more than a few
km close to the surface.
You really are as dumb as the come... incredible.
Coming from the "engineer" who can't do simple calculus, and pretends
to have a Ph.D. when he was probably lucky to complete his A levels,
I'd say that was a compliment.
amen
Jesus loves you.
"So the question is, how can the earth's core still be molten
when there has been more than enough time for it to
freeze?"
Because it wrapped in a warm cosy blanket and there has NOT been enough
time for it to freeze, dumbfuck.
bravo
Two thumbs up. Although the crust DOES play a significant role, MASS
and time are the key players.
The heat equation is easy to solve. Show how long it takes for the
equilibrium temp to be reached.
Peeling the crust off the earth would
indeed cool it faster, but I don't think too much faster.
You have the "I don't think" part right.
It would be
like peeling the skin off a hot potato ..
Hmmm,.... rock, potato. The next time you go to McDonald's (probably
while you're working there), order some French-fried mafic rocks, and
see if they taste better than the felsic ones.
it doesn't make too much
difference .. compared to the SIZE.
That's what you last girlfriend said. Too bad for you.
Experiment: microwave a small and large potato to the same core heat
(not same time in microwave). Peal off the skin of the larger potato.
See how long each takes to cool. I bet the peeled larger potato cools
slower.
I bet Mr. Potato head could do a better experiment.
BTW I understand that potatos don't have molten cores and oceans so
the analogy isn't too good.
You haven't seen GE potatoes. BTW, "potatos"? Did Dan Quayle teach you
to spell?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question? |
08 May 2007 08:04:30 PM |
|
|
On May 8, 4:06 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Keep your dayjob comedian.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
