Global Warming - An Inside Job?

[Cold-co]

It is good to see in recent postings that inquireng minds still try to justify a hydrogen crystal for earth's core. I've been trying to do just that for years with less than stellar success.

A hydrogen crystal in earth's core is feasible, but only if it can be shown the geodesist's flattening equation does not consider all forces.

 

f= 1.5(C-A)/Maa + 0.5(RRa/ge).

 

I therefore submit the attached for your consideration.

[Moontanman]

It is good to see in recent postings that inquireng minds still try to justify a hydrogen crystal for earth's core. I've been trying to do just that for years with less than stellar success.

A hydrogen crystal in earth's core is feasible, but only if it can be shown the geodesist's flattening equation does not consider all forces.

 

f= 1.5(C-A)/Maa + 0.5(RRa/ge).

 

I therefore submit the attached for your consideration.

 

 

People try to justify many thingz that are not justifiable, your cold core idea has been refuted so many time that if i had a buck for each time I would be rich. There is not a hydrogen crystal at the Earth's core, the mass and gravity of the the earth falsifies this nicely....

[Cold-co]

People try to justify many thingz that are not justifiable, your cold core idea has been refuted so many time that if i had a buck for each time I would be rich. There is not a hydrogen crystal at the Earth's core, the mass and gravity of the the earth falsifies this nicely....

 

Moontanman:

I stated that a cold-core model would be feasible only if the flattening equation can be shown to be lacking. You do not address my premise.

[Cold-co]

I am asking a streight forward question in my original post. Fluids have a natural resistance to separation. We see it in surface tension. Should not that resistance be considered in the geodesist's hydrostatic flattening equation when determining earth's moment of inertia?

[Moontanman]

No, the mass of the Earth refutes your idea of a hydrogen crystal as the core of the earth, you have to account for the earths mass, a hydrogen crystal does not do this no other premise is necessary to refute the idea...

[Moontanman]

Cold-co, why do you think the Earth should have a hydrogen core? I don't understand why you would think this, what would a hydrogen core solve about the earth that a iron core does not? I have searched and you seem to be the only person who has this idea but i see no problems this idea solves that are not better solved by an iron core not to mention the problems a hydrogen core brings up that it does not solve...

[Cold-co]

Cold-co, why do you think the Earth should have a hydrogen core? I don't understand why you would think this, what would a hydrogen core solve about the earth that a iron core does not? I have searched and you seem to be the only person who has this idea but i see no problems this idea solves that are not better solved by an iron core not to mention the problems a hydrogen core brings up that it does not solve...

[Cold-co]

Thank you for your response.

One reason I believe earth has a cold-core is seismic wave speeds. Gutenberg in his summary of universal thinking addressed seismic wave speeds and off handly commented that the extremely slow speeds of waves in the earth's core were probably caused by melting. That idea was picked up and propagated as fact. But Oldam showed wave speeds to be strictly governed by density alone. A hydrogen crystal would match the speeds of waves in the core even showing a liquid quality to the outer core--according to Silvera face centered cubic hydrogen acts like a liquid even though the molecules assume a solid formation--they are free to rotate giving it a liquid quality. Hence my question; " Should the effect of surface tension be included in the geodesist's hydrostatic flattening equation?"

[modest]

Thank you for your response.

One reason I believe earth has a cold-core is seismic wave speeds. Gutenberg in his summary of universal thinking addressed seismic wave speeds and off handly commented that the extremely slow speeds of waves in the earth's core were probably caused by melting. That idea was picked up and propagated as fact.

 

The mass of Earth is too large for a hydrogen core. Hydrogen floats—why on earth would it be on the bottom of earth? It wouldn't!

 

Should the effect of surface tension be included in the geodesist's hydrostatic flattening equation?"

 

Surface tension is measurable. Compression is measurable. They can't go wrong.

 

~modest

[Cold-co]

Rene Descartes was the last to teach a cold-core model, circa 1644. His model went back 5000 years and was approved and taught by the church, who at the time controlled all that was taught. In the 18th century scientists wanted to break free from church control, but to break free they needed to discredit the cold-core model. They accomplished this through the geodesist's flattening equation, which established the need for most of earth's mass to be concentrated in her core. Hence the hot-core model which allows heavy elements to sink deep in her molten core. But the hot-core model at the time of its acceptance left a lot of scientific disconnects, which were subsequently overcome with a flood of theories. Those theories are today taught as fact.

 

Now I don't want to reestablish the church as the controller of what is taught, but I want to give the old cold-core model a just review. That is why I'm questioning the flattening equation's lack of accounting for the horizontal gravitational acceleration or the reluctance of liquids to separate, which can easily be seen in in the ring experiments.

 

All planetary bodies originate in a molecular cloud composed of 75.4% hydrogen, 23.1% helium and 1.5% ice-coated dust. So if we are to build a planet; that is what we have to work with. But, condensation-solidification of a molecular cloud will not produce the moment of inertia required by the flattening equation. To accomplish that, a separation process was needed to throw heavy materials out away from the forming sun. That was the first scientific disconnect I detected, the sun rotates only once in 27 days, much to slow to throw any material off. This disconnect along with 25 others led me to question the geodesists equation. If the reluctance of a liquid to separate is considered the moment of inertia matches the moment of inertia calculated using seismic S wave speeds as proportional densities.

As far as earth's mass is concerned it remains unchanged, mass is redistributed to the mantle and never exceeds 8 g/cc.

[hummingbird]

I just wanted to say hi Newbie here and like this topic! So I'll give your post stars!!! I find it strange that we have all this pressure form fossile fuel and yet liquid states move away from solids. So what other kind of liquids are down there????

[Cold-co]

I just wanted to say hi Newbie here and like this topic! So I'll give your post stars!!! I find it strange that we have all this pressure form fossile fuel and yet liquid states move away from solids. So what other kind of liquids are down there????

Hi Hummingbird

Welcome to the discussion, but be forewarned you will soon be disabused for considering a cold-core model for earth. It would seen scientists are averse to discussing the posibility that earth's flattening equation may not be complete. The current virsion is an ideal world equation. It is similar to the equations you used in Physics 101. You were told to ignore friction on a block sliding down an inclined plane. But, this simplified equation gives a wrong answer. We live in a real world, so the reluctance of a fluid to separate needs to be included in the equation to get the moment of inertia for earth. Go back and review my postings in the allternate theories section. You will find there a sourse to my cold-core model.

[hummingbird]

:blink: I'm the wrong person to ask a question on such things, I'm special. Sometimes things come to me though that I shouldn't know. :mellow:

[Cold-co]

:) I'm the wrong person to ask a question on such things, I'm special. Sometimes things come to me though that I shouldn't know. :huh:

Hummingbird:

May only good things come to you.

[Moontanman]

Rene Descartes was the last to teach a cold-core model, circa 1644. His model went back 5000 years and was approved and taught by the church, who at the time controlled all that was taught. In the 18th century scientists wanted to break free from church control, but to break free they needed to discredit the cold-core model. They accomplished this through the geodesist's flattening equation, which established the need for most of earth's mass to be concentrated in her core. Hence the hot-core model which allows heavy elements to sink deep in her molten core. But the hot-core model at the time of its acceptance left a lot of scientific disconnects, which were subsequently overcome with a flood of theories. Those theories are today taught as fact.

 

Now I don't want to reestablish the church as the controller of what is taught, but I want to give the old cold-core model a just review. That is why I'm questioning the flattening equation's lack of accounting for the horizontal gravitational acceleration or the reluctance of liquids to separate, which can easily be seen in in the ring experiments.

 

All planetary bodies originate in a molecular cloud composed of 75.4% hydrogen, 23.1% helium and 1.5% ice-coated dust. So if we are to build a planet; that is what we have to work with. But, condensation-solidification of a molecular cloud will not produce the moment of inertia required by the flattening equation. To accomplish that, a separation process was needed to throw heavy materials out away from the forming sun. That was the first scientific disconnect I detected, the sun rotates only once in 27 days, much to slow to throw any material off. This disconnect along with 25 others led me to question the geodesists equation. If the reluctance of a liquid to separate is considered the moment of inertia matches the moment of inertia calculated using seismic S wave speeds as proportional densities.

As far as earth's mass is concerned it remains unchanged, mass is redistributed to the mantle and never exceeds 8 g/cc.

 

 

So the mantle of the earth, under your model, would have be made predominantly of materials greater than the density of iron, 7.9 g/cc ? For your model to work the Earth would have to be made up of much more heavy metals than evidence shows by a huge margin, volcanoes do not spew out molten iron or any other metal they spew out silicates. The earths mantle is made up of predominantly silicates not iron and other dense metals. BTW how disingenuous of you to tell a new person your idea is some how being suppressed by science..... instead of the turht of you idea being supressed by reality...

[hummingbird]

Thanks for the welcome!

 

This is my first time reading about this hydrogen core theory. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I haven't gotten a chance to read about things lately.

 

I understand your against this theory because it doesn't take everything you believe it should into account. To bad P and S waves can't tell you everything!

[Cold-co]

So the mantle of the earth, under your model, would have be made predominantly of materials greater than the density of iron, 7.9 g/cc ? For your model to work the Earth would have to be made up of much more heavy metals than evidence shows by a huge margin, volcanoes do not spew out molten iron or any other metal they spew out silicates. The earths mantle is made up of predominantly silicates not iron and other dense metals. BTW how disingenuous of you to tell a new person your idea is some how being suppressed by science..... instead of the turht of you idea being supressed by reality...

 

Moontanman:

It is not necessary for the mantle to be made out of heavier elements, because solid hydrogen under pressure sneeks into interatomic spaces. The atoms themselves then open their electron ring and suck the molecular hydrogen into the space between the electron ring and the proton-neutron core to increase the density of the atoms. Industry has been plagued with this hidden hydrogen for years. Especially in jet engine blades wherein the effusion of hydrogen causes blades to form small volcanic eruptions that weaken the blades. Eventually the blade fails sometimes with tragic results. Thus industry takes great pains to rid the blade material of infused hydrogen. But the space between the electron ring and the proton-neutron core is vast compared to the size of the hydrogen molecule, so a large number of them can be sequestered inside each atom thus increasing its density.

As evidence of infussion, Friedemann Freund Jr. (Google him for his article NASA) while studying the sourse of the effusion of hydrogen that microbial communities feed on, crushed a cubic meter of andesite and obtained 5000 cc of hydrogen gas.

Through infusion a condensed earth can be made from a 9 Kelvin molecular cloud fragment composed primarily of hydrogen, helium and ice-coated dust.