heating of the earth's core

[carl fischbach]

Heating of the earth's core must have a logical
solution, which led me to this idea, the work
done by gravity on vibrating molecules throughout
the earth moves the surface heat of the earth
towards the earths core,amplifing it as it moves
to the earth's center.This is backed up by the
fact that, if you had molecules bonded together in
a long string vibrating back and forth, and kept
one end vibrating at a minimum velocity and applied gravity
along the direction of the string
towards the other end,you would find that end
opposite to the one maintianed at minimum velocity
would be vibrating at a greater velocity than
the minimum velocity end.Could it be possible that
the earth's core is heated this way?

[Jonathan]

I think no. The string idea may make sense, but I didn't understand it. I think no because if hot air balloons rise because they are less dense, then so too would hot molecules. Therefore one would have to do work to make the hot molecules move generally toward the center. I've heard two theories that I'm partial to: massive amounts of radioactivity at the core, which makes sense considering how dense radioactive stuff is. The other is a neo-aether theory where matter is considered to be 4d vorticies in this aether, and apparently when the aether gets to the center of the vortex, it pops out of existence. But because the aether is, well, etherial, you never run out of it. It's really kind of like a spirital essence. BTW, I've heard of the Michaelson-Morley experiment, but I like this aether theory though because it explains the null result: If aether is flowing into all massive bodies, then gravity is a push force resulting from this aether 'wind' and this wind blows normal to the surface of a body. (Radially inwards in the case of spherical bodies.) If the MM experiment was conducted vertically here on earth, one could prove this one way or another. But I digress, so by some method I don't understand, this influx of aether is supposed to cause the interior heating of all bodies, but is only noticable on large scales, just like gravity, so one really doesn't see it in everyday life.

[russ_watters]

Its important to understand that the Earth isn't gainin/generating heat. All of the heat in the core is residual - it was created in the formation of the Earth from gravity.

[chroot]

Actually, most the heat in the interior of the earth is due to naturally-occuring radioactivite isotopes.

- Warren

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
Actually, most the heat in the interior of the earth is due to naturally-occuring radioactivite isotopes.

- Warren You sure? Thats a whole ton of radioactivity.

[Jonathan]

Look's like we have two experts disagreeing on basic facts. You guys, the fact is that no one really knows for sure the source of the Earth's core heat (or if it is increasing/decreasing/steady) or the exact amount of that that is attributable to each different possibility (if more than one is occuring). The radioactivity one makes sense though, of all the radioactive stuff on Earth, most of it would fall to the core if it was liquidish and submersed in liquidish stuff because of its high density. This is esp. true in this case where most of the Earth's mass is liquidish (I think). Yes, I know, liquidish is not a word!

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Yes, I know, liquidish is not a word!

I like it...feel free to use it in this forum! [:D]

This topic, however, must go to the Other Sciences forum.

p.s. Welcome to PF, Carl! [:)]

[Janus]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Look's like we have two experts disagreeing on basic facts. You guys, the fact is that no one really knows for sure the source of the Earth's core heat (or if it is increasing/decreasing/steady) or the exact amount of that that is attributable to each different possibility (if more than one is occuring). The radioactivity one makes sense though, of all the radioactive stuff on Earth, most of it would fall to the core if it was liquidish and submersed in liquidish stuff because of its high density. This is esp. true in this case where most of the Earth's mass is liquidish (I think). Yes, I know, liquidish is not a word!

Actually, the term you mean is plastic

I would say that both are correct, it is a combination of residual heat and radioactive decay. The radioactive decay acting to slow the cooling.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Look's like we have two experts disagreeing on basic facts. No need to call me an expert here - this isn't my field.

It just seems to me to be unnecessary to assume the core is highly radioactive. And that it would make a planet like Jupiter considerably cooler since it must contain far less radioactive elements (by mass percentage), yet Jupiter gives off a lot of heat.

Gravitational collapse is what initially heats stars and gas giants and that's not all that difficult to model. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to think there must be another source for the heat in the earth.

[Jonathan]

I thought I heard at some point that they modeled those type of things and that the heat coming from the core was anomalous. IMO, russ should have the benefit of the doubt in expertise and for all intents and purposes he's an expert on most things, unless of course he humbly denies it.

[Andre]

So where dooes the heat come from?

So far we have seen three ideas I think.

Residual compression heat from the original formation of the Earth. However I have read somewhere that it would have taken only a few (2-3) billion years for the Earth to cool, when looking at the normal physical relationships.

Another idea is the nucleair core of the Earth, (http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa072102a.htm) but nuclear engineers who know how critical parameters of nuclear reactors are, usually strongly oppose this idea. Although random natural radioactive decay of elements would generate some heat througout the inner earth, slowing down the cooling process, it is doubtfull if that could amount to retain such a tremendous heat.

Then there seem to be some crackpot view with vibrations and vortices. Can't really work with that.

Now, what generates heat in nature other than chemical and nuclear processes? Compression and friction for instance. Now, the mentioned causes seem not sufficient to retain so much heat. We may have to add another unaddressed heat source: friction!

Unthinkable? Well, I do have this hypothesis.

Why is Venus so extreme hot (720 degrees Kelvin) ? greenhouse runaway? Come on.

[FZ+]

Why is Venus so extreme hot (720 degrees Kelvin) ? greenhouse runaway? Come on.
Combination of that and rampant volcanism, AFAIK. The greenhouse runaway may also be a result of volcanism. What little data we have show crustal plateaus etc that suggest a very active geology.

I really don't think tidal friction is truely a significant factor in this. There is certainly no evidence for that being a significant factor, at least as far as I am aware of. If we are working on the idea of this volcanism being the effect of the tidal friction, then this is disputed by heavy volcanism further out in the solar system. Eg. mars.

[Andre]

OK, let's explore this some more, with the consent of the thread owner of course. So Carl, if you don't mind.

We were talking about Earth interior heat. Heat is energy. There was some law with consevation of energy. We could have a look at Earths total energy. The main components of Earths energy could be it's turning energy and it's interior heat.

Now, let's look at venus. As Venus is supposed to be Earths twin planet with most parameters within the same rough order of magnitude, the energy equation is quite different. Venus has much more heat but no rotation, actually a little backwards rotation.

So what does this suggest. All Venus previous rotation energy may have been converted to heat. Consequently Earth rotation energy may also be converting to heat gradually, but only noticaeble witin the interior so far.

[russ_watters]

The problem with modeling heat loss for a planet is that a couple of clouds is all it takes to throw the end result way off.

[LURCH]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No need to call me an expert here - this isn't my field.

It just seems to me to be unnecessary to assume the core is highly radioactive. And that it would make a planet like Jupiter considerably cooler since it must contain far less radioactive elements (by mass percentage), yet Jupiter gives off a lot of heat.

Gravitational collapse is what initially heats stars and gas giants and that's not all that difficult to model. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to think there must be another source for the heat in the earth.

But Jupiter is a much larger sphere, and therefore has less surface area for its mass. It would be expected to have a higher initial temperature, and to cool more slowly.

[Nereid]

Re the Earth:
1) the vertical heat flow through the upper parts of the crust is easily measured
2) the energy generated by radioactive decay (40K, U, Th, etc) is well known; within the Earth it all gets turned into heat
3) make some reasonable assumptions about which elements moved preferentially to the core, and which to the crust
4) build your model, press the GO button, and ....

Re Venus:
1) solar insolation is well known
2) atmospheric composition is (now) well known
3) {like 4) above}

Re Jupiter:
A few more complications as the composition of the Jovian core isn't well understood. However, the major new factor is the gravitational potential energy converted to heat as the planet differentiates; esp as He settles to the core (and H rises).

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

I'll admit that it does seem weird that the interior of the earth is heated by radiation. But I'm pretty sure it's quite well accepted. I don't remember numbers, but I think uranium constitutes a much greater proportion of the earths composition than one would naturally think. Furthermore, I don't think it would take a huge amount of radiation, since there is so much insulation to keep things hot.

I once read an article, can't remember journal or specifics, about this wierd uranium rich formation under Africa I think it was. Apparently it was acting as some large, very slow, self sustaining breeder reactor. Like I said, I don't remember the details. Apparently they used the data to calibrate uranium-thorium dating, and turns out the method is quite accurate.

[carl fischbach]

This is an interesting discussion I've started
here.I'm not saying that the energy is created out
of thin air,what I am saying is that the sun's
energy absorbed on then surface planet is transfered by gravity to the interior of the planet.With a solid planet modeling this is tricky.With a gas giant the model is simple.
Each molecule of a gas giant migrates over it's
entire interior.As it moves towards the center,
from the surface, it gains velocity due to the work done by gravity.As it returns to the surface,
it loses velocity due to work done against gravity,but it also loses energy due to the molecule radiating infrared radiation.This causes
the molecule to return to the surface at a slower
velocity than it left.Now it absorbs more energy from the sun.I could get into this in terms of
collision science but it is a little to technical
for this format.If you take away the sun's heat, the gas giant would freeze solid in a relatively
short period in terms of the geological timeline.
Its the sun's radiation that maintains the gas giant's heat for sure.

[Nereid]

carl fischbach: It's the sun's radiation that maintains the gas giant's heat for sure. Both Jupiter and Saturn emit (mostly in IR) more energy than they receive from the Sun (mostly in the optical), so by your reasoning they are generating energy 'for free'. Much more likely that it's due to the fractionation of helium and neon, energy left over the initial collapse, and continued contraction.carl fischbach: Each molecule of a gas giant migrates over its entire interior This would only be the case if convection were the mode of heat transport throughout the entire planet (and there were no solid core).
[edit: 'hot' molecules won't sink anyway; in a convective flow, they rise]
However, IIRC, there is a solid core - metallic hydrogen? - and the atmosphere is not fully convective. Perhaps a good tutorial on planetary physics would help?Chemicalsuperfreak: I once read an article, can't remember journal or specifics, about this wierd uranium rich formation under Africa I think it was. Apparently it was acting as some large, very slow, self sustaining breeder reactor. Like I said, I don't remember the details. Apparently they used the data to calibrate uranium-thorium dating, and turns out the method is quite accurate. You're referring to Oklo, I think. It was a natural nuclear reactor (stopped a long time ago) and it has enabled a few strong constraints to be placed on the time variability of important physical constants. More info here:
http://www.ans.org/pi/np/oklo/

However, normal radioactive decay generates heat, and it's that which is the most important source of heat for the Earth's interior.

[Jonathan]

Carl, I've already determined and said that hot molecules sinking to the core and coming back cool defies Archimedes' principle and the laws of thermodynamics, because, in Jupider for example, one would have to have a huge Maxwellian demon living there to cause this self organization of temperature differential reverse to bouyancy.

[isaacsgf]

There may be a contribution of heat from the earth's crustal flexing from the variation in the magnitude of the gravitational attraction of the moon and sun and the rotation dynamics of each of the bodies. How about heat generation from the interaction of the earth's magnetic field and that of the sun?

Does anyone have a good reference that provides the best guesses at the proportion of longlived radioisotopes present in the proto-solar cloud from which the solar system formed and the rate of heat conduction and convection through some (bogus average)of the interior constituents of the earth? Have the several joules/second of radiant energy provided by the sun been arriving at a somewhat constant rate over the last 5 billion years. Let's not ignore the energy partitioning at the molecular/atom level extant at the high end of the gaussian distribution of the energy per atom at the earth's center and how that may contribute to fusion and the heat so generated. [zz)] [o)]

[Andre]

Wow, Isaac, Welcome and do you have a translation for all that?

Personally I think we should look at Venus to understand someting about the heating of planets.

[sage]

what's wrong with radioactive decay and very good insulation(coupled with high pressure at the centre) as the cause of the heat at the interior of the earth. andre i could not get any new info on venus from the last time we discussed about it. seems we have to wait for a new nasa mission, but then they are obssessed with mars currently. (oh! i added you on my buddy list. after all we have had some great discussions about some pretty innovative theories).

[Andre]

Sage,

I guess that radioactive decay is a basic thruth. There is nothing wrong with that. The question is the magnitude. But one thing seems certain. The decay inherently continues and the generated heat will diminish gradually with its effect on the size of the solid inner core as you have argued somewhere else. Somebody calculated (have to find it back) that the original compression heat of Earth would have been gone for some billiard years by now. Something kept the heat up. Natural radioactivity is one. Internal friction is another.

There is also the thermonuclear core hypothesis, assuming a fission reactor in the core of the Earth. This would yield a multitude of heat compared to natural radioactivity. This is not the same of course and it´s existance is highly debated.

FYI I had some pretty good Venus discussion here.

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=528370&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=3

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sage
what's wrong with radioactive decay and very good insulation(coupled with high pressure at the centre) as the cause of the heat at the interior of the earth. I don't like the radioactive decay theory because of radiation and the requried mixture of elements in the earth. Seems like an awful lot of uranium whereas metorites hitting the earth are mostly iron or stone.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I don't like the radioactive decay theory because of radiation and the requried mixture of elements in the earth. Seems like an awful lot of uranium whereas metorites hitting the earth are mostly iron or stone.

Hmm, looks like it's mostly radioactive potassium. I wonder how much modern models agree with Lord Kelvin's.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030505/030505-5.html

[Andre]

I've read the article but I don't get it. The idea is that potassium dissolves very well in ferro sulpheric compounds. Hence the core could be rather right of potassium. and heavy pottassium 40K is radioactive, producing heat, when decaying.

Most be hard to get the numbers right. The half-time of (rare) 40K is 1250 million years. That means that the radioactivity is very very low. Secondly, 40K decays to 40Ca and 40Ar, meaning that the mass loss that transfers to energy cant be very big. Hard to image that this minute radioactivity can amount to 0,4 - 0,8 Tera watt (per second ?) within the Earth core.

Anybody familiar with these calculations?

[Andre]

OK I found myself an old enveloppe and after some scrabbling I estimate the about of potassium required to be in the range 0f 10% of the volume of the Earth core to 9 times the Earth core. But I'm not sure of the data.

Realistic?

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Andre
I've read the article but I don't get it. The idea is that potassium dissolves very well in ferro sulpheric compounds. Hence the core could be rather right of potassium. and heavy pottassium 40K is radioactive, producing heat, when decaying.

Most be hard to get the numbers right. The half-time of (rare) 40K is 1250 million years. That means that the radioactivity is very very low.

No. It means the decay constant is small, 1.2x10-17s-1.

Secondly, 40K decays to 40Ca and 40Ar, meaning that the mass loss that transfers to energy cant be very big.

1.4-1.5 Mev --- not huge, not trivial.

Hard to image that this minute radioactivity can amount to 0,4 - 0,8 Tera watt (per second ?) within the Earth core.

It is NOT necessary to "imagine" --- do the arithmetic: mass of earth times abundance of potassium times abundance of K40 divided by relative atomic mass times Avogadro's number times decay constant times decay energy equals power output. You should come up with 3-10 x 1015W working with cosmic or crustal abundance figures for potassium --- that's 100 - 300 times the crustal heat flow from Fairbridge, 65 mW/m2. One of the problems that has to be dealt with in accretion models is the LOSS of volatiles during the process.

Adjectival quantifications can be misleading --- doing the actual arithmetic with numbers that have been available for years is very much the preferred approach.

[Smart Guy]

Friction&Pressure.Duh huh. Now lets go deeper. Stop looking at the core and look at the mantle. The core is hot always been hot. The reason it wont cool is because it is surrounded by the perfect insulator(ie.molten rock). Then on top of that we have our atmosphere.
Unlike the larger gas planets (which are larger due to expansion)Our planets crust cooled and trapped heat inside. How is heat still being generated after millions of years? Well I of course have a theory. Because till we go there. To be Continued.......

[Andre]

Smart Guy:
The reason it wont cool is because it is surrounded by the perfect insulator(ie.molten rock).

Well nobody has been there to check it but the current model would be this:
http://www.corvus.com/planets/earth.htm

The Earth's interior is differentiated. Because the density of the entire earth is 5.52 g/cm(3), and the crust is much less dense, the interior is made of very heavy elements. It is divided into four areas.

The crust is very thin relative to the radius of the Earth, only 35-60 Km deep. In fact, with respect to the size of the Earth, it is proportionally thinner than the skin on an apple.
The mantle is a layer of dense rock, which is very hot, and under a lot of pressure. The heat and pressure make the rock plastic, or malleable. The mantle is denser than the crust, which floats on it. As the mantle moves, the crust floating on it also moves, causing earthquakes.
The core has two regions, a liquid core and a solid core. The interior of the planet can be explored by monitoring shock waves from earthquakes. As the surface crust is dislocated, the shock of the motion spreads through the Earth. There are two types of waves that result. S-waves are shaking waves, like the shaking of jello. P-waves are pressure waves like sound waves. P-waves will travel through all materials, but S-waves only travel through solids. When an earthquake strikes one part of the Earth, S and P waves are felt nearby, but P-waves are also felt on the other side of the Earth. Therefore, the center of the Earth must be liquid. This liquid core is made of molten iron and nickel and has a density of about 14 g/cm(3), compared to 3.0 g/cm(3) for the crust and 4.4 g/cm(3) for the mantle. In the inner core, the pressure is so great that the iron and nickel become solid again.

If you read carefully, you may have have missed "molted rock". plastic rocks ok, Molten iron ok, but that's not really renounced for being a perfect insolator.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Andre
Smart Guy:


Well nobody has been there to check it but the current model would be this:
http://www.corvus.com/planets/earth.htm



If you read carefully, you may have have missed "molted rock". plastic rocks ok, Molten iron ok, but that's not really renounced for being a perfect insolator.

I don't know how old that quote is, but it looks pretty outdated/incorrect. P waves are not felt on the exact opposite of the earth. The are blocked which is why it is believed the earth's core is solid.

[Andre]

OK Perhaps more a little less correct use of language, or did somebody change the physical laws lately?

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/interior.html
http://www.gcsescience.com/pwav54.htm
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/acolvil/interior.html

[Smart Guy]

That was a cute web site a lot of valuable information for my sons science fair project in which he won first place this past summer, but the skin of an apple is thick enough to hold in water just as the crust is thick enough to hold in heat. The only relevance that has is the crust is thin enough to let excess gas and pressure be released in very small quanities. The core ,solid minerals; denser rock and minerals sink. Except water. Ice floats. The mantle, molten rock or minerals (since this is a science forum). The heat, already there kept steady by the constant movement of the earths crust which is miles and miles deep. The crust kept cool an in a solid state by the atmosphere of course. The earth is heated internally by the residual heat circulating, and since I said the core is solid minerals or simi-solid then the majority of the heat would be in the mantle.

Prove me wrong [:))]

[Andre]

Prove me wrong [:))]

That's not fair, Smart guy, He, who proposes an alternative theory or hypothesis, not in line with the scholar ideas, has the onus of proof, That's rule nr. 1A(1) in science.

How about if I stated that the earth was hollow (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6696/hollow.html) and prove me wrong [:))]

This is the scholar idea:

http://www.gcsescience.com/rk3.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/inside.html

Below the crust is the mantle, a dense, hot layer of semi-solid rock approximately 2,900 km thick. The mantle, which contains more iron, magnesium, and calcium than the crust, is hotter and denser because temperature and pressure inside the Earth increase with depth. As a comparison, the mantle might be thought of as the white of a boiled egg. At the center of the Earth lies the core, which is nearly twice as dense as the mantle because its composition is metallic (iron-nickel alloy) rather than stony. Unlike the yolk of an egg, however, the Earth's core is actually made up of two distinct parts: a 2,200 km-thick liquid outer core and a 1,250 km-thick solid inner core. As the Earth rotates, the liquid outer core spins, creating the Earth's magnetic field.


Again, if nobody stealthily changed the physical laws for P-waves and S-waves, the mantle is not fluid but semi solid. For (sound) waves it acts as solid. For plate tectonics, hot spots and mantly plumes with dynamics measured over millions of years it acts a bit more as fluid.

[Smart Guy]

If you told me that the earth was hollow I would say okay, Back that up with facts.
Theories should be proven. The statements I made were all facts.To disprove my theory would require facts of your own. The Cores heat is not generated but stored in the mantle. The illustration you showed me had a core1 and core 2 the interactions between the two create only one core. No proof. Well my proof comes from the fact that since the mantle is the only true liquid and "the cores middle" aka... inner core is solid. The mantle has to store heat, because like you said the pressure at the earth's core is so great there is very little molecule movement unlike the mantle. And we all know heat is generated by movement of molecules to a certain point.


What do you think...
And be nice[:))]

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Smart Guy
If you told me that the earth was hollow I would say okay, Back that up with facts.
Theories should be proven. The statements I made were all facts.To disprove my theory would require facts of your own. The Cores heat is not generated but stored in the mantle. The illustration you showed me had a core1 and core 2 the interactions between the two create only one core. No proof. Well my proof comes from the fact that since the mantle is the only true liquid and "the cores middle" aka... inner core is solid. The mantle has to store heat, because like you said the pressure at the earth's core is so great there is very little molecule movement unlike the mantle. And we all know heat is generated by movement of molecules to a certain point.


What do you think...
And be nice[:))]

Heat isn't generated by the movement of molecules. Heat IS the movement of moleculars, or actually the transfer of energy from one group of moving molecules to a slower group of moving molecules. But like I've stated above, most of the interior's heat is due to radioactive decay. If there wasn't this source of heat, the interior would have frozen billions of year ago.

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

What do you guys think of this theory regarding the heating of the Earth's core? (Vacuum heart theory). The Russians have done some great work on it (the paper loses a bit in it's translation).

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/3735/engearth.html

[Smart Guy]

Sorry for the mistake. Heat IS the movement of molecules. Also a very good argument for Radioactive Decay. Maybe there is not just one source of heat, I believe that the amount of heat transfered down by plate movement ie friction between the two would be sufficient enough to compensate for any heat loss even over billions of years. That heat is then transferred down and stored in the mantle the rest is realeased.

[sage]

mantle is NOT LIQUID. one can infer the state of the earth rocks by the velocity of the seismic waves. mantle in fact turns out to be a kind of solid which can flow(or semisolid). outer core is fluid while inner core is solid. and yes the crust is a poor heat conducter. another thing. heat is THE GENERATOR OF ALL TECTONIC MOVEMENTS ON EARTH. don't you think if the heat inside earth was only residual heat and hence always decreasing with time, the earth would have been a much quieter place? in fact more heat is being generated than can be released, leading to heat buildup, local melting, convection current, mantle plumes, plate tectonics and what not. thing to see is whether radioactive decay can account for all this heat, scientists seem to think so and we should find out what they are saying before jumping at other alternatives.

[Smart Guy]

Originally posted by sage
mantle is NOT LIQUID. one can infer the state of the earth rocks by the velocity of the seismic waves. mantle in fact turns out to be a kind of solid which can flow(or semisolid). outer core is fluid while inner core is solid. and yes the crust is a poor heat conducter. another thing. heat is THE GENERATOR OF ALL TECTONIC MOVEMENTS ON EARTH. don't you think if the heat inside earth was only residual heat and hence always decreasing with time, the earth would have been a much quieter place? in fact more heat is being generated than can be released, leading to heat buildup, local melting, convection current, mantle plumes, plate tectonics and what not. thing to see is whether radioactive decay can account for all this heat, scientists seem to think so and we should find out what they are saying before jumping at other alternatives.

I had you, but I lost my whole reply. 4000 characters down the drain.
Well thought out and articulated. I was just getting started good too. To sum it up I said the Mantle was kept at a constant temp. Heated by friction and cooled by cracks in the earths crust. I mentioned the amount of seismic activity per day. So on and So fourth


Dont reply please im disgusted. Instead let do another topic.[b(]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Smart Guy
If you told me that the earth was hollow I would say okay, Back that up with facts.
Theories should be proven. The statements I made were all facts.To disprove my theory would require facts of your own. The Cores heat is not generated but stored in the mantle. The illustration you showed me had a core1 and core 2 the interactions between the two create only one core. No proof. Well my proof comes from the fact that since the mantle is the only true liquid and "the cores middle" aka... inner core is solid. The mantle has to store heat, because like you said the pressure at the earth's core is so great there is very little molecule movement unlike the mantle. And we all know heat is generated by movement of molecules to a certain point.
What do you think...
And be nice
"Heat storage" is an unknown phenomenon in current Science, laws of thermodynamics prohibits it, all heat is radiant......

[FZ+]

But that heat does not radiate away instantly, and it dissipates away differently for different objects. I think heat storage here is used to mean a substance that radiates very slowly, so that the heat is temporarily delayed within the mantle.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by FZ+
But that heat does not radiate away instantly, and it dissipates away differently for different objects. I think heat storage here is used to mean a substance that radiates very slowly, so that the heat is temporarily delayed within the mantle.
Nice thought, problem though with the mantle, as Rock is NOT a good insulator, actually quite a poor one as most able insulators work on the basis of 'trapping' heat in gasses, as to slow transfer rates. Water is a much better insulator then mantle rock, but its coating is superficial, though still effective.

There is a tremendous amount of pressure at the center of the Earth, perhaps the minute 'Working(s)' of the plastic(s) (rock/metals/minerals) at those points, generate more heating, through pressurization, (Not pressure) then is currently thought.

Perhaps it is that minutia that actually works, consistently over time, via the stresses and pulls of the "spacial environment" (Sun moon, other planets, satellites) that is generating a quotient of that heating effect.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Perhaps you should understand that I am not arguing against heat storage, (by mantle) just that the amount of heat required, tells us clearly that, there must be other sources for that heating, as the generation of heat must be ongoing to have lasted this 4.5 billion years that the planet has had to cool off...

The Apollo astronauts found the Moon to be emitting/generating Heat, maybe the rest of the panetary bodies do so to, just relitavized to their respective spacializations.

The manner of the storage is probably a little more complex then just the idea of 'dissipation alone' as agent/operator of the storage mechanism(?).

[Andre]

I think I said it before but my guess is that one of the possible heat sources is friction, especially in the inner /outer core boundary and the core mantle boundary, where external forces acting upon earth, especially the precession of the equinoxes will generate accellerations, hence movement and hence drag or resistance.

It has been argued that Earth magnetic field is tied to that precession reactions as there has been a study long ago that suggested that there was some correlation between precession rates and magnetic field of the different planets. The paleomagnetic excursions, that we see about every 50-100,000 years may indicate that some severe things are going on over there, chaotic eddies perhaps that create a lot of drag/heat periodically. This all slows down Earth. So the Earths turning energy may be converted to heat.

Just thinking.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Gotta remember that there is almost 4 M bars of pressure at the center, that is a lot of pressure/pressurization that has yet to be explained as to how that is brought into being.....and pressurizational processes generate heat/ing....

As for the existence of "boundary levels", how the heck does that happen, and why?? Mantle/outer core, outer core/core, core/innercore and the idea that 'rock' acts like a 'plastic' is just so neat! [a)] [:))]

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Andre
I think I said it before but my guess is that one of the possible heat sources is friction, especially in the inner /outer core boundary and the core mantle boundary, where external forces acting upon earth, especially the precession of the equinoxes will generate accellerations, hence movement and hence drag or resistance.

It has been argued that Earth magnetic field is tied to that precession reactions as there has been a study long ago that suggested that there was some correlation between precession rates and magnetic field of the different planets. The paleomagnetic excursions, that we see about every 50-100,000 years may indicate that some severe things are going on over there, chaotic eddies perhaps that create a lot of drag/heat periodically. This all slows down Earth. So the Earths turning energy may be converted to heat.

Just thinking. Hey Andre, how about taking out an old envelope and doing some OOM (order of magnitude) calculations on the back of it? You know, surface area of your favourite boundary, coefficient of friction, distance moved, energy generated, time period, ... you could quickly determine how realistic your thinking is!

[carl fischbach]

I've found an interesting web page that virtually proves that a column of gas under gravity is warmer at the bottom than the top, and can be
viewed at www.firstgravitymachine.com/index.phtml this explains jupiter's core temperature of 20,000 K and a significantly cooler surface temperature although it is the overal cooling
of the planet and work done by gravitational contraction of the planet that is responsible
for it's excess heat. It is this gavitational
heating effect that explains the temperature
differences at various altitudes on earth. Why not take it one step further and apply it to the earth itself.

[Andre]

Nereid,
I still think that almost nothing times almost infinity can still add up to something.

I think we can assume that the sun-moon gravity force that generates the precession of the Equinoxes, only works on the equatorial bulge and hence the lithosphere/mantle. Somehow this movement has to be transmitted to the solid inner core, to keep aligned. The precession cycle it is completed in a mere 26,000 years, the spin axis of the solid inner core has to be dragged along over 2 x 23 degrees in only 13,000 years. Now this is only a infinitesinal small rate per second but the turning momentum of the inner core is of a tremendous value and it increases very rapidly, to the fifth power of the radius if I'm right when the core cools down and grows.

I need a big envellope.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If you go to any gasoline station you will find the gas pump 'tagged' with a "volume adjusted" labelling. Here, at this latitude, it reads "Volume temperature compensated to 15° C", this is due to the simple fact that the planet is 'heated' proven by its generation of a consistant temperature, just under the surface, (About 8' down here) of 15° C, over the entire YEAR! (without an great fluctuations)

There is a gradient of temperature as you press down into the earth, it is measurable in feet/meters (whatever you like) but it is a consistant rise in temperature over distance in. It is proven by what has been shown on television, from the deep mines in Africa, about a mile and a half down, a thermometer pressed against the mine's walls showed a temperature of 56° C (Hot enough for ya?)

That gravity is involved in the heating was once discussed in "Astro and Cosmo" in the thread "Proof of the Cause of Gravity", by myself, et al.

[Andre]

Fully correct Mr Robin,

However there is also an idea that the heat in the crust could be radiogenic:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9512/msg00248.html

3. More radiogenic heat is produced from the granitic continental crust, which contains higher concentrations of the radioactive elements and is thicker than the basaltic oceanic crust.
(...)
6. Some scientists believe that natural nuclear reactors such as the one at Oklo in Gabon, Africa (Draganic and others, 1990) were much more common during early earth history. These reactors may have raised radioactive levels at many places on the earth. During early earth history fissionable U-235 made up about 25% of the uranium. Today U-235 makes up only about 3/4 of one percent of uranium due to its shorter half-lifel (0.7 billion years)


Nereid
I'd appreciate you're opinion on this one:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30992

[Nereid]

Andre wrote: I still think that almost nothing times almost infinity can still add up to something. That's why an OOM calculation is a good place to start! You could even approach it from the other direction - since we know the rate of heat loss from the inner Earth (i.e. not counting any latent effects of absorbed solar radiation), your idea has to come up with a number that's between ~0.01 and 100 times this value (at the OOM stage, it's OK to work with a couple of powers of ten). You say you know the timescale for the effect you propose, you know the mass of the Earth (and its components), and you can work out the forces with only a very small envelope. That leaves only one unknown (maybe two). At this level of accuracy, does the answer seem realistic?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Andre
(SNIP) However there is also an idea that the heat in the crust could be radiogenic: (SNoP)
Yes!, I agreed that there is radioactive heating, just that it didn't seem that that was the 'only method' of heating that was involved in the "whole process of heating". Heck "working a plastic" will cause the 'plastic' to heat.....gravity is involved as well though, just it isn't 'current theory'.

What is the 'Randi' connection, don't get it???

[Andre]

What is the 'Randi' connection, don't get it???

Well I posted that thread about the "death" hypothesis of Venus in the skeptic lions den over there either to fortify it or have it falsified.

There is a lot about general planets heat in that hypothesis. Hence the connection.

Have tried the thread here also but there was little interest at that moment. Like me to try again?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Andre
Well I posted that thread about the "death" hypothesis of Venus in the skeptic lions den over there either to fortify it or have it falsified.
There is a lot about general planets heat in that hypothesis. Hence the connection.
Have tried the thread here also but there was little interest at that moment. Like me to try again?
Not particularily... the re-facing of the planet, 500K years back, is not an indication of its death, merely an event that we have yet to determine the origin thereof.

Venus is apparenlty devoid of any real amounts of water, contained within the rock, there, unlike here, where the rock (apparently) contains significant amounts of water, water moderates temperatures really, really well. (It's the benchmark of "Specific Heat")

As I have stated above, gravity is involved in the heating, just that it is not a responce you will find in current theory, not to the best of my knowledge.............

[Andre]

the re-facing of the planet, 500K years back, is not an indication of its death, merely an event that we have yet to determine the origin thereof.

Well that's exactly what I propose. The big precession brake halted the planet and heated it intensely, causing the surface to melt partially or as a whole.

Venus is apparantly devoid of any real amounts of water, contained within the rock, there,

Exactly, indicating that the temperatures rose over 1100 degrees celsius causing limestone (CaCO3) to reduce to CaO and CO2, the latter caused the dense atmosphere (CO2). The former, CaO is abundant in the lithosphere (7%).

The envellope is almost ready.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

How it heated?? a "precession brake" you say, I'm not sure if it's that, there are other venues and mannerisms of the universe's operation that are, as yet, undiscovered, especially in the 'heat'ing departement. (I suspect)

Could have been a type of 'fissile', of 'fusile', 'burp' for all anyone currently knows of the interior operations of planetary bodies.

Heated? yes! it was, (seems to have been) but the 'how' is, as yet I suspect, unsolved.

[Andre]

Well, again Mr Robin, I think I solved that problem. This is it:
This is Venus:

The atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide (the same gas that produces fizzy sodas), droplets of sulfuric acid, and virtually no water vapor - not a great place for people or plants! In addition, the thick atmosphere allows the Sun's heat in but does not allow it to escape, resulting in surface temperatures over 450 °C, hotter than the surface of the planet Mercury, which is closest to the Sun. The high density of the atmosphere results in a surface pressure 90 times that of Earth, which is why probes that have landed on Venus have only survived several hours before being crushed by the incredible pressure. In the upper layers, the clouds move faster than hurricane- force winds on Earth.

Venus sluggishly rotates on its axis once every 243 Earth days, while it orbits the Sun every 225 days - its day is longer than its year! Besides that, Venus rotates retrograde, or "backwards," spinning in the opposite direction of its orbit around the Sun. From its surface, the Sun would seem to rise in the west and set in the east.

Earth and Venus are similar in density and chemical compositions, and both have relatively young surfaces, with Venus appearing to have been completely resurfaced 300 to 500 million years ago.

The surface of Venus is covered by about 20 percent lowland plains, 70 percent rolling uplands, and 10 percent highlands. Volcanism, impacts, and deformation of the crust have shaped the surface. No direct evidence of currently active volcanoes has been found,..

We can tie all those boldface features to a single event, the big precession brake.

How Venus died

We start assuming that Venus was a normal planet just like Earth. There are many differences however, for instance, Venus seems not to have a liquid outer core today. It is unknown if it has had one before but using the analogy with Earth we assume that it did. So lets first look at a hypothetical normal planet with mostly Earth-like features assuming Earth is the standard, not Venus.

The outer core of such a standard planet can be fluid mass, due to the high temperature. However, the inner core of a planet is solid again due to the immense pressure it is subjected to, in spite of the temperatures. In the core is a equilibrium between those two opposing tendencies.

It is spinning around the sun and spinning around its axis in a much similar way with same order of magnitude parameters. By spinning the planet behaves as a gyroscope or spinning top and can be subject to changes in spin axis direction by precession.

Just like Earth this juvenile planet Venus also has precession of the equinoxes due to a certain obliquity and the sun and (perhaps a possible moon) having a differential gravity pull on the equatorial bulge.
see also
http://www.copernican-series.com/precession.html
http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/lessons...th_precess.html
on precession

Other planets are also in precession, there is no moon required for that, just gravity, generally here is the math behind the idea:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phy...Precession.html

Now we assume the planet to be a single unit, a single gyroscope with a single mechanical reaction. But it isn’t. The mantle and the solid inner core could be pretty much independent gyroscopes, with different characteristix, tied together by a fluid outer core.

I think we can assume from the mechanism that the sun-moon gravity force that generates the precession, is basically working on the equatorial bulge and hence on the lithosphere/mantle.

Now does the precession also work on the solid inner core? It may have an equatorial bulge. However, due to non-linear relationships, the precession logic of the inner core must differ from the mantle-crust precession. (see also Correia et al part I, 3.2) Hence the inner core has a tendency to change its spin axis in relation to the mantle crust due to dissimilar precession tendencies.

Note that the precession itself actually rotates spinning axis and hence it is changing the vector direction of the angular momentum. External forces, like gravity between celestial bodies transfer momentum this way.

The fluid outer core couples the motions of both solid systems. To keep spin axis aligned, the fluid outer core has to transmit these precession movements from mantle to the solid inner core somehow, like a torque converter in a transmission gear of a car. It contains some natural mechanic and perhaps magnetic stabilising properties to correct for that drifting motion, as we see no problems on Earth today, but its stabilising capacity is limited and can only physically control a limited angular momentum.

The size of the solid inner core is a function of amount of heat and pressure. The high temperature leads to liquefying and the high pressure leads to solidifying. But as the planet is cooling the amount of heat is decreasing and hence the solid inner core is expanding while the outer core is shrinking. The turning momentum of the inner core is of a tremendous value and the inner core grows, it’s increasing its angular momentum rapidly, to the fifth power of the radius, if I'm right

As the core grows its angular momentum increases beyond stabilization, eventually its precession drift will break alignment of the spinning axis. This causes heavy turbulence in the fluid outer core affecting the motion of the mantle and the inner core and it also generates drag and heat. The heat may have partially liquefied the solid inner core, decreasing it’s angular momentum and reversing the whole process back to stability. When the precesssion cycle is completed, realigment and stabilisation can occur again. However cooling continued and the inner core precession break out would occur again and this process may repeat over and over again until the spinning stops eventually.

Note that the growing misalignment of the spin axis causes the vector sum of the angular momentums of the mantle and the core to decrease, whilst angular momentum is transferred via external gravity forces to the infering celetial body during the precession. The actual transfer of momentum becomes visible only after the realignment, when a precession cycle is complete. There is no momentum loss, just momentum transfer over billions of years

The generated heat will be transmitted throughtout the whole planet, facilitated by the increased heat transport capability of the turbulent fluid outer core, causing the planet to melt partially or as a whole. Due to the heat convection the planets surface would be renewed by convection of material. As the heat would exceed general melting temperature it would also enough to cause limestone to decompose into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide that happens around 1100 degrees celsius. The carbon dioxide would escape from the lithosphere via the characteristic dome volcanoes (pancakes) to form a dense atmosphere. After the precession induced rotation stop, a very hot planet would remain with a dense carbon dioxide atmosphere. It would cool only very slowly as the carbon dioxide works as an isolation blanket and also retains solar heat due to greenhouse effect.

Due to interaction of the dense atmosphere with the sun stable equilibrium will emerge eventually.
Correia and Laskar (A Correia and J Laskar 2001 Nature 411 767) found that the rotation can only end in four possible spin states. Such planets can have either retrograde or 'prograde' rotation and its rotation axis may or may not have flipped during the turbulent precession braking event.

Venus has retrograde rotation now, but a flip of its rotation axis may not be likely. Most initial conditions will drive the spin of Venus towards its present state. The resulting slow spin sets a scenario for the retrograde stable motion purely from atmospheric and internal phenomena

In the mean time we have addressed all enigmatic features,

1: the rotation stop as a combination of the big precession brake and the Correia atmospheric drag mechanism
2: the resurfacing due to a tremendous heat generated by the hot brake, partially melting the planet.
3: the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere as all the carbon was forced out the lithosphere by chemical processes under the extreme heat.
4: the heat itself as residual from the disaster that seems to have ended 500 million years ago.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets see, this thread is about the heating of the Earth's core, not on your (pet) theory of just how Venus became resurfaced 1/2 million years back....right?

As for the "relatively young surface" of the Earth, so far in my life I have had the opportunity to have been in two of the places where the theory of plate tectonics came into development and then acceptance, one in the Yukon, the other in Newfoundland.

The one in the Yukon, a rift valley (sort of) was estimated to be amongst the oldest of terrestrial rocks on the face of the planet, at around 4.2 to 4.5 billion years old, so the idea of a "relatively new face" on the earth, is just kinda wrong(?)?
(at least in those places, it is!)

[Andre]

Well, if this pet hypothesis has some merit, it would have some potential for a paradigm shift and not only for Venus, since the same mechanisms are working on Earth. So we're back on track ..eh thread. [:D]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

P.S. your #2 gives a "partial melting of the planet's surface" but studies show that the entire surface was done over as they can find NO impact craters older then about 1/2 million years old.

You need enough heating to melt the entire face of the planet, and probably 'plus some' then too!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Andre
Well, if this pet hypothesis has some merit, it would have some potential for a paradigm shift and not only for Venus, since the same mechanisms are working on Earth. So we're back on track ..eh thread. [:D]
Only sorta, as you answer explains a/the makeover, (of Venus) not the mechanisms of regular, and consistent, heating, as the age of the planet implies the requirement that there be a heating source .

[Andre]

Right. In the narrative I was cautious:
causing the planet to melt partially or as a whole just to leave options open. I should have repeated that in the conclusions.

The turning energy of Earth is enough to heat it several 10,000 degrees.

[Andre]

not the mechanisms of regular, and consistent, heating, as the age of the planet implies the requirement that there be a heating source.

The heat source is drag within the fluid outer core. The mechanism on Venus is dead as there is no more rotation. On Earth it has just began very hesistantly and intermittently.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Andre
The heat source is drag within the fluid outer core. The mechanism on Venus is dead as there is no more rotation. On Earth it has just began very hesistantly and intermittently.
Uhmm, got a reference for that one, cause of what I have read the solid inner core is turning slightly differentially to the outer liquid core, measurable in a human lifetime.

As for it being the 'drag' as you state, needs better proving......(?)

[Andre]

As for it being the 'drag' as you state, needs better proving......(?)

Absolutely. It's another pet hypothesis but let's say highly controversial. Let's suppose that the mechanism of wandering solid inner cores due to differential precession has happened already on Earth for brief period(s) what would we expect to find?

For one, a much hotter inner Earth than could be expected of natural causes. And we may be looking at that.

But there may be many more effects that we are looking at too, but don't understand.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

In some of what I had read, recently, there was a mention of the cores rotation, "precession" I'm not certain that it was pegged as that or that there was metion of that and it's calculated effects, (but I will, {God willing} if I have the chance, go re-read it for that) but the reality is that there is an ongoing 'differential rotation' of the solid inner core, and it (the solid inner core) is thought to be plating itself, there is evidence of such, (althought I haven't seen it, I'd still give it the benefit of the doubt because of the source) hence the current status would probably be seen as "cooling off". Any 'precessional force' acting upon it, would (probably) simply be "back-timing its thermal history".

[Andre]

My last post here http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9256 is about the Earth cores, precession and Earth magnetic field. Could it be that? Mr Robin?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Interesting but I went and did the re-read and the talk of a 1% precessional rate that allows the solid inner core to rotate once extra, within the planet, every ~400 years.

So where is the tremendous force that is needed to cause that to brake hard enough as to cause to arise enough friction induced heat as to melt of the surface of a planet?

(cause it takes LOTS of heat to do that)

[Andre]

It is building very gradually just a bit in analogy like this:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm

The differential gravity pull of Earth and Moon as in the third figure shows an example of exchange of momentum. Similar to the process of the moon, the assymetric gravity on the previous equatorial bulge of Venus pulls the planet ahead of its orbit, resulting in a slow spiral outwards. As the radius of the orbit increases the angular momentum of its spin transfers to the orbit of the planet.

Parameters are quite different of course and the process with Venus was likely more complicated. A tidal bulge is much smaller than a planets equatorial bulge.

I propose the next process:
In case of precession, the angular momentum vector is changing direction. Looking at the vector compounds in two dimensions, transfer of momentum takes place in both dimension and back when a precession cycle is completed. The sun in the Earth precession cycle gravity interactions "takes"a proportional part of the momentum in the first stage of the precession cycle in one dimension and "gives it back" in the final stage, transferring it between the two dimensions. However it is possible that a part of the momentum vector, that of the core, is getting misaligned. Then this process of transferring momentum between the dimensions is only taking place on the mantle part of the angular momentum. With diverging vectors the numerical vector is always less than that of the components. When the core and mantle realign in a chaotic process, dissipating a lot of energy, then the momentum at that moment is fixed at a lesser value and when the gravity interaction "gives" momentum back, it is still proportional, to the lesser value. So not all spinning momentum is retransferred. An this went on for millions perhaps billions of years repeating the process about every 100,000 years.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well, as I had said, the article I had read told of the precession acting in a manner as to Cool the Earth, the (suspected) 'plating' being evidence of a cooling process occuring at present.

Slowing that down would simply slow down the Cooling, but does not generate enough heat to melt out the surface, not to the best of my knowledge.

As for your invocation of a need of 'dimensionality', matter is in 3 D, acts in 3 D, unless you can demonstrate your 'dimensional crossing' as a realistic method of what, "energy transfer" you said?

Sound like you have it all worked out in your head, if it is the right answer, others will recognize it/that, otherwise you'll probably find lots of people telling you you need to learn 'this' 'that' 'something else'.....

[NileQueen]

I had seen this article published May 8th somewhere else,


http://www.nature.com/nsu/030505/030505-5.html
Potassium heated Earth's core
"The iron-rich core contains lots of radioactive potassium, which generates heat as it decays, say V. Rama Murthy, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, and colleagues. This supplements the heat still in the Earth's bowels from its fiery formation 4.5 billion years ago."

Now I see a new article, 10 December 2003:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/12/10_heat.shtml
Radioactive potassium may be major heat source in Earth's core
excerpt
"Balancing the heat generated in the core with the known concentrations of radiogenic isotopes has been difficult, however, and the missing potassium has been a big part of the problem. One researcher proposed earlier this year that sulfur could help potassium associate with iron and provide a means by which potassium could reach the core.

The experiment by Lee and Jeanloz shows that sulfur is not necessary. Lee combined pure iron and pure potassium in a diamond anvil cell and squeezed the small sample to 26 gigapascals of pressure while heating the sample with a laser above 2,500 Kelvin (4,000 degrees Fahrenheit), which is above the melting points of both potassium and iron. She conducted this experiment six times in the high-intensity X-ray beams of two different accelerators - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Advanced Light Source and the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory - to obtain X-ray diffraction images of the samples' internal structure. The images confirmed that potassium and iron had mixed evenly to form an alloy, much as iron and carbon mix to form steel alloy.

In the theoretical magma ocean of a proto-Earth, the pressure at a depth of 400-1,000 kilometers (270-670 miles) would be between 15 and 35 gigapascals and the temperature would be 2,200-3,000 Kelvin, Jeanloz said.

"At these temperatures and pressures, the underlying physics changes and the electron density shifts, making potassium look more like iron," Jeanloz said. "At high pressure, the periodic table looks totally different."

"The work by Lee and Jeanloz provides the first proof that potassium is indeed miscible in iron at high pressures and, perhaps as significantly, it further vindicates the computational physics that underlies the original prediction," Bukowinski said. "If it can be further demonstrated that potassium would enter iron in significant amounts in the presence of silicate minerals, conditions representative of likely core formation processes, then potassium could provide the extra heat needed to explain why the Earth's inner core hasn't frozen to as large a size as the thermal history of the core suggests it should."

Jeanloz is excited by the fact that theoretical calculations are now not only explaining experimental findings at high pressure, but also predicting structures.

"We need theorists to identify interesting problems, not only check our results after the experiment," he said. "That's happening now. In the past half a dozen years, theorists have been making predictions that experimentalists are willing to spend a few years to demonstrate." "

[DAvidM]

I have read that the usual "leap second" correction that has been added almost yearly for the last 20 years to make up for the difference in the earth's rotation versus the atomic clock standard has not been required in the last five years.

Would this imply that the earth's rotation has increased? Could this be due to a contraction of the earth's core? If so would this cause tension along tectonic plates and an increase in earthquake activity?

I would be pleased to read the groups thoughts about the questions posed here.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by DAvidM
I have read that the usual "leap second" correction that has been added almost yearly for the last 20 years to make up for the difference in the earth's rotation versus the atomic clock standard has not been required in the last five years.
Would this imply that the earth's rotation has increased? Could this be due to a contraction of the earth's core? If so would this cause tension along tectonic plates and an increase in earthquake activity?
I would be pleased to read the groups thoughts about the questions posed here.
Perhaps you should start a new thread on it??

[NileQueen]

The earth's solid core is supposed to be spinning a bit faster than the crust/mantle daily 2/3 second x 365 days in a year means the inner core is gaining on the outer part of the planet about 4 minutes!
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/1996/0830/d.html
"The inner core rotates in the same direction as the Earth and slightly faster, completing its once-a-day rotation about two-thirds of a second faster than the entire Earth. Over the past 100 years that extra speed has gained the core a quarter-turn on the planet as a whole, the scientists found. Such motion is remarkably fast for geological movements -- some 100,000 times faster than the drift of continents, they noted. The scientists made their finding by measuring changes in the speed of earthquake-generated seismic waves that pass through the inner core. "

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by NileQueen
The earth's solid core is supposed to be spinning a bit faster than the crust/mantle daily 2/3 second x 365 days in a year means the inner core is gaining on the outer part of the planet about 4 minutes!
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/1996/0830/d.html
"The inner core rotates in the same direction as the Earth and slightly faster, completing its once-a-day rotation about two-thirds of a second faster than the entire Earth. Over the past 100 years that extra speed has gained the core a quarter-turn on the planet as a whole, the scientists found. Such motion is remarkably fast for geological movements -- some 100,000 times faster than the drift of continents, they noted. The scientists made their finding by measuring changes in the speed of earthquake-generated seismic waves that pass through the inner core. "
Thanks for the backup of what was said, on the previous page (7)

[Nereid]

This question (or something very similar) was also raised in the Astronomy board:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11993

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nereid
This question (or something very similar) was also raised in the Astronomy board:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11993
Followed the links nice articles, but not really about the "heating of the Earth's core", now is it, it is about time, and there is another thread somewheres on the same subject...time...

[Nereid]

Mr Parsons wrote: but not really about the "heating of the Earth's core", now is it, it is about time, and there is another thread somewheres on the same subject...time...However, the topic of the 'leap seconds', and their possible relationship to the Earth's rotation rate, plate tectonics, etc was the subject of several posts just a little earlier ...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yup, one rotation more, about every 400 years, no doubt there are friction forces there, but the addition to the heating, from that, well, we would need "do the Math" to know better just how accountable that factor is...

As for the rest....?

(Hint..."Fuse Ball")

[NileQueen]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-01/dlnl-lsu012104.php

LIVERMORE, Calif. -- Two scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have discovered that iron in Earth-core conditions melts at a pressure of 225 GPa (or 32 million pounds per square inch) or about 5,100 kelvins (8,720 degrees Fahrenheit).
Determining the melting point of iron is essential to determine the temperatures at core boundaries and the crystal structure of the Earth's solid inner core. To date, the properties of iron at high pressure have been investigated experimentally through laser-heated diamond anvil cells, shock compression techniques and theoretical calculations....

[Aquafire]

Very late into this topic. But I have another theory concerning the presence issue of heat at the Earth's core.

The Moon.

That is because the Moon's tidal influence on the Earth does not end at the ocean floors. For just as the Moon orbits around the Earth, the Earth in its turn is effectively wobbled on its axis by the moon.

I do not have the exact figures regarding the Earth's rotational displacement, but like water that rolls around the inside of a glass when you give it a little circular momentum, so too the Moon causes the Earth's liquid interior to wobble and occilate in line with the Moon's passing.

I have never seen a model for this interaction, but I would be pretty sure that such an effect generates side-real friction tides inside the Earth's core, which in turn generate heat between the zones.

As for comparison to Venus and Mars, well we should include Mercury in this scenario, because then we can note that only the Earth has such a sizable moon in orbit around it.

So, maybe just maybe the Moon is the hidden factor in all of this.

Aqua [o)]

[Aquafire]

I also add this link to some interesting stuff about the Moon.

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/subcategory.php/242.html

Aqua [:)]