An alternative temperature-radius graph for any large celestial mass

From: Arindam Banerjee (adda1234_at_bigpond.com)
Date: 02/03/05 

Date: 2 Feb 2005 18:07:26 -0800

This is - more or less - an unreplied-to poster in rec.arts.books,
which I now publish in other ngs, seeing that this sort of posting
does generate some interest. For those who do not know, unlike me,
Michael S. Morris has a PhD in Theoretical physics.

Arindam Banerjee.

"Michael S. Morris" <msmorris@netdirect.net> wrote in message
news:10vkk0hhjj59n75@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Friday, the 28th of January, 2005
>
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Big question for them - is the core of the earth hot,
> or cold? :) :)
>
> <http://www.geothermal.ca/whatis.html>
> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/856964891.Es.r.html>
> <http://gpc.edu/~pgore/Earth&Space/earthinterior.html>
> <http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/KChauff/geography/GEOGRAPHY_LECTURE_4.pdf>
> [about the first 5 pages of the last should be enough]

Why thanks, Morris, I will go through that later. Let me see what you
have
to say.

> I.e., it's about 4000 degrees C. Not so hot as the interior
> of a star, or other planets, but not as cold as at the
> surface.

Has anybody inserted a thermometer in the core of the earth or the
core of a
star? Why should I believe you any more than I believe your President
Mr George Bush? Do *you* *still* believe in wmds in Iraq??? The
reason for your invasion?

> Note, Arindam, that your difficulties start *already* with
> Newtonian physics,

Hoh-hoh. Accusation without substantiation. As a matter of fact, I
have
personally extended Newtonian physics, by debunking not just
Einstein's theories (that's pure rubbish), but by challenging the
second law of thermodynamics. Entropy is thus a silly idea, with my
concept of unlimited energy derivation from internal force. Mind you,
it was Helmholtz and not Newton that introduced the canard of the law
of conservation of energy, two centuries after Newton.

> let alone Einstein. It was right where
> you tried to reason about the center of earth and claimed
> that an equilibrium of forces there (zero net force) meant
> zero pressure (zero force).

Tell me, Morris, is there any great pressure upon you when you move in
a
tunnel? From the huge mass of the mountain on top of you? Why should
not the tunnel collapse upon you, eh? What about the huge pressure of
the mountain's mass? You sound like the cave man's wife who is saying
that they should rather live on trees than in caves - the roof could
fall, and in fact it often does.

Now why should you stay in any building with so much mass on top of
you that could fall on your head causing a lot of force and pressure?
The very fact that you can exist in a tunnel means that if you make a
hole in a huge mass, the lines of force do not go through the hole,
they go around it. Agreed?

This is also why we can actually live in buildings - the weight of the
roof is carried by the pillars, not by humans. Because there are such
things as pillars, we do not get crushed. The lines of force thus go
*around* the humans living in caves and buildings, going through
tunnels, etc. via cave walls, pillars, supports, etc.

Now let us suppose, as pure theory, that there is a strong hollow
mica-clad steel shell surrounding the core of the earth, which
contains very cold iron where currents flow that create the magnetic
field we can measure on the surface of the earth. This shell being
mica-clad is insulating. Because it is insulating, it keeps out the
heat we know that exists below the earth's crust, and also because it
is insulating, it keeps in the cold that keeps the superconducting
current going that is responsible for the earth's undeniable magnetic
field.

So this hollow shell resists the pressure from the masses above, and
inside it we may float lighter than butterflies, if our densities with
respect to iron are as butterflies to air. Agreed or not? When we
are pulled by forces all around us, we feel no net force. Just as we
are not crushed by the ocean of air on whose bottom we rest.

So that's the model, Morris. As we go near the core of the earth from
the
crust, the temperature increases till the rocks melt, but the sea of
molten rock rests upon mica-like insulating rock that decreases in
temperature to near zero at the core. It is this insulating layers of
rock, extending for thousands of kilometers, which is the equivalent
of the strong hollow steel shell that I talked about earlier, that
absorbs the force of the masses on top of it, and passes nothing
below.

So, Morris, try this experiment. Put an ant inside a steel ball, and
put high pressure all around it, What will happen to the ant? Will it
get crushed? Not so long as the steel ball is okay, doesn't get
crushed. Agreed?

Why do we know the
> tremendous pressures in the core of the earth? We know because
> by applying Newton's law of universal gravitation---this allows
> us to infer from the measured gravitational field the mass of
> material inside a given radius from the center. We infer
> (it's called the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium) more,
> denser material than exists on the surface. From the pressure
> curve, then, we have seismic waves measured from earthquakes,
> and we know how those waves propagate. So, we use those waves
> to probe the composition of the interior of the earth, much in
> the same way we use accelerated particles to probe subatomic
> structure, or scattering of X-rays to probe the interior
> structure of the human body in tomography. And, guess what?
> S-waves cease at 2900 km below the surface of the earth.
> S-waves are shear waves, and the cease to propagate there
> (called the Gutenberg discontinuity) because the material
> there can't support shear stresses---i.e., it's liquid.
> I.e., it's hot.

Blah, Morris. Answer what I wrote above, and then if you are
convincing,
I will continue. What I have heard is that Tesla caused earthquakes
by
passing current through the earth's core - and after that such
experiments
were stopped. In any case, there is no way one can find the
temperature
of the core directly - and all inference which you talk about is just
about
as convincing as wmds in Iraq. But of course most people will believe
anything from a trusted and known source; that is the way the world
works.

> Nowhere have I invoked any physics that comes from
> Einstein.
>
>
> Mike Morris
> (msmorris@netdirect.net)