Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Earth Resembles a Gooey Confection

Posted by timothy on from the distinct-lawyers-of-slime dept.

Ant contributes a link spotted on Neatorama that may upset middle school Earth Science teachers, writing "LiveScience says Earth's simple schematic is not core, mantle, and crust anymore. It is more like the gooey center of a chocolate morsel harboring peanut butter and honey. Inner Earth is far more nuanced than outward appearances would suggest. A new model is proposed in the May 2, 2008, issue of the journal Science."

105 comments

  1. Tolkein will be offended too... by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

    may upset middle school Earth Science teachers, writing Not to mention Middle Earth School Science teachers!
    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    1. Re:Tolkein will be offended too... by fucket · · Score: 1

      I thought everything in the middle was basically the Mines of Moria.

    2. Re:Tolkein will be offended too... by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      I thought everything in the middle was basically the Mines of Moria. Well I guess they still are the Mines of Moria, except Charlie set up a Chocolate Factory there and bequeathed it to the Swedish Chef who promptly made a complete gooey mess of it.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    3. Re:Tolkein will be offended too... by FeepingCreature · · Score: 1

      Tol fscking kien. Please. Help this spelling mistake die already.

    4. Re:Tolkein will be offended too... by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain the duergar and drow won't stand for that for too long.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
  2. Yes, but by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where's the cream filling?

    Earth. That's the stuff.

    1. Re:Yes, but by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      At least they used chocolate and not excrement for the analogy, although I'm sure the gooey stuff smells fairly similar.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:Yes, but by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      How is this announcement newsworthy?

      Weve known the moon has been made of cheese for years.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    3. Re:Yes, but by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      How is this announcement newsworthy? Now we can finally debunk all those Crusty-Earth ideologues!
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    4. Re:Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, that would the the molten iron-nickel.

      It's an acquired taste.

  3. moon is made of cheese by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    it's the only thing it can be. according to "experts" space travel is impossible

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  4. Hey! by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 1

    There's an obesity problem in schools already!

  5. Re:Elasticity. by greenshoe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I agree. The elasticity concept applies:

    http://1ne1.com/n-y/

  6. Who took the bones out???? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    I want my authentic "Crunchy Core"!

    Sheeeesh! Even God fears the FDA nowadays! (Or Inspector Flying Praline of the Yard, anyway...)

  7. Ms. Frizzle? by kilgor · · Score: 0

    What the hell? This sounds like something from an episode of The Magic School Bus.

  8. We Live by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    We all, live on Dross. The impurities that form on a mass of molton
    metal. Remember the iron/nickel core? Hot and cooling. And you are
    worried about Global Warming?????

    1. Re:We Live by CogDissident · · Score: 1

      Yes, because, you know, the earth's molten core will go cold sometime a few billion years after the sun goes nova.

  9. Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More lies from Big Science.

    Next you'll be telling me the Earth isn't immobile at the center of the universe!

  10. I hope no giant space monster eats Earth up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yum! Crunchy on the outside, chewy in the middle!

  11. OMNOMNOMNOM by Plazmid · · Score: 2, Funny

    OMNOMNOMNOM!

    1. Re:OMNOMNOMNOM by hayagriva · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damnit, the last thing we needed is to make Galactus more interested in our delicious planet.

    2. Re:OMNOMNOMNOM by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking. Good to see there are some level-headed people left around here.

      I propose that we immediately start surveying our neighbor planets for their contents. Maybe we find out that Venus is filled with mustard -- we could then arrange it so that Galactus eats Venus first; once he's thoroughly disgusted we tell him that all planets in our solar system are mustard-filled. That might save us.

      It is, however, abundantly clear that we must give NASA the funds to conduct this kind of exploratory mission.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  12. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did somebody just call "Mother Earth" gooey in the middle?

  13. As Homer would say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Mmmmmmm. Earth. *Drool*.

  14. They won't even notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I use the gyms at several local schools, and I frequently walk past class projects showing the nine planets of our solar system.

    After all, you can't expect teachers to actually keep up with a subject, when it's so much easier to just keep teaching the things everyone 'knows' to be true. I'm amazed they're not still teaching phrenology and spontaneous generation.

    1. Re:They won't even notice by dbIII · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They may not teach spontaneous generation but they teach spontaneous creation despite all its flaws and assumptions (which aren't discussed of course to keep it the 'perfect' theory). It's called evolution

      It would very much annoy varous anti-intellectual cults if they cared that Gregor Mendel was a quite pious Priest and Augustinian Monk. They like to simplify it all to some joke about Darwin and a monkey but our understanding of evolution owes quite a lot to Gregor Mendel. I suppose the cults can write it all off as evil Catholcism and the evil idea of having an educated clergy - or I suppose evil education in general of which evolution is the soft target.

      The "perfect theory" on the other hand is the complete lazy copout of "intelligent design" which can be summed up as "this is all too hard to try to understand - let's just say the God ate my homework". It is perfect because it does not have to do anything so cannot fail - but is really entirely pointless in my opinion. What various anti-intellectuals do not understand is that Theology is about one set of things and Science is about something else. To make things even confusing the area where people driven by religeon fight with people who work with science is often just politics. Religeos groups wanting more control over schools get to take the time from teaching science and use it for Sunday School lessons instead or some odd parody of science like "Intelligent Design". There's a long way between the creepy cults that won't even let their members use a telephone or who argue that the cross is a symbol of Satan and those that are more mainstream but see political advantage in "Intellegent Design" - but I still see it as disturbing anti-intellectualism.

    2. Re:They won't even notice by gomiam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They may not teach spontaneous generation but they teach spontaneous creation despite all its flaws and assumptions (which aren't discussed of course to keep it the 'perfect' theory). It's called evolution.

      (sigh) I know you're trolling, but I'll bite, anyway.

      Evolution has little to do with the origin of life. You would do well to remember that Darwin called his book "On the Origin of Species", not "On the Origin of Life". I think it's interesting that creationists and intelligent design (sorry, it doesn't merit capitals) advocates try to confuse evolution with the origin of life. Somewhat like trying to say that electricity made no sense when it's ruling equations were unknown. Deal with it: evolution happens and it has little to do with the origin of life (as it deals with the ways in which a species turns into another), which is an interesting subject of itself without needing to mix it with evolution.

    3. Re:They won't even notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins (and quite a few people here on slashdot) keep telling us that Evolution explains how life got here, so it proves that there is no God. While you are right that evolution does not talk about the origin of life, many evolutionists argue that evolution settles the question of where life comes from.

    4. Re:They won't even notice by Emb3rz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sir, your post is all over the place.

      What various anti-intellectuals do not understand is that Theology is about one set of things and Science is about something else.

      You are quite wrong. Christian Theology, the belief in a single sovereign God, having been based on God's written word, is "about" all things pertaining to God's adequacy and right to rule humankind, and therefore includes the origin of everything (and we are an object property of said everything).

      Science is "about"

      the universe around us, and that includes us as well. This is why science is naturalistic: it is all about natural processes and natural events. Science involves both description, which tells us what has happened, and explanation, which tells us why it happened.

      So then, you see, both the Bible (which term I will use rather than Theology, since when referencing theology you must be specific as to whose theology) and Science attempt to tell us What has happened: the physical space of the universe came into existence, followed by the stars and other heavenly bodies, geological formations occurred on earth while sitting in the midst of waters, vegetation began to live 'according to its kind,' creatures of the sea began life, then winged creatures of the sky ('heavens'), then living beasts on the surface of the ground; finally, mankind emerged on the scene, was superior to all of these previous lifeforms and was made out of dust (and Science certainly agrees that humans are composed of many of the same elements as dirt).

      They also attempt to tell us Why it happened. The Bible says that God 'created the earth even for it to be inhabited,' or in other words, made the earth as a perfect home to host his creations. Science does not really have an explanation to 'why,' but empirical evidence over thousands of years has proven true the fact that the earth truly is a wonderful home to life on it. Science agrees with this too, in that the placement of the earth relative to the Sun is just right to keep us from freezing and from frying. The combination of gasses that make up our atmosphere are just right to keep everything from being either wholly flammable or toxic to breathe.

      Relegating religionists and promoters of intelligent design to this class you deem 'anti-intellectual' really couldn't be more wrong. If one takes the time to discern what the Bible really says regarding creation, they will find it quite stimulating as well as accurate.

    5. Re:They won't even notice by ichthyoboy · · Score: 1

      The about.com article has got it wrong: Science does not try to tell us why something happened, it's designed to tell us how something happened. Two very distinct questions...'why' is a value-laden concept, whereas 'how' is purely mechanistic, and value-neutral.

    6. Re:They won't even notice by dbIII · · Score: 1
      It appears that my comment on specific anti-intellectual groups and cults has been seen as an attack on all religeon. There is nothing in evolution that overturns anything but a far too literal interpretation of a few portions of the Bible - unfortunately politics steps in at that point.

      Science is generally as irrelevant to religeon as wondering what sort of coffee Jesus would drink if he turned up tomorrow instead of what he would talk about - it's about details and not messages. Also one of the reasons western societies became so technologically advanced in the first place is with the assumption of one God there's just one set of rules in how the universe works. Science is about working out those things one rule at a time and not about deeper meanings behind it.

    7. Re:They won't even notice by gomiam · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, I guess Dawkins must have changed his standpoint a bit since 2006. I quote:

      The origin of life on this planet -- which means the origin of the first self-replicating molecule -- is hard to study, because it (probably) only happened once, 4 billion years ago and under very different conditions from those with which we are familiar. We may never know how it happened. Unlike the ordinary evolutionary events that followed...

      Just two years ago he still stated that the origin of life and evolution were different things. Would you be so kind to point me to references of his conflating both to deny the existence (I'd rather say essence, but that's a Cartesian debate for another day) of God?

    8. Re:They won't even notice by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

      Cause <-> Effect.

      Asking "why do we have this effect?" is equivalent to "how was this effect caused?"

      "Why" is only 'value-laden' as you so termed it if you really mean to get at the process leading up to the cause and can only be as such if you are referring to a cause that is the result of a conscious decision.

    9. Re:They won't even notice by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "So then, you see, both the Bible (which term I will use rather than Theology, since when referencing theology you must be specific as to whose theology)"

      Then I beg you to tell us "whose Bible" too. It's not as if there were only one, you know.

    10. Re:They won't even notice by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

      That would be a good, smug point, had I not already identified the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures in my reference to 'Christian Theology.'

    11. Re:They won't even notice by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I do not have the benefit of shifting definitions and instead used the one in the dictionary.

    12. Re:They won't even notice by ardle · · Score: 1

      I frequently walk past class projects showing the nine planets of our solar system. In fairness, Pluto's re-classification didn't get much publicity; if planets were in the habit of disappearing, the mistake would have been less likely!
    13. Re:They won't even notice by ardle · · Score: 1

      "Why" is 'value-laden' if it involves you ;-)
      This is the "why" that religion sells.
      Without people, religion is nothing.

    14. Re:They won't even notice by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "That would be a good, smug point, had I not already identified the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures in my reference to 'Christian Theology.'"

      No, you didn't. Just look for "greek" or "hebrew" on your post: no notion of them. And that's more to my point: you are so "subsumed" by the "my book is *the* book" you are even unconciusly falling in you own trap -to ignore that there're other "books". For one, Theology is not so much about Hebrew and Christian scriptures but about analyzing "the meaning of God" which, around the Bible -whatever Bible, is mostly about Catholicism, or at least Catholic auto-attributed (since the Catholic Church in fact produced the vast majority of theologists between the fith century and the Reform and would attribute to themselves the best part of those before the V Century -Nicea's Council, for instance) so any unreferred mention about "Christian Theology" is basically about Rome and latin and not about Hebrew or Greek.

      And then, comes the Bible-thing: no it's not clear from your assertion what Bible are you talking about. From my previous paragraph it's obvious that lacking more precise attribution I'd tend to think that you must be talking about S. Isidorus' and modern derivatives as blessed by the Catholic Church while your last post makes evident you must be talking about "something else" and even then, I cannot be more precise since even if you talk about "Hebrew and Greek scriptures" you say nothing about *which* "Hebrew and Greek scriptures": Canonical -as per Rome standards? St. John's Apocalipse? Maybe the Greek Rome's considered apocriphe scriptures? Death Sea rolls? Greek arrian scriptures? Copt traditions, or more probably, whatever your Church tells you to be *The Real Thing (TM)* despite the fact that you probably never read them in their original greek and hebrew forms literally transcribed (with their holes, modisms and graphisms) not to talk about facsimile nor *gasp*! the real, datable, traceable originals?

      And of course, once you take that path, there's the "little problem" of how's possible for God being so hard to trace out -you know, theists disbelieve of one thousand gods while atheists disbelieve of thousand and one gods, not such a big difference (well, luckily I know the *real* answer, since I'm Catholic: it's in order to confuse impious without faith, and you, poor heretic, will burn for the whole eternity in Hell because of your disdain for *The Real Thing (TM)* which only us, Catholics, gladly embrace).

    15. Re:They won't even notice by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

      Just look for "greek" or "hebrew" on your post: no notion of them.

      In brief give me your definition of "notion" because it's clearly significantly different from mine.

      I refuse to be redundant for your benefit. Please stop trying to pick a fight over one of the details you percieve to be flawed because of my failing to provide a checklist of:

      • Torah
      • Q'uran
      • Gnostic Gospels
      • Generally Accepted Canonical Scriptures That Have Been More Widely Distributed Than Any Other Book And Are The Only Set On Which Christian Theologies Are Traditionally Founded

      Please remember that this is a discussion about the physical earth. My original point only goes to show that there is no disjointing conflict between what is written in the Generally Accepted Canonical Scriptures That Have Been More Widely Distributed Than Any Other Book And Are The Only Set On Which Christian Theologies Are Traditionally Founded and what Science has generally discovered to be true.

    16. Re:They won't even notice by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Sir, I wish I had mod points. Additionally, I wish there was a +5, pwn3d, because that's what you just did.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    17. Re:They won't even notice by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "My original point only goes to show that there is no disjointing conflict between what is written in the Generally Accepted Canonical Scriptures That Have Been More Widely Distributed Than Any Other Book And Are The Only Set On Which Christian Theologies Are Traditionally Founded and what Science has generally discovered to be true."

      Like... that somehow the Universe was created in six days, with *all* the living forms within -that dinosaurs and mammals, fishes and birds became at the same time, and then by the seventh an stasis became since God rested? Do you really think there's "no disjointing conflict" about the Earth being made first and light being later, or that there was night and day *prior* to the stars being -or the Sun and the Moon, for that matter, as the Genesis states (Gen. 2-6, 16)?

      Or is it that in order for daylight to stop someone must command the Sun, not the Earth, to stop its jurney?

      Is it the "no conflict" thing about the human kind becoming directly out from mud on a kind of oasis in the middle of a desert, or is it that from some time all humankind was made up just of men, since women came later?

      I this really your "original point"?

    18. Re:They won't even notice by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

      "Six days" is not prescribed as a literal figure in the Bible. The word in Hebrew that was here rendered "day" actually referred to an indeterminate time period. Given the connection of events within that period, though, it was considered to be as one continuous unit rather than smaller, more precise, totally unnecessary units.

      Given that view, then, and seeing how the Bible shows that these things all happened within their own, separate periods, what we're left seeing is the general progression of events. Science agrees with that basic progression.

      Speaking to the aforementioned point and also to your objection on the matter of light--

      DAY
      God introduced this fundamental division of time on the first "day" of the period during which he prepared the earth for mankind, when diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, thus causing the moisture-covered earth to experience its first day and night as it rotated on its axis through the light of the sun. "God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night." (Ge 1:4,5) Here the word "Day" refers to the daylight hours in contrast with the nighttime. However, the record thereafter goes on to use the word "day" to refer to other units of time of varying length. In both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures, the word "day" (Heb., yohm; Gr., hemera) is used in a literal and in a figurative or even symbolic sense.

      The Bible also does not credit the mud with man's formation. It was God utilizing those basic elements and then infusing his power (in this form it became the breath of life); this same power that brought into creation every other thing in the physical universe.

    19. Re:They won't even notice by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      ""Six days" is not prescribed as a literal figure in the Bible. The word in Hebrew that was here rendered "day" actually referred to an indeterminate time period"

      Yeah, of course... The word in Hebrew (yôm) actually *can* refer to an indeterminate time period... ON SOME CIRCUMNSTANCES! In fact, "day" is an indeterminated time span in English and other modern languages too -in some circumnstances. You can say for instance, "in Caesar's day, Rome ruled the world".

      But in Genesis, yôm referes to an "indeterminate time period" that happens to actually be divided in evenings and mornings and it is modified by numbers, like "in the fifth day" or "in the seventh day" or, as it reads on Gen. 14, "And there was evening and there was morning, a third day." An "indeterminate time period"? My ass.

      " and seeing how the Bible shows that these things all happened within their own, separate periods, what we're left seeing is the general progression of events. Science agrees with that basic progression."

      Yeah, that there is a basic, general progression in were the Earth is older than Sun and Moon, and all living creatures became to life in the same "generic time period", that dinosaurs, and fishes, and birds became more or less at the same time and in an independent form is what basically Science agrees with. Yeah, sure. My ass.

      "The Bible also does not credit the mud with man's formation. It was God utilizing those basic elements and then infusing his power"

      Yeah, that humankind became directly from basic elements into which God infused Its Almighty power not from a very long and complex chain of evolutionary development of previous life forms is what Science basically agrees with. Yeah, sure. My ass.

      I beg you, please, to recheck this whole thread. You are completly right in that Christian Theology and Science indeed overlap. As you clearly state, it's untrue that Christian Theology and Science can somehow coexist since they both are about different things, the true being that Christian Theology is a superset of Science: it is about *how* things became to be (and that's what Science is about too) and then more: *why* things became that way.

      On the other hand, you are lamely wrong about Christian Theology and Science being compatible, even in general terms. Not only the very facts show clearly this (the Genesis is utterly wrong about how things happened, not only literally but conceptually too, no matter how vagely you try to interpret it) but as a general concept it is terribly dobious too (why the heck should be God to be so imprecise? Heck, God is almighty and omniscient; how is it that He didn't find a brilliant way to tell us, all of us, those living in a desert six thousand years ago and those that saw the man walking over the Moon at the same time that "verily, verily I say that the electron mass is truly 9.10938188 × 10^-31 kilograms" and He had to restort to a very doubtful traslation of yôm to spread His Message? That's expectable from a snake oil seller, not Almighty God).

      Just as a side note I'd say that even the previous paragraphs being basically true, Catholic Church demonstrates how clever it is, since it promptly introduced a "caveat" regarding all this issue: from almost the very beginning, Rome Church introduced the notion that faith dogmas are neither only nor mainly those extracted from the Holy Writes, but what Mother Ecclesia mandates both from the Books and Its tradition, which is managed by the Pope, Its head. This way, Catholicism opens the door for an "Did I say tomato? No, no, I said tomeito" strategy and so, while in the XV century it was "literallist" (yes: surely the Universe was literally made in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago) -some Christian churches never abandoned this state, in the XVII-XVIII as Science pressed it moved into the interpretativeness (quite in your very line: well it's not literal days, but some kind of "epochs", but it's factually true on a general matter), -some Christian churches n

    20. Re:They won't even notice by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

      general progression in were the Earth is older than Sun and Moon

      The description in Genesis of God bringing forth Day and Night on the earth can be understood in thinking of the formative process of the earth. Everything was brought together over millenia (no, I never said six 24-hour days) and founded of one piece of molten -something- on top of another piece of molten -something-. Through all of this, the earth would logically have been covered by a thick cloud barrier as gases and so forth were released into the atmosphere from their solid elements. God's division of Day and Night was accomplished by parting that cloud barrier gradually, thereby allowing light from the Sun to shine in. Night was therefore realized, as it was a contrast to this period during which the earth was light, the Day.

      Given your extremely argumentative nature and your resort to reviling, it's quite evident you're not really open to reason. As such, I won't spend any more of your nor my own time beating this particular dead horse.

      -Eric
    21. Re:They won't even notice by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The description in Genesis of God bringing forth Day and Night on the earth can be understood in..."

      In quite a lot different ways, and that's part of the point too. Is not compatible with Science to made up an explanation "backwards" just trying to find a way that can make what you read in the Bible to fit with whatever happens to say Science. Nor it's compatible with Science to take apart from its context some element from an argument to see if you can make up a counterargument, changing elements when challenged to see if you can pass away that way (you went into your idea about what meant God by day and night but you "forgot" for instance about the little fact that Science doesn't support humankind coming to be directly out of basic elements, be it mud or whatever, and without evolution).

      Oh, and by the way, you can say that God bringing day and night can be understood as an allegory about the atmosphere cleaning so Sun, Moon and the stars finally were seen from the Earth, but the fact is that Genesis 16 explicitly says "And God MADE the two great lights" (emphasis mine). Why it says MADE when, in fact, they were made much earlier? Why it doesn't say, for instance, "and then the Sun, and the Moon, and the stars were seen from land so seasons and days and years could be measured". Or is it that the Hebrew word for "make" can be translated as "see" too?

      But let's take your argument that, in fact, "God's division of Day and Night was accomplished by parting that cloud barrier gradually, thereby allowing light from the Sun to shine in." That was forth day, remember? But then, what happened on third day, whatever "day" means? "God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth."". So are you really saying that there were "trees bearing fruit" prior for the Sun being visible from the Earth? And do you think that's in accordance with Science saying? And then, remember that all kind of land creatures were made up by fith day. So do you really think that there can be "trees bearing fruit" in a world without insects which only came to life two "days" later?

      And, please have a look at Genesis 2.5 and following. Do you remeber why the Sun was not visible from the Earth by your own account? It was because of the thick clouds, wasn't it? But then, by that time "the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth". There was no rain but, still, there were thick clouds. There was no rain but still there were waters under the Heaven (on Earth), so deep indeed that there was no land surfacing. And still you sustain that there's some kind of general agreement between Science and the Bible.

      "Given your extremely argumentative nature and your resort to reviling, it's quite evident you're not really open to reason."

      Rejecting nonsenses vocally is not being closed to reason. But still, I sustained argument against your reasonements quite lengthy and quite deeply, and I do here again.

  15. Food analogy has been done before by baegucb_18706 · · Score: 1

    Lucifer's Hammer by Niven and Pournelle had "Hot Fudge Tuesday" http://www.nss.org/resources/books/fiction/SF_018_lucifershammer.html

  16. It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    from the old model. If it were, it would not match all the old data. We might understand a lot more today, but new theories must not contradict all that factual data of the past! Former scientists were not idiots.

    1. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not arguing your observation of the current subject (or stating that former scientists were idiots), but new models can contradict old ones. For example, the earth isn't the center of the universe. Also, the atom isn't the smallest possible thing, and it can be split. Organic chemicals can be produced in a lab. New data can oftentimes be more accurate, especially with the applications of new data gathering methods possible with newer technology.

      As for these findings, they don't completely contradict the old model. And it doesn't contradict the old data. The velocity variations have always been there, just this explains them better. Think of it as a taking a picture of something, but this new model has a higher resolution than the old one. This model presents a picture that isn't as grainy as the old one.

    2. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by rm999 · · Score: 1

      Models constantly change as more data is analyzed and experiments are run. That is how Eisenstein replaced Newton, Bohr replaced Rutherford, etc...

      In this case, scientists have to extrapolate a lot from what information they have. How do we truly know the mixture of matter 100-4000 miles below us when the most we can dig is 2 miles? I'm guessing the basics are still the same - average density, average temperature, but otherwise it's always been a bit of guessing (and still is)

    3. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EISENSTEIN?

    4. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Eudial · · Score: 2, Funny

      EISENSTEIN? Yeah, Eisenstein was what happened when Heisenberg was merged with Einstein in a horrible teleporter accident. The scientists involved swore to never speak of it in public, and keep the teleporter technology a secret, but I guess there is no putting back the toothpaste into the tube now.
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    5. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by rasputin465 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      from the old model. If it were, it would not match all the old data. We might understand a lot more today, but new theories must not contradict all that factual data of the past! Former scientists were not idiots. Absolutely, but as TFA points out, there were some observations that could not be explained by the old model (like the fact that seismic waves passing through the earth don't always travel at the same speed). Under these circumstances, a new model is justified.
    6. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it isn't greatly different. The popular article doesn't explain it particularly well. The recent studies are saying the mantle, which used to be considered well-"stirred" and relatively homogeneous due to convection, is actually fairly unmixed, compositionally-speaking. In other words, there are huge (continent-sized) blobs of mantle rock with slightly different chemistry.

      Geophysicists have seen variations in seismic velocity and other parameters in the mantle for a long time by using seismic tomography, but historically these were mainly explained by temperature differences. It is now thought that some of it is due to composition too. That's the difference.

      It doesn't change the broader crust-mantle-core structure. That is basically the same.

    7. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Larston · · Score: 1

      There are several places on earth where very violent and deep volcanoes bring chunks of mantle up to the surface, so we don't have to drill to the mantle to know what it is made of. Also we know a lot about the earth's interior from seismic waves-more than "average" density. As far as the exact chemical composition of the core, you're right that there's a bit of guessing involved.

    8. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Contra wise. Because if it was, then it would be, and if it could, then it should be, but as it isn't, it ain't.

      That's logic.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    9. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by RudeDude · · Score: 1

      I agree: "Former scientists were not idiots." However, leading scientists used to think data pointed to a geocentric solar system and universe. Clearly there are many more examples like this, some much more modern.

      Perhaps the larger problem is our natural egotism! What we have discovered is "absolute truth", rather than the more reasonable approach of "the best explanation available".

      --
      RudeDude
      Perl/Linux/PHP hacker
    10. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Certainly the scientists of old were not idiots - but they also didn't have access to modern instruments, computers, etc... etc... This means that a certain percentage of the old data (and the old theories based on that data) are to some extent invalid due to imprecision.
       
      For example - until the widespread deployment of GPS, obtaining highly accurate and precise time was expensive. Now, seismometers with accurate and precise clocks can be deployed much more widely and cheaply because all you require is a couple of hundred dollars for the clock rather than a couple of thousand dollars.
       
      Science is guided by the past, not chained to it.

    11. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by penguinchris · · Score: 2, Informative

      I didn't read TFA, but I did read the FSA (fine Science article) itself. Also, IAAGGS (I am a geology grad student.)

      It is not as simple as LiveScience apparently paints it - the low velocity seismic zones are well-known to geologists and have been explained by theory fairly completely.

      Though this isn't what they're talking about, there are different zones of seismic velocity within the layers themselves due to changes in temperature, pressure, and composition of the material, which leads to zones of partial melting. Seismic waves either slow down or disappear completely in liquids, depending on the type of wave, which explains some of these zones.

      What this article discusses is not those zones, obviously, but rather the boundary between layers. There are a lot of thoughts on that, too, and it's well known that the boundaries are not so distinct and perfect. For example, mantle plumes (which form hotspots like Hawaii and Yellowstone) have many theories of origin - one of them being that they originate near the core. If this were true, then there would be hot plumes of material reaching all the way through the earth to the core, which obviously would cause irregularities in the layer boundaries - creating zones of partial melting which slow down seismic waves.

      What this new article offers is a model of this behavior based on extended sets of data not available before. It's not really telling us anything too new, rather, it's describing and confirming what was already theorized using some nice new data (which is of course equally important as coming up with totally new ideas, but not as glamorous.)

      Now, I'm not sure if anyone actually believed that they do, but geologists do not subscribe to the "middle school" model of earth. And middle school teaching will not change. The concentric sphere model is still fine as a simplification.

    12. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. My point was intended as a word of caution, because in recent years I have seen certain "scientific" organizations (the EPA, for example) attempt to completely re-write the past, which is simple not allowable.

    13. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Eisenstein was what happened when Heisenberg was merged with Einstein in a horrible teleporter accident. The scientists involved swore to never speak of it in public"

      That's true: we all swore not to talk about it, so it's not so hard to understand why did you get your facts so wrong. It was not a teleporter but a multistate cat sandbox on the Potemkin battleship.

    14. Re:It CANNOT be THAT different.. by Eudial · · Score: 1

      That's true: we all swore not to talk about it, so it's not so hard to understand why did you get your facts so wrong. It was not a teleporter but a multistate cat sandbox on the Potemkin battleship. The problem was that they kept the quantum kitty litter in a Klein bottle, when they obviously should have used an infinite square well.
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  17. In Other News.... by thesymbolicfrog · · Score: 3, Funny

    LiveScience writers are really, really high right now.

    1. Re:In Other News.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dude, hahaha, What if the Earth was nothing more than a huge Ferrerro Rocher, hahaha.

  18. What? by clint999 · · Score: 0

    it's the only thing it can be. according to "experts" space travel is impossible

    --
    College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
  19. Bastards! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's way too close to my theory that the Earth has a tasty nougat center! That's intellectual property, that is!

  20. Chocolate, peanut butter AND honey? by Peregr1n · · Score: 1

    That sounds horrible! Please can we put it back and choose another planet?

  21. Aren't they confused ... by SigmaTao · · Score: 5, Funny

    don't they mean Mars?

    1. Re:Aren't they confused ... by Poingggg · · Score: 1

      No, there are too many nuts on top.

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
  22. Just blankets of brimstone? by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    With all the radioactivity going on down there, it doesn't surprise me that there might be plenty of hot spots to make people think twice about the mantle theory.

  23. Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures by Eudial · · Score: 3, Funny

    I believe in the Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures from Inside the Hollow Earth. If the Earth is truly "solid", how can there be Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures from Inside the Hollow Earth? There CAN'T! Hah! So the earth MUST be hollow. So much for your wishy washy "science" and "progress".

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yes,

      Just goes to prove that science does not remove the terror of the Gods.

      Praise "Bob !"

  24. headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who else read "goofy convention" at first?

  25. mmmm by kiwilake · · Score: 1

    mmmmmmm chocolate earth *starts eating rocks*

    --
    sink, swim, score and be happy :D
  26. The diagram is a lie by cheebie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, are you trying to tell me the earth is not composed of precisely circular layers colored red, orange, and yellow, with an itty-bitty circle of brown on the outside? Next you'll try telling me there isn't a gigantic wedge-shaped cutout from pole to pole in the pacific ocean.

  27. Toothpaste by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I was taught that the earth, scaled to the size of a pea, has the consistency of toothpaste.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Toothpaste by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      And when scaled to the size of a billiard ball, it's smoother and rounder than even the billiard ball is.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Toothpaste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how you scale. Keeping mass constant probably not.

  28. tolkein by matt+me · · Score: 1

    Middle Earth school science teachers. I like that.

  29. Of course! by mattgoldey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well of course the planet is like a gooey piece of chocolate candy. Haven't you ever noticed that it's covered in NUTS?

    1. Re:Of course! by Poingggg · · Score: 1

      Crap! You just beat me on that one!

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
  30. Man, no wonder... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Galactus wants to eat it!

  31. Article Envy by Roxton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, I appreciate that we need incentives for effective peer review, widespread reproduction, and integrity. One of the most powerful aspects of the Internet, however, is the proliferation of communities of practice.

    Expert photography, graphic design, 3D modeling, and UNIX system administration are all things that used to require intensive training begetting membership in a professional class. Nowadays, you can pick these things up by hanging out and contributing in online forums, newsgroups, mailing lists, and IRC chat channels. These communities of practice learn expert-grade information, but it also allows techniques to evolve and for new techniques to propagate quickly; in this sense, these communities can actually be better than classic forms of learning.

    We're even seeing interesting communities of practice being built up around legal studies, which is a domain that is firmly held by one of the most exclusive professional classes - lawyers. It'll be interesting to see what happens with that in the next five years.

    But one place where communities of practice are being squelched is science. You can't go into a forum and ask, "Hey, the Donovan lab group at Boston University suggests foo in this article, but that doesn't jibe with Mulkasey's findings at Stanford in this article. What's the deal?"
    I mean, you could. But then the number of people who could contribute to the conversation would be tiny, and nobody else would pay attention.

    So here's the position I'm advancing. Communities of practice are the single best way to create a dialog around science, and has the potential to:
    1) Integrate the knowledge of disparate labs
    2) Drive questions in scientific inquiry
    3) Become a major center of debate, and a referencable, living repository of ongoing issues
    4) Generate interest in the sciences
    5) Give direction to students (who see thousands of articles with no coherent "story" to tie them together except for biased and incomplete review articles)
    6) Finally create real connections with the public consciousness in a way that's a million times better than current science journalism.

    The lack of public availability of these articles prevents the creation of these communities of practice.

    PS: I think this approach would make conferences virtually obsolete, except in mode of presentation.

    1. Re:Article Envy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll happen, it'll just form slower than the web communities. Why slower? A bunch of reasons come to mind with only a few moments of thought...

      Lots more specialization / fewer people who can meaningfully contribute or comment. Somewhat more difficulty of expression - visually complicated mathematical formulas that aren't easy to type in a message board text field. The need for better filtering (which does not yet exist) of members, due to how contentious certain issues are - some things are going to get flooded by religious crusaders and crackpots, which can quickly reduce the signal/noise ratio to the point where scientists will go elsewhere to do their science.

      Having publications be openly visible on the web certainly helps, but it's only a first step; we'd want it all linked together and we'd want the means of useful discussion embedded right into it. We'd want experts in the field to be part of the communication. It's non-trivial.

    2. Re:Article Envy by Roxton · · Score: 1

      That's really my point, that making the articles accessible is a key first step. I'm not sure what the communities of practice for science would look like, but availability is a prerequisite. I also think we'd see a lot of value fairly quickly in terms of simple things like fact-checking.

    3. Re:Article Envy by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      No, it doesn't work like that.

      Your successful examples are essentially experimental communities, where discussions can center entirely around facts without interpretation (eg how many pixels in such and such a camera?, etc). That's a low barrier to entry.

      Science is different because most issues are either closely tied with interpretations, or tied to experiments which are too expensive to be duplicated by just anybody anymore. So you can't have the kind of photography club interaction where facts can be easily checked by all and discussions stay grounded in reality.

      Instead, your internet communities around science must end up arguing over interpretations, and when people who aren't experts (ie phds) argue about a technical scientific field, they're just wasting everyone's time.

      For successful communities, a necessary condition is that there's a low barrier to experimentation, so that discussions stay grounded in reality even when people have no clue.

    4. Re:Article Envy by Roxton · · Score: 1

      Your interpretation assumes that the only thing that is important is that good science gets done. What about informing people who aren't scientists? (Or those who aren't yet scientists?)

      Think about the plight of a high school student who is choosing a college and a degree. If he's like most prospective biology students, he's thinking, "Biology is interesting. I want to study biology." He doesn't stand a chance of thinking, "There are all these fascinating, unanswered questions in the discipline, and I want to get to the point where I can contribute," unless he either got lucky and found an expert who took the time to talk to him or he was unnaturally self-motivated and happened to find an insightful book among the dregs. There's no excuse for the poverty of access to information among those outside formal academia.

      Public understanding of contemporary science can only be a good thing. Maybe real science will finally start getting integrated into public policy.

      I think that's a good point by itself, but I'm going to go a step further and suggest that you underestimate the value and ability of interested amateurs. Given a proper introduction, it's not hard to understand what a scientific paper is trying to do and what it means. Given a proper introduction, it's not hard to understand what a particular lab or affiliated group of scientists is trying to achieve. Given a proper introduction, it's not hard to get a big picture understanding of the current state of the field.

      What's hard is performing the study and analysis, gauging rigor, and figuring out what to do next.

      Even as a Ph.D. student myself, it was hard to find resources that effectively clarified what different labs were up to, or to get a real sense of the state of the field. Over time I made some best guesses based on inference from articles I read and from my incestuous classes, but there has to be a better way. You'll get better students if they understand their prospective discipline, and the accessible manifestation of conflict is enough to rile up amateurs who will create a fanbase for new studies.

      If you're still not convinced, I think I could at least sell you on the easy point that making the work more accessible for scientists in related disciplines can only be a good thing.

    5. Re:Article Envy by ddimas · · Score: 1

      Well, first you need a cyclotron...

    6. Re:Article Envy by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      You make good points, but they seem to me a little weaker than what you suggested earlier.

      Spreading information is a worthy goal, which historically is the province of journals and magazines. Not all magazines aim to be technically exact, eg Scientific American is a good example of trying to spread inexact information far and wide, with references for those interested in digging deeper.

      What I don't agree with is the idea that shadow communities of enthusiasts, arguing from second hand information in their spare time, have the potential to do (some of the) things you listed: integrating knowledge from disparate labs, drive questions, become referencable repositories of ongoing issues.

      Traditionally, these tasks are performed by textbooks and university courses, both of which guarantee a reasonable level of completeness and detail.

      A fundamental issue with web communities as I see it is that there's no uniform level of knowledge which can be built upon for teaching and/or debating. Universities and schools solve this by having people follow courses of several years, but in a web community you have people of all backgrounds and interests. If there was a good way of dealing with such people simultaneously, our schools would have no trouble teaching eg combined classes of first graders and high school seniors, or first year university students and post grads.

      Instead, what we have is introductory courses, advanced courses, etc. with little to no interaction between them. I don't see how the web changes that fundamental issue, and if you duplicate what works already, you'll just end up with lots of insular communities of varying levels, eg fans, students, experts, pretty much what exists now.

    7. Re:Article Envy by Roxton · · Score: 1

      I think the traditional system of studying for 4 years to get to a level of competence necessary to enter the conversation is a sad legacy. Perhaps legacy is the wrong word -- I think it's actually a more recent phenomenon. I hear professors talk a lot about how when they studied, they were more engaged than the students they see today. Perhaps that's because when they studied, they had goals.

      Four years of open-ended study before you can even think about how your knowledge fits into the big picture? I realize that sounds like hyperbole, but for a lot of students, it's fact. You can probably blame poor academic advising for a lot of that, but the system is kind of geared that way. I think students would learn better if they knew how their studies prepared them for the conversation. (Hey, I really like that. Enter The Conversation(TM). You heard it here first. I guess The Conversation can be everything from contemporary scientific inquiry to bleeding edge industry practices.)

      The truth is, it's not hard to get up to speed on current topics within a narrow scope. You may need to stick your nose in a book, but which book and what parts are something that a community would be good at teasing out. Seriously, go to any expert forum and ask for resources -- people are brimming with suggestions, and are often eager to debate those suggestions with other experts.

      So yeah, I do think lowering the barriers for accessing technical knowledge would be a precursor to creating a relatively large class of enthusiasts who would collaborate to create meaningful narratives for researcher, student, prospective student, journalist and public alike. (I also find it likely that an established community would eventually freely publish its own resources on fundamental concepts, but that's really not central to my point.)

      There are a number of problems that would have to be addressed, of course. One of them is that scientists may hesitate to collaborate for fear of disclosing unpublished work. In my experience, however, labs are generally eager to increase their recognition, so I do think you'd see a high degree of academic participation that at least *frames* the work being done.

    8. Re:Article Envy by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Four years? How about seven ;-)

      Four years of open-ended study before you can even think about how your knowledge fits into the big picture? I realize that sounds like hyperbole, but for a lot of students, it's fact.
      I think you're conflating thinking about a picture and contributing to the picture. People can start thinking about the big picture whenever they want: there's books of all levels out there, and it's common for 12 year olds and up to be interested in and discussing the big picture with their peers.

      I don't think it's realistic to expect contributions, in subjects where experimentation is difficult or expensive to do. People tend to have plenty of ideas, just not enough time or resources to do them. It's not that they sit around thinking "what next?", rather it's that they sit around thinking "which of my ideas can I afford to do now?". The most valuable suggestions come from others who have done similar work, rather than well meaning amateurs without the experience or who cannot gain such experience independently.

      But I agree with you about free dissemination of results, etc.

  32. Mmmmmmmmm.... by slyborg · · Score: 1

    nougat......

  33. Intelligent design? by Viadd · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else find it worrisome that our planet's core has obviously been designed so that we roll farther when we hit the fairway?

  34. I *am* a middle school Earth science teacher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turns out the Milky Way lab about plate tectonics and the layers of Earth isn't so inaccurate after all!

    http://sciencespot.net/Pages/classearth.html#Anchor3

    (Not my site.)

  35. How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many licks does it take to get to the center of a blue planet? The world may never know.

  36. How many licks? by Xarin · · Score: 1

    So how many licks does it take to get to the center?

  37. Earth: The Power of the Planet by ardle · · Score: 1

    This series (buy the DVD so that BBC can make more great stuff) describes a lot of the inner workings of the planet, including the interdependencies of the various thermodynamic systems (mantle, oceans, glaciers, atmosphere, life etc). With lots of spectacular natural features to illustrate.
    Not an employee, it's just great stuff ;-)

  38. TOLKIEN will be offended too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He will also be offended by the misspelling of his surname. It's spelled Tolkien. The "i" is before the "e".

  39. It's actually more like fondue by billstewart · · Score: 1
    You're seeing the congealed top layer, and those "craters" are mostly bubbles, though some of them are the mold spots, which is a bit less obvious because it's only lit in black&white (except during eclipses, but even then the reddish lighting isn't the right color for seeing green cheese-mold.)


    But space travel is perfectly possible - you're doing it every time you go into a subway. The Apollo missions were carefully planned to land on the colder harder spots, which is why they didn't sink in.



    Remember, I'm not a *real* doctor - but I've got a Master's Degree - in Science!

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  40. Sounds tasty by Fifth+Earth · · Score: 1

    Why hasn't any candy company made chocolate morsels filled with gooey peanut butter and honey?