Slashdot Mirror


Earth's Core Far Hotter Than Thought

hessian writes "New measurements suggest the Earth's inner core is far hotter than prior experiments suggested, putting it at 6,000C — as hot as the Sun's surface. The solid iron core is actually crystalline, surrounded by liquid. But the temperature at which that crystal can form had been a subject of long-running debate. Experiments outlined in Science used X-rays to probe tiny samples of iron at extraordinary pressures to examine how the iron crystals form and melt."

189 comments

  1. Oh noes! by funwithBSD · · Score: 5, Funny

    Global warming has reached the core!

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:Oh noes! by Feyshtey · · Score: 4, Informative

      But Al Gore said it was "several million degress".... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8 I'm so confused.

      --
      "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
    2. Re:Oh noes! by amiga3D · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Algore has to be right. After all, he invented the internet.

    3. Re:Oh noes! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Come on, it is still funny. Just because you don't like his politics doesn't mean you can't laugh.

    4. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe he was just joking? go away.

    5. Re:Oh noes! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's kinda like racist jokes:

      They can actually be really funny, but when you realize that the person telling the joke legitimately doesn't like black people, it creates a depressing side to the joke that ruins any humor.

    6. Re:Oh noes! by DougOtto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So a "racist joke" has to automatically be about "black people?" Who's the racist now?

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    7. Re:Oh noes! by flibbidyfloo · · Score: 5, Funny

      He was talking in Fahrenheit degrees. I believe 6000 C is approximately equal to 2,000,000 F. At least if I remember what I learned from the American education system :)

    8. Re:Oh noes! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's called an example.

    10. Re:Oh noes! by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Historically blacks have in fact been the most notoriously discriminated against race, so it's a good example.

    11. Re:Oh noes! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Hmmm....that is kind of a guilty feeling. You want to laugh because the joke is funny but then it isn't because of the meanness behind it.

    12. Re:Oh noes! by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Q: "How many tree-huggers does it take to change a lightbulb?"

      A: "That's not funny!"

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    13. Re:Oh noes! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I buy that pop-psych explanation, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

    14. Re:Oh noes! by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Funny

      That core is so hot right now.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    15. Re:Oh noes! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's be fair, my phrasing was ambiguous. There is a viable reading of what I posted that makes it look like I was implying what he said I was. I wasn't, but it is my fault for being insufficiently clear that I meant it as an example, not a universal assertion.

    16. Re:Oh noes! by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh man, don't say that. Someone will believe it.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    17. Re:Oh noes! by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Looks like...

      we need to journey to the center of the earth to save the planet!

    18. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He was talking in Fahrenheit degrees. I believe 6000 C is approximately equal to 2,000,000 F. At least if I remember what I learned from the American education system :)

      nope:

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=6000c+to+f

      10832 *f

    19. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, you're just an all around asshat when it comes right down to it.

    20. Re:Oh noes! by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Funny

      Close enough.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    21. Re:Oh noes! by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Could you clarify? I certainly wouldn't wand some random stranger on the internet thinking poorly of me.

    22. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      units
      Currency exchange rates from 2012-06-06
      2552 units, 85 prefixes, 66 nonlinear units

      You have: tempC(6000)
      You want: tempF
              10,832

      Must be running a iOS or windows where tools like 'units' don't exist!

    23. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only know one racist joke about Asians, but have heard hundreds about blacks. The rest, like pollack jokes, aren't racist jokes, they make fun of a certain country's citizens or a certain culture and have nothing to do with race. E.g., this is not a racist joke:
      How many micks does it take to change a light bulb?
      Three, one to hold the bulb and two to drink until the room spins.
      Ireland isn't a race, nor is Poland. They're countries. You could say they were racist against whites until you remember that there are blcks and Asians who are Irish and Polish.

      How many jokes about all whites or all Asians have you heard? Pointing out the obvious as i kan read did is not racist, but your cries of racism when there is none demonstrated is as bad as racism itself.

    24. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Who's the racist now?

      The Jews?

    25. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The joke doesn't have to be about black people for the racist to dislike black people.

    26. Re:Oh noes! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      Whooosh

    27. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore is that you?

    28. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hotter than Hansel?

    29. Re:Oh noes! by sconeu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I always thought that was radical feminists.

      "How many radical feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?"

      "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    30. Re:Oh noes! by m1ndcrash · · Score: 1

      and manbearpig!

    31. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If blondes don't laugh at blonde jokes, and fat people don't laugh at fat jokes, what are you if you don't laugh at racist jokes?

    32. Re:Oh noes! by pclminion · · Score: 3, Funny

      In physics, being wrong by a couple orders of magnitude is no big deal. Call me back when he's off by 10^20.

    33. Re:Oh noes! by Wolfraider · · Score: 1

      Then how come the funniest racist jokes I have heard was told by the person the joke was about? I have heard some really funny black jokes from a couple different black friends.

    34. Re:Oh noes! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Historically every race that was different from the speakers race was notoriously discriminated against. Or does history only go back a century or two for you?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    35. Re:Oh noes! by kernelpanicked · · Score: 1

      Yes! All we need is a train-ship-thing made of unobtainium and a motley crew of genius scientists and astronauts. To work it will be absolutely essential that the co-pilot is fairly hot but completely incompetent, and be banging one of the scientists by the end of the movi...err...expedition.

      --
      Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
    36. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was talking in Fahrenheit degrees. I believe 6000 C is approximately equal to 2,000,000 F. At least if I remember what I learned from the American education system :)

      All Gore was right: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzMrxC-qEHb8

    37. Re:Oh noes! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      How many men does it take to turn on a radically feminist lightbulb?

    38. Re:Oh noes! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Historically blacks have in fact been the most notoriously discriminated against race, so it's a good example.

      In what context?
      Consider the Americas and the native population vs the Spanish, English, and others.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    39. Re:Oh noes! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "Blacks" and "Whites" aren't races either.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    40. Re:Oh noes! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yes. It appears that tree-huggers are the new radical feminists.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    41. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course it's hotter there. That's where all the heathens are burning for all eternity.

    42. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have been talking with Al Gore who said "two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees [F]."

    43. Re:Oh noes! by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Historically blacks have in fact been the most notoriously discriminated against race, so it's a good example.

      Tell that to the Irish.

    44. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to bring the black guy for the obligatory self-sacrificing.

    45. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your joke is stupid, as core does not influence surface temperature at all, so - no surface temperature is affected by Sun and atmosphere, because terran planets consists of hard material, that shields heat. If there would be no atmosphere and no Sun we would had temperature on surface very close to 0K. And if global warming would reach core, it would be meltdown of Sun into Supernova.

      There is already case of global warming where atmosphere acts as temperature trap and can't cool down at all - it is called Venus with surface temperature 735K. We probably won't colonize Venus in near future. And one more thing - Venus core is probably cooler than Earths as well, because it is smaller, so why we would need even mention global warming, that is different topic.

    46. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great... I'm not a grammar nazi, but in this case missing colon after word "no" radically changed meaning of sentence (facepalm) so if anyone notices this for fun - I know it already, but can't edit

    47. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A: One; Dr. Frank N. Furter

    48. Re:Oh noes! by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Oh Blonds laugh at Blond jokes... they just don't get them.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    49. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still not as hot as uranus

    50. Re:Oh noes! by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Not really true, if you go back far enough. At least, not in the way modern discrimination and racism works. Otherwise you're going to be hard pressed to explain how Macrinus (a Berber and not even a senator) came to power in Rome in 217. Or why Christian slaves in 1200 could easily be freed when they converted - which would not have been possible if they were enslaved because of their skin.

      The whole concept of "race" is a modern construct, easily traced back to the times when slaves were used on plantations. Even the RC church had a lot of reservations against slavery, with a lot of priests and even a big conference about it. In the end, the economic arguments were too hard to resist, and so black folk were demonized as sub-human based on visible differences. But that hasas its basis the goldrush of slavery that needed to be defended ideologically in order to be acceptable to the public. We're still stuck with it, unfortunately, and will probably remain stuck with it for a very long time as racism has always been useful for at least *some* people.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    51. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The punchline I always use there is "ONE!"

    52. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said, my man! Oh wait .. that's bigoted slip of the tongue!

      Well said, my person!

      Its a slippery slope telling jokes any more. You just can't make fun of anybody.

    53. Re:Oh noes! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Damn! Downmodded for poking fun at Algore. No one has a sense of humor anymore.

    54. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or First Nations!

    55. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well historically, they're also guilty of committing the most violent crime. They also always have some or other excuse.

    56. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they can't spell.
      *cough* Blonde *cough*

    57. Re:Oh noes! by cundare · · Score: 1
      >I believe 6000 C is approximately equal to 2,000,000 F. So much for thecrowdsourcing model.

      Unless this is irony (hard to tell without being able to navigate /. threads in any rational order.)

    58. Re:Oh noes! by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Kids.

      Back in the day all the racist jokes were about Indians, Jews, or occasionally Chinese. Then in the mid twentieth century we went through a phase where most of them were about Europeans (Poles and Irishmen being particularly frequent targets). Then in the nineties it was blondes.

      Every race gets joked about sooner or later.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    59. Re:Oh noes! by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      Comparing Global Warming to Racism is already dumb. Equating the two is going Full Retard mode.

      --

      Liberty.

    60. Re:Oh noes! by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      They get the jokes if you stop and explain the jokes to them.

      --

      Liberty.

    61. Re:Oh noes! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      we need to journey to the center of the earth to save the planet!

      Errr, why? There's no implication that the actual temperature of the core is changing; just that our estimates of it's temperature, obtained through several thousand kilometres of decidedly variable rock, are changing.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    62. Re:Oh noes! by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      that was actually real funny, but it doesnt go about five appreciations and im out of mod points anyway so i will hail you by spamming your email if you put that checkbox on

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    63. Re:Oh noes! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Ok, gotta throw in the old classic...

      How many programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?

      None, that's a hardware problem.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    64. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess, if you consider we just kill all the other races.

  2. Oh, Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean we can go Super-Nova?

    1. Re:Oh, Oh... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      The number of viable reasons to answer that question "No" is simply so staggering, I cannot imagine the question arising in the mind of someone whose idea of fashion isn't "straight jacket."

    2. Re:Oh, Oh... by mmcxii · · Score: 1

      Supernova has more to do with mass than anything else. But the fact that we're not a star means that it's not going to happen even if we had the mass.

    3. Re:Oh, Oh... by omnichad · · Score: 2

      The surface of the sun is practically ice-cold compared to its own core.

    4. Re:Oh, Oh... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      A simple yes would suffice.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Oh, Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The surface of the sun is *believed to be* practically ice-cold compared to its own core.

      Science.

    6. Re:Oh, Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sun has no core. It exists by virtue of counter space and energy. To find the core one will find themselves on the outside again...

    7. Re:Oh, Oh... by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given the orders of magnitude and error bars involved and that the temperature at the core is all theory in the first place, ice-cold is far to precise.

      Just use absolute-zero cold.

      The temperature of the surface of the sun is smaller than the error bounds on our theories about the the temperature of the core. Thus if you are comparing them you might as well treat the surface temp as 0 and save a subtraction...

    8. Re:Oh, Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. If you have the mass of a supernova, crammed into the size of a planet, then a lot of things will happen that turns the planet into a star - for some time.

    9. Re:Oh, Oh... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, the comparison is based on ratio (division) rather than subtraction, which is quite reasonable -- after all, we use logarithmic scales quite often, and human senses are generally logarithmic in terms of perception, which makes it all the more intuitional.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:Oh, Oh... by icebike · · Score: 1

      The surface of the sun is practically ice-cold compared to its own core.

      Question: Where is the surface of the sun? (or the surface of any gaseous body for that matter).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    11. Re:Oh, Oh... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      At a radius where the density crosses a particular threshold. You are aware that a body that big is held together by gravity, right?

      For the sun, it doesn't matter - all around cold on both sides of the threshold compared to the core.

    12. Re:Oh, Oh... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Then use 1 and save a division.

    13. Re:Oh, Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think generally the surface would be considered to be the level at which the light we see from the Sun emanates from. But even that is kind of fuzzy.

    14. Re:Oh, Oh... by mmcxii · · Score: 1

      Not wrong. This only matters if the planet is made of the right materials at that mass. Our planet, with such a mass increase, would do little in the way of fusion and wouldn't go supernova at any point in time.

  3. Quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick, someone tell Aaron Eckhart so he can go back to The Core 2: Crystalline Boogaloo.

  4. Trip Planning by ButtonMashingGorilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thank goodness I saw this article. I have been planning my trip to the Inner Core, but my unobtanium suit is only rated for 5500C

  5. I can just see the creationists by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can just see the creationists saying "we always knew hell was down there"!

    1. Re:I can just see the creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the idea of a "solid earth with hot core" is an old catholic church one. The enlightenment idea was that it was hollow.

    2. Re:I can just see the creationists by war4peace · · Score: 2

      we always knew hell was down there

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:I can just see the creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just see the creationists saying "we always knew hell was down there"!

      One wonders what YOUR issues are when you go to such depths to bash someone you're intolerant of.

    4. Re:I can just see the creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because bashing willful ignorance means you have issues?

      Go hug a flat-earther.

    5. Re:I can just see the creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists c. 1600AD "the earth is flat!"

      the Bible c. 700BC "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" - Isaiah 40:22

    6. Re:I can just see the creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Heaven's hotter than hell; so we're in hell on earth, and down there must be heaven....

                  mark

    7. Re:I can just see the creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    8. Re:I can just see the creationists by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      1. Circles are flat. (sure the Hebrew word also applies to spheres, but it still applies to 2 dimensional circles and hence isn't useful in your claim).

      2. Congrats on finding some stupid scientists 400 years ago, who somehow hadn't heard Pythagoras and also somehow missed that the world had been circumnavigated in 1522.

    9. Re:I can just see the creationists by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Actually, very few thought the world was flat even before Christianity.

      Anyone who has sailed, knew it wasn't.

      The issue was, we all thought Columbus was crazy because everyone thought the earth was bigger and he would die at sea (and you know what, we were right....neener neener -just happened there was a whole 'nother continental mass in between).

      Who'd da thunk that?

    10. Re:I can just see the creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry bud, but the earth was known to be round at least as far back as Parmenides and Empedocles as far as scientists are concerned, and Eratosthenes had a pretty good go at calculating its diameter (within about 2 percent). We didn't know about heliocentric models, but we did know that the earth is round.

    11. Re:I can just see the creationists by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      You threaten to kill me for being a heretic for saying otherwise, and I will happily tell you the earth is flat today.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    12. Re:I can just see the creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this guy doesn't know basic stuff and that's funny?

  6. *earth sings to mars* by Heed00 · · Score: 0

    Don't-cha wish your core was hot like mine? Don't-cha wish your core was hot like mine? Don't-cha?

    --
    Thought thinks itself.
  7. Far hotter? by omnichad · · Score: 5, Informative

    I may have misread, but I think this article is saying that 20% hotter is "far" hotter. Not the adjective I would use for 20%.

    1. Re:Far hotter? by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      I may have misread, but I think this article is saying that 20% hotter is "far" hotter. Not the adjective I would use for 20%.

      Except that this '20%' is around 1000C to go from 5000C to 6000C. And that's pretty significant.

      I'd say "far hotter" is a reasonable thing here.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Far hotter? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      To me, I would be expecting a significant fraction of an order of magnitude. Of course 1,000 degrees is a lot compared to temperatures that matter to our everyday lives.

    3. Re:Far hotter? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Not all "20%"'s are created equal. For instance, if the temperature outside increases from 5C to 6C, you probably don't even notice. If it goes from 35C to 42C, you probably are rather unhappy about that.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Far hotter? by steelyeyedmissileman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Semantics, yes, but you can't grade "hotness" on either the Fahrenheit or Celsius scales by a percentage; otherwise 1 degree is infinitely "hotter" than 0 degrees!

      To be fair, in Kelvin this is a 19% increase, so the semantic difference seems irrelevant. To put it in perspective, though, a 20% increase from room temperature (25 C or 298 K) would be 85 C (358 K); I'm pretty sure you'd agree that's "far" hotter!

    5. Re:Far hotter? by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, since it's Celsius and not Kelvin, it's not a 20% absolute increase. At thousands of degrees, the difference between Celsius and Kelvin is more of a rounding error so I didn't mention it.

      5 to 6 degrees would be a 1/278th increase.

    6. Re:Far hotter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why comparing temperatures should always be done in Kelvin. 6C is 0.36% warmer than 5C not 20% and 6000C is 18.9% warmer than 5000C.

    7. Re:Far hotter? by shentino · · Score: 1

      If we're talking in percentages where's the zero point at?

    8. Re:Far hotter? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      0 Kelvin. The difference between Celsius and Kelvin at temperatures this high up are fairly low, so I didn't mention it.

    9. Re:Far hotter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if it's a hundred degrees outside in the morning, and the temperature then rises to 120 at noon, and I say, "My, it's far hotter this afternoon than it was this morning," you're going to reply, "No, it's only a little increase in temperature."

      You may need to rethink this position of yours.

    10. Re:Far hotter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I may have misread, but I think this article is saying that 20% hotter is "far" hotter. Not the adjective I would use for 20%.

      Go take a bath in 310K water (100F). Then take a bath in 370K water (210F)

      I think you would describe the second one as "far hotter", despite only a 20% difference.

    11. Re:Far hotter? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      20% is "far hotter" for large values of 20%.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Far hotter? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, also going from roughly 80 degrees to roughly 100 (celsius) is a quite significant difference.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Far hotter? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Your body temperature can not increase by 20% you will die roughly at a 18% increase.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Far hotter? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should think more geometrically/logarithmically/exponentially, rather than linearly. 60 is as much an increase over 50 as 6000 is over 5000 in this sense (assuming the kelvin scale).

      In the same way, 1.1 million years estimate is only a little off from 1.0 million years in terms of date estimation, even though 100,000 seems like a "really, really big number" (tm).

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  8. That means by maroberts · · Score: 2

    My planned Journey to the Centre of the Earth has to be put on hold, dammit!

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:That means by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just book a cruise on Carnival Cruise Lines. They offer cruises to Hell.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:That means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just book a cruise on Carnival Cruise Lines. They offer cruises to Hell.

      I'd book one

      You could tell the Devil you're on your way, and not have to worry about ever actually getting there

      Captcha: unstable

  9. hardly "much hotter" by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Informative

    this new model suggests 6000 +/- 500 degrees C, the old model was 6000 +/- 1000 degrees to some sources, but up to 9000 degrees by others

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262762,00.html

    the point is 6000 degrees C has long, long been in the possible range, and the earth's core may well be much hotter

    1. Re:hardly "much hotter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess this is ok then:

      Earth's core 1,800 degrees hotter than thought

      http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/25/17917262-earths-core-1800-degrees-hotter-than-thought?lite

    2. Re:hardly "much hotter" by jomama717 · · Score: 3, Informative
      You're way off base here:
      1. 1. The linked article is talking about a temperature measurement made 1000 miles below the earth's surface, not the core
      2. 2. The measurement made is reported as 6,650 degrees FAHRENHEIT

      Come on mods, RTFLAs (L=linked)

      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
  10. only 1800F degrees by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Big deal. That's like the difference between December and July in the Midwest.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  11. Re:More guesswork? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    At least it is an educated guess.

  12. Re:More guesswork? by Feyshtey · · Score: 0

    Given my rapidly declining faith in US education I think I might rather hear the guesses of 90 year old farmers that dropped out in the 4th grade.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  13. Re:More guesswork? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    So you want to journey to the center of the earth? Be my guest. And watch out for pterodactyls.

  14. Plus or minus 500C by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    The new estimate is "plus or minus 500C". Sounds like they had a coarse number (guessing plus or minus one or two thousand) and now they have a slightly more accurate number. Certainly no need for sensationalistic headlines.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Plus or minus 500C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better this than another Apple/Bitcoin story

    2. Re:Plus or minus 500C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Apple is getting into bitcoin? Where did you hear that? Might be time to buy!

    3. Re:Plus or minus 500C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Stock buyback" is code for bitcoin buyback

    4. Re:Plus or minus 500C by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      indeed. new estimate, 6000 plus or minus 500, far higher than old estimate, 5000 presumably plus or minus 500.
      Hey, i've just returned from the future, the year 2513, plus or minus 500 years! I have so much to tell you citizens of the distant past, the year 1513 plus or minus 500 years!

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  15. 5C to 6C is not +20% temperature by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not all "20%"'s are created equal. For instance, if the temperature outside increases from 5C to 6C

    5C to 6C is less than a 1% increase in temperature.

    (Celsius isn't a ratio scale where 0 of the quantity measured is 0 on the scale; Kelvin is -- 5C to 6C is 278K to 279K; at the range of 5000C to 6000C, the difference between C and K is small and doesn't effect ratios much, but at 5-6C that's not true.)

  16. Iron vs. sulfur by tepples · · Score: 2

    The earth's core is iron. The lake of fire is sulfur, an element formerly called brimstone. There's a difference.

    1. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since when did Creationists ever let facts get in the way of a good myth?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earths core probably has iron sulfides. Also, what "facts"? From what I have read, geologists are careful to emphasize our understanding of what is down there is speculative and based on indirect evidence.

    3. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's just ironic, isn't it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's worth pointing out that, under a literal interpretation of the bible, Hades can't be in the middle of the earth unless Paradise is also.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus

    5. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by lgw · · Score: 1

      An iron crystal at that pressure would be incredibly pure.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by lgw · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see I'm wrong on that one - the "single iron crystal" idea was disproven 5 years ago or so. It's nickel-iron and heavier elements.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "...the density of the core as measured from seismic-wave velocities is significantly lower (by 10–15%) than that of a pure metal alloy, and therefore the core must also contain some light elements. In a dynamic process, the solid inner core is crystallizing out of the liquid outer core, preferentially expelling light elements into the outer core. The inner core contains about 3% light elements, whereas the outer core contains nearer 10%. Cosmochemical and other arguments suggest that obvious candidates for these light elements include sulphur, silicon, oxygen and carbon, and these elements (and others) have been studied extensively for the past 20 years or so. But none of these light elements seems to satisfy all the requirements imposed by seismology, cosmochemistry and the evolutionary models describing how Earth has evolved over time."

      Voadlo, Lidunka. "Earth science: Core composition revealed." Nature 495.7440 (2013): 177-178.

      This is not my field, but what makes you think the core is an iron crystal?

    8. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The Earth's core is fool's gold? Hooray!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the seismology data is being misinterpreted. I'm not suggesting it is, but that is always a possiblity.

    10. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by lgw · · Score: 1

      It was a big idea for several years up until 2007 or so - at that pressure, an iron crystal will reject impurities. I guess the fact that nickel-iron alloy is heavier than elemental nickel or iron meant there was never a chance for that crystal to form.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      From what I have read, geologists are careful to emphasize our understanding of what is down there is speculative and based on indirect evidence.

      Well, then, we need to send someone down to the Earth's core at once to find out for certain. Might I be the first to recommend that we start with all of Congress, followed by all the lawyers?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Iron vs. sulfur by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Sulphur (however spelled, correctly or Americanly) hasn't been called "brimstone" since we have a scientifically useful concept of "element".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  17. Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Earth is warming, right to the core! MY GOD we have to do something about it!

  18. Hollywood to the rescue by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 0

    Because we all know you can throw a couple of nukes down their to solve our problems.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  19. Goodness gracious ... by tgd · · Score: 1

    Great balls of fire.

    Seriously, though. Science is awesome.

  20. Re:More guesswork? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    Thankfully the rise of on-line educational programs (Khan Academy, MIT) and tutoring programs are going to change the dynamic of the failed American education system within the next 20 years.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  21. So is Gwyneth Paltrow by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    I mean People Magazine crowned her "World's Most Beautiful Woman", so she is far hotter than many people thought.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:So is Gwyneth Paltrow by mrbester · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's because everybody tends to use the metric Helen (1k ship launching capability) instead of the more accurate Troy Helen (1.186k ships)...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re:So is Gwyneth Paltrow by devent · · Score: 2

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/millihelen

      millihelen (plural millihelens)

              (informal) A unit of measure of pulchritude, corresponding to the amount of beauty required to launch one ship. [quotations ]

      That is good ROFL

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  22. Re:More guesswork? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    Actually it is possible to get a great education in the US. Most don't because the system is set up to encourage you to just do enough to get by. If, however, you are highly motivated and or have parents that encourage and demand that you strive for the best then you can go far indeed. The problem is that the average are left in the dirt.

  23. Re:More guesswork? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Still this does not address the number one problem with US education. The parents or rather the lack of parenting.

  24. Re:More guesswork? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why use an 'educated' guess when we have FACTS given to us in a book. It's there for us all to see, you just need to read the damn book.

    All this guessing and sticking fingers in the wind is really just more proof that Creation is true and that the so called 'scientists' have NO IDEA about anything.

    I really don;t see how people can believe these useless scientific facts. It takes FAR more faith to believe in that stuff than in the true reality that is Creation.

    Troll ;)

  25. So if Earth loses it's crust and mantle.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then it's going to leave behind an awesome disco ball? God is groovy.

  26. Re:More guesswork? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    There are many problems and that certainly is one of them. Why we're funding people to have kids that they don't bother to raise is an important issue. BUT, there are also a lot of parents who have no choice but to send kids to horrible schools. Private education is way outside their budget. With AI tutors we can see "day cares" provide a quality education. The "day care" is there to deal with socialization and scheduling the AI provide one-on-one tutorship in all and every subject.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  27. We are the grays. by jellomizer · · Score: 0

    Think about it. The Core is about hot as the sun, that is enough for a sustained fusion reaction, we need to find a way of pumping hydrogen to the core and have them fuse to become helium, creating a nearly unlimited power source. This unlimited power will allow us to focus more on mental activities and less on physical ones allowing our brains to expand and our bodies to become smaller. Being that we don't need to go out getting our hair cut would be a massive chore so we naturally select people who are naturally bald. We are indoors most of the time so our skin gets very pail. And the extra helium in the atmosphere will raise up our voices by a few octaves.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:We are the grays. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the core is not hot enough to sustain fusion. 6000 degrees is not enough for fusion. Not in the earth's core, not on the surface of the sun either. The sun doesn't do fusion on the surface. It does fusion deep inside, where the temperature is millions of degrees. The earth and the sun have one thing in common - both are much hotter inside than on the surface. . .

  28. Re:I call BS by Paco103 · · Score: 2

    We've not even been to the deepest depths of the ocean. . . .

    Actually, we have.

  29. Re:I call BS by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

    ...but what is the scientific process that presented us with that idea?

    In a word, geology. Actually worth learning something about before claiming it's all BS.

  30. So, what impact to "age of the earth" calculations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a kid I used to hear that the earth was 4,000,000,000 years old - "based on the heat of the earth's core." I am no physicist, so, what impact does this have on the estimated age of the earth?

  31. Re:More guesswork? by Feyshtey · · Score: 1

    Why we're funding people to have kids that they don't bother to raise is an important issue.

    Because if the state finances it and raises the kids in lieu of parenting, then the state can tell them exactly how to vote.

    --
    "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
  32. Anthropic units by tepples · · Score: 1

    How about an anthropic "hotness" unit on a scale from the sea level freezing point of the most abundant compound in the human body (oxidane, freezes at 0 C, triple point a tiny fraction of a kelvin higher) to the normal operating temperature of the human body (37 C)?

    1. Re:Anthropic units by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      How about an anthropic "hotness" unit on a scale from the sea level freezing point of the most abundant compound in the human body (oxidane, freezes at 0 C, triple point a tiny fraction of a kelvin higher) to the normal operating temperature of the human body (37 Ð)

      You are aware that M.Fahrenheit recently proposed such a scale to the King of France, with the zero point being the lowest temperature that could be attained with easily-available materials (ice and salt), and the "100" degrees point being a readily-available "high" temperature, i.e. the temperature of human blood?

      OK, I made up the bit about the King of France - I think it was just something he published in a Parisian journal. But your suggestion is around 300 years too late for a claim of priority to be seriously entertained.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  33. Re:So, what impact to "age of the earth" calculati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The core is supposed to have formed after the earth per se. The current model used for the formation of our solar system is much more speculative than some pseudoscientist slashdot posters picking on the superstitious would have you believe.

  34. Re:I call BS by dpidcoe · · Score: 3, Funny

    For all we know Earth is dirt all the way down

    Are you sure it's dirt and not turtles?

  35. this wouldn't be the first time by HPHatecraft · · Score: 2

    this phrase was used by geologist wearing beer goggles...

  36. Please tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF are the specs for "thought"? It seems everything is bigger, smaller, faster, slower, and now hotter than thought.

    If they're going to have a universal reference like "thought", they should post the specs!

    1. Re:Please tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think thought usually occurs at 98.6F, in a volume of a little over 1L. I'm not sure how to quantify the speed of thought though.

    2. Re:Please tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around 200 ms.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time

  37. Re:More guesswork? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    It's hard to argue with that. :- )

    But most people who vote for politicians and who support such policies do not do so for that reason - at least not consciously. They want to be "kind" and "compassionate" and don't see another way that isn't "mean-spirited."

    I'm at a loss for how to explain how counter-productive their policies are.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  38. Re:I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No geologist/probe has been deeper than 13,000 meters (a little over 7-1/2 miles) into this planet, via ocean, or digging a hole. We are simply assuming that the heat that's found at the depth that we have been to will continue to the core, prove me wrong, I may be.

    Most all of true science is something that is practiced in everyday life. Things like brain cancer and all that. In this way, that is science. But when we put our hand on someone's head and say "Wow, you have heat coming off of your head" and then we prick them with a small needle that goes like .0001 cm into their scalp, and the temp increases, we cannot determine that the brain must have a core whereby the temps keep climbing as you reach that core, then take half the diameter and come up with "IT'S AS HOT AS THE SUN!!!! OMFG OMFG!!!"

    Besides, I doubt that anyone cares about what an anonymous coward says, much less a SecurityGuy.

  39. Re:I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, no I'm not. Actually, I take your side, as I like turtles. Also, no one here or anywhere else on the planet can argue with your point. The center of this planet may very well be 5 turtles all imagining us. I hope they wake up soon.

  40. Racist! by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

    One.

    But the light bulb has to want to change.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  41. Re:I call BS by drainbramage · · Score: 1

    Only if the turtles are Gamera's.
    That would explain the heat too.
    That turtle must eat a lot of Sriracha.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  42. Diamond Anvil Cell != Earth Core by DingerX · · Score: 1

    So basically, you heat up a small sample and put it under extreme pressures, and measure the electrical conductivity until it resembles the earth. Of course, there's a massive temperature gradient from the lab-temperature edge of the sample and the superhot center. And maybe the sample's gonna be at different temperatures as well, developing grain boundaries in the sample, and maybe those grain boundaries will serve as circuits around the superhot center of the sample.

    I'm no expert on these things, but even I know that Diamond-Anvil Cells are terrible tech, and have been terrible tech for the last quarter-century. Yeah, they're inherently flawed, but an unskilled operator can further come up with "surprising" results.

    Amusing aside: this is a French study. The synthetic diamonds in DACs eventually break, so last time I checked (over a decade ago -- again, I'm no expert), in the French system they are classified as office supplies instead of lab equipment. So the study authors didn't have many shots to get to the test conditions right either.

    1. Re:Diamond Anvil Cell != Earth Core by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the heck are you talking about? What does it mean to be "terrible tech"? They do their job, and do it well unless you don't know what you are doing or what they are doing. And just because a piece of equipment has consumable components doesn't make it terrible, and those anvils are a lot cheaper to use than other lab equipment and supplies.

  43. Re:I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe just read a summary from a Geology 105 lecture?

    http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap3.htm

  44. Re:I call BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should study actual geology before making claims about what geologists have actually studied and not studied. There are more ways to probe deeper depths than just digging a hole in the ground.

  45. Iron Diamond? by MrKaos · · Score: 1
    I'm a long way off being a geologist but is it possible that the pressure on the solid core is so great that it becomes some state anagolous to a carbon diamond - but for Iron, hence an Iron Diamond. It's strange to think of the molten Iron around the solid core as a lubricant for the rest of the crust above and the core below it but maybe that's what it takes to apply that pressure and create that state of Iron Diamond.

    I don't know - I'm just putting it out there and it's probably already been thought of, so maybe there are some geologists out there that can clue me in.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:Iron Diamond? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I'm a long way off being a geologist

      ... This is not an important issue, as your question is about crystallography, not geology. I'm not a crystallographer, but I did enough of it (up to reading X-ray diffraction results for mineral identification, and quite a lot of symmetry work, also for mineral identification) to recognise which field your question applies to. (I am a geologist ; card-carrying, along with an uncut diamond. Diamond is a fascinating material and mineral - why do people ruin it by polishing away it's surface and cutting it into unnatural shapes?)

      but is it possible that the pressure on the solid core is so great that it becomes some state anagolous to a carbon diamond - but for Iron, hence an Iron Diamond.

      The well-known forms of carbon for the layman have a structure of linked "aromatic rings" - the carbon backbone of benzene, napthalene, anthracene etc, going up to arbitrarily large multi-ring structures, through the "PAH" or "PAC" messes (Poly-Aromatic (Hydro-)Carbon compounds ; terminologies vary ; also often described as "amorphous" in older work) to end up at "graphene" or in larger multi-layered masses, graphite. All with various, often large, amounts of disorder (asymptotically tending towards "amorphous"). That is actually quite an uncommon structure on the scale of the mineral kingdom. Diamond has a very different structure with all the carbon atoms interlinked into a 3-d mesh. Though often described as a "tetrahedral" structure, it's underlying symmetry is actually cubic (which is why the un-cut diamond in my pocket has the shape of an octahedron - the Platonic dual of a cube ; 8 tetrahedral subunits make up a cubic unit).

      Iron at surface temperatures and pressures has a cubic structure already (though with different bond types ; metallic, not covalent) ; it is already in a structure more similar to diamond than it is to graphite.

      To answer your question more accurately (even at my utilitarian level of knowledge of crystallography) would require you to have quite a lot more background understanding. A couple of weeks of first-year university study, spread between the Physics and Chemistry departments would be about enough. If you want more info, please feel free to contact me when you've done that. (Meanwhile, I'd have to revise my crystallography!)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:Iron Diamond? by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      I was reading somewhere about gas giants exerting so much pressure on hydrogen that it turns into a metal and was wondering if there was some other state to iron if it is under so much pressure and heat that it doesn't melt but ends up in some sort of "super-state". So from what you are explaining Iron is already in a state that is similar to diamond. Now I start to think about the states of the material, wondering if diamond can melt or if Iron can be a gas, it might be a little much for a sunday afternoon with a hangover.

      One of my siblings has a Physics degree, so I'll ask next time I see him. Thanks for putting me in the right direction.

      why do people ruin it by polishing away it's surface and cutting it into unnatural shapes?

      Women. They love shiney. Diamond is ++shiney++, the shiniest of the shiney. I looked up the octahedron, a fascinating shape and, what builds on it - amazing.

      I appreciate the explanation, I suppose the area I'm delving into is the subject of some pretty intense research that sounds completely fascinating enough to want to understand more. Thank you.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:Iron Diamond? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Women. They love shiney. Diamond is ++shiney++, the shiniest of the shiney.

      The main component of "shininess" is the refractive index of your material. Diamond has a high R.I., but not the highest. Amongst the common minerals (working definition of "common" : included as a mineral in Deer, Howie and Zussmann's "Introduction to the Rock-forming Minerals", which is the UK geologist's mineralogy bible. Needless to say, the rarest minerals in the book are deerite, howieite and zussmanite. I believe there is also a danaite to keep the Transpondians happy. My DH&Z is teetering on the brink of disintegration, but is thick with scribbled notes.), rutile (titanium dioxide; the basis of almost the whole white paint industry because of this high R.I.) is moderately higher, and mossianite is considerably higher. You'll probably never see natural mossianite (artificial silicon carbide on the other hand - I have several kilos in my garage), but you'll often see crystals of rutile on sale but they'll normally be embedded in large quartz crystals ; within those crystals, you can't see into the rutile because of it's high R.I. totally reflecting light at the quartz-rutile interface.

      The other major component of "shiny" is "dispersion" - the difference in refractive index for different frequencies of light. That is what gives diamond it's "fire". It's not a very useful property for identification, because it doesn't vary much, so it's hard to find it tabulated. I'd have to go through my DH&Z to come up with a list, but it's a pretty safe bet that diamond is up at the top - that is the most unusual characteristic of diamond, by a considerable degree.

      But who cares about "shiny" - women excepted? Diamonds are fascinating. They can literally give us a time capsule into the early history of the deep interior of the Earth. The one in my pocket (of course I keep an uncut diamond in my wallet. Who wouldn't?) could well be 3 billion years old, and they commonly contain fragments of their surroundings at the time of their formation, encased in a literally diamond-hard, extraordinarily impermeable, shell which can preserve the mineral contents against the subsequent gigayears of nature's insults to eventually provide us with geothermobarometry and chemistry of the interior of the Earth. Literally nothing else on Earth can do that. And jewellers have the temerity to call these "flaws"? Fools!

      One of my siblings has a Physics degree, so I'll ask next time I see him

      You're heading towards a minefield of cutting-edge (diamond-edged!?) materials science and the murky borderlands of physics, chemistry and quantum theory calculation. And you're rushing in there riding a pogo stick. This could be an interesting ride!

      I'll get popcorn ; don't let me discourage you for a second. Once I've got my popcorn.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  46. Re:More guesswork? by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Don't you mean "the number one problem in US education, parents who have to both work 12 hours a day leaving them no time to raise their children"?. Personally I've only been a successful parent due to having an order of magnitude cheaper housing compared to the going rate, thank deity.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  47. Re:So, what impact to "age of the earth" calculati by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

    I am no physicist, so, what impact does this have on the estimated age of the earth?

    None.

    Around half of the Earth's internal energy is from radiogenic sources (potassium, uranium and thorium decaying in the interior) and about half is the heat of accretion (landing comets and asteroids on the surface supplies a lot of energy). A relatively small (20%) change in estimated internal temperature doesn't affect the estimate of the age of the Earth, because the age of the Earth is not estimated from it's temperature.

    In the 1860s, estimates of the age of the Earth were made based on ideas about it's internal temperature. But these did not include the effect of radioactive decay, which wasn't discovered until the late 1890s, and wasn't well understood until the 1930s. Inevitably they were wildly wrong - like estimating how long your savings will last without including your wife's clothes buying in the calculation.

    By that time (the 1930s), radiogenic dating by comparison of parent-daughter radioisotope sets was yielding estimates for the age of mineral specimens of up to 2 billion years. As the technology of measurement has improved, a wider range of minerals and smaller samples have become available to dating technologies. Holmes' 1930s work needed kilogrammes of sample, hence he used lead minerals from lead mines ; modern dating can use nanogramme or picogramme samples - literally microscopic - and so a much wider range of rocks and minerals can be examined. So, within the era of radiogenic dating, the estimated age of the Earth has changed from "greater than 2 billion years" (using the lead minerals which cannot be the original material of the Earth, being embedded within other rocks which could not be dated at that time) to "greater than 4.1 billion years" (for microscopic re-cycled grains of the mineral zircon found in the Jack Hills metamorphosed water-interacted sediments of central Australia). Which is not a huge change, given the changes in capability of measurement.

    Please note : these are the ages of minerals formed on the Earth's surface ; therefore they must be younger than the Earth as a whole.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  48. Re:I call BS by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Isn't dirt just macerated turtle, ultimately?

    Excepting the troll's teeth.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  49. What the geochemistry tells us. by bbsalem · · Score: 2

    The Phase Equilibria do matter, Much of geophysics is based on lab experiments that try to match conditions at model temperatures and pressures. The result appears to be that the phase boundary for metal alloys as solid vs. liquid at the pressures in the earth's core allows for a higher temperature at the modeled pressure. This has significance in modeling the thernal history of the core. Eventually the core will freeze when the temperature drops so the molten phases freeze. That will have dire consequences for us on the surface for the geomangnetic dynamo that makes the magnetic field that protects life as we know it from high-energy particles from the sun and cosmos will collapse. It prevents the solar wind from eroding away our atmosphere, for example, compounding the risk to life from high-energy radiation. The history of the core may be important to plate tectonics, which is essential to the history of life on Earth.

    Mars is probably lifeless today and lost what life it may have had, or it never had the chance to evolve into anything complex because its core froze too soon in its history. The solar wind has blown off its atmosphere and if it had any plate tectonics, it has long since shut down.

    It is the decay of radioactive isotopes that occur naturally in the material of the solar system that when collected together in the core of a planet heat it up and melt its interior allowing for processes like we see on earth. We own our very existence to these processes. Mars will tell us all about that.

  50. Brimstone vs. sulphur by tepples · · Score: 2

    Sulphur (however spelled, correctly or Americanly) hasn't been called "brimstone" since we have a scientifically useful concept of "element".

    True, but people familiar with the Bible only through pop-cultural osmosis might have heard of the expression "fire and brimstone" but not have actually read modern translations of Revelation that refer to "sulfur"/"sulphur".