Slashdot Mirror
Earth's Inner Core Is Solid, But Squishier Than Previously Thought (abc.net.au)
brindafella writes: Earthquakes are telling scientists more about the core of the Earth, specifically that it is squishier than previously thought (by about 2.5%.) Associate Professor Hrvoje Tkali & Thanh-Son Pham of the Australian National University have made sense of data collected by seismographs around the world to put new numbers on the density and pressure of the core. In Science magazine, they show that the pressure is 167.4 +/- 1.6 gigapascals (GPa) in Earth's center. For reference, standard atmospheric pressure is 101,325 pascals (Pa), so the center of the Earth is around 61 million times this pressure, but still 2.5% lower than expected.
For Americans: "101.325 pascals (Pa)"
Should it rather be 101,325 kPa ? ( = 101325 Pa) for the standard atmospheric pressure? This would make the inner pressure 'only' 1,6 million times higher than SAP.
...by Laura Petrie on "The Dick Van Dyke Show".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
15:50
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
This is not an area I know much about, but the numbers quoted seem screwy to me. How does 167.4 GPa (167,400,000,000 Pa) / 101,325 Pa (by my calculations 1,652,110) come out as 61,000,000?
San Jose, California, concentrated over The Grove apartments...
> Earth's Inner Core Is Solid, But Squishier Than Previously Thought So following the logic, is should say: "Earth's Inner Core Now Is Thought To Be Solid, But Squishier Than Previously Thought."
No can do, unless you have a hot tub from the 1980s?
If you don't understand the scientific method, perhaps you'd be better off on WND than on Slashdot.
How deep did Khoshoggi dig? Too deep.
That Nice!
So were do the heavy red hot things go wenn people drop them? /Pnic
What exactly is the SI unit of squishiness anyway?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Even the trolls here suck now. Rob Malda went from what used to be a great site to talking about baseball and basketball. Someone, please take me back to 1999.
*** WARNING ***
Don't click that link.
Scientific articles like this saying without a doubt earths core is squishy because scientist say it is make people doubt the value of vaccines. After all someone might doubt the ability of these omicient scientist to know for sure that the core of the earth is squishy.
I am a big believer in the absolute infallible omnipotent power of scientist, so i now accept the fact that vaccines are good and the core is squishy. If scientist tell me tomorrow the core is rmade of silly putty i will accept thos new scientific facts because i believe in science. However for the unwashed racist southern masses who do not accept the infallible power of science, a better technique might be to lead with the reasons why sientist now believe the core is squishy.
If you want to win hearts and minds it is best to give explanations. No you should not expect people to read the article. People read headlines. If the headline gives a skwed versions of science that is what they will accept.
Fifety-nine years ago the headline would have been written something like this:
`Dr Hrvoje Tkali and PhD Scholar Than-Son Phm have published an article that describes the use coorelation techniques from seismic sensors to determine that the earths core is likely solid with a high coefficient of elasticity`
This is entirely differnt from saying Scientis have discovered the planets core js squishy
Or were you just trying to be funny?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
What is Winter Sunlight?
He sends them a powerful delusion.
What is Winter Sunlight?
What does squishy mean? That the earths core is compressible or that it is less viscous than thought? The article seems to think compressible.
Sounds like scientists have thought of a way to keep their theory alive and this is not the first time they have used this "fudge factor" technique. Just to mention a few other "new" elements added to theories recently as fudge factor elements that keep theories alive:
Black Holes - Gravitational theory and measurements of the visible stellar systems don't result in the working model of what is known about galaxies.
Dark Matter - Gravitational theory and measurements of the visible universe don't result in the working model of what is known about systems of galaxies.
Dark Energy - Gravitational theory and measurements of the visible universe don't result in the working model of what is known about systems of galaxies.
And now: the center of the Earth is in a non-liquid type of compressible pseudo-liquid/gas - all because measurements of the "visible universe" don't result in the working model of what is known about the planet earth.
The emerging pattern here is that the scientific community are ever willing to invent ever more non-scientific explanations involving invisible, dark, obscure un-measurable and fantastic elements and continue with their precious theories.
I guess the question becomes: Who cares? All we need is an education system that churns out minds willing to accept the spam while they continue to muddle away with their coveted derivatives until the next correction is needed.
Young's modulus is the 'compressibility' that, in combination with density, determines the speed of (and the refraction and reflection of) P-type sound waves.
Just as you can see the extra sparkle of a diamond next to a piece of glass, the refraction of seismic waves allows one to determine the elasticity and density of the medium through which the wave passes. It's hard, though, to figure out a full interior structure and composition of the planet, and this just means a new evaluation of that Young's modulus for a bit of solid thousands of kilometers underfoot, at pressures and temperatures that don't allow easy laboratory experiments.
So, outside the laboratory, you just wait for random earthquakes to make a lot of not-ultrasound picture fragments seen by seismometers near the antipodal points.
'Scientists have thought' isn't what happened here; the job of theorists to imagine a composition with mechanical properties to fit the new Young's modulus value is the thinking part, which happens next. The reported best-fit Young's modulus value is not thought, but observation. Ranting about 'thoughts' is just spin; it sounds less ridiculous than ranting against observations.
The reason we should care about this work, is that most of the planet we're standing on is under pressures higher than any bit of matter we can get a close look at. So is most of the matter in the solar system.
19%. Back to pushing crack for you.
If Airforce one was flying, that'd explain a 'yewwwwwge' part of that 2.5% :)
101325 Pa * 61 million = 6181 GPa. It is not 167 Gpa as written in the article...
"Black Holes - Gravitational theory and measurements of the visible stellar systems don't result in the working model of what is known about galaxies."
Not sure what you are talking about here. Looking at the orbits of the stars whipping around the center of the Milky Way (Sagittarius A*) indicates that there must be a very large mass there, but there is no light being emitted from that location with all the mass. Nothing but a black hole fits that description. In fact, the Event Horizon Telescope project is in the process of imaging the "shadow" of that black hole to see if it matches the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity.
As it regards dark matter and dark energy, they are admittedly place holders. But there are multiple lines of evidence for dark matter, just no direct detection yet (as in we haven't found a dark matter particle). Modified theories of gravity fail to explain observed properties of galaxy clusters as well as the characteristics of the CMBR, while dark matter does.