| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
How Earth’s Core Formed: New Theory
Violent collisions between the growing Earth and other objects in the solar system generated significant amounts of iron vapor, according to a new study by LLNL scientist Richard Kraus and colleagues.
The results show that iron vaporizes easily during impact events, which forces planetary scientists to change how they think about the growth of planets and evolution of our solar system.
For planetary scientists, one of the most important and complex research areas is predicting how planets form and evolve to their current state. Generally speaking, planets form by a series of impacts, with the speed of the impacts being slow at first, a few miles per hour, but then faster as the planets grow larger, up to 100,000 miles per hour.
At the end stages of formation, when the impact speeds are high and the material conditions are extreme (high temperatures and pressures), planetary scientists don’t have great models for how to describe what happens to the colliding bodies.
“One major problem is how we model iron during impact events, as it is a major component of planets and its behavior is critical to how we understand planet formation,” Kraus said. “In particular, it is the fraction of that iron that is vaporized on impact that is not well understood.”
The scientists found that iron will vaporize at significantly lower impact speeds than previously thought. This translates to more iron being vaporized during Earth’s period of formation.
“This causes a shift in how we think about processes like the formation of Earth’s iron core,” Kraus said. “Rather than the iron in the colliding objects sinking down directly to the Earth’s growing core, the iron is vaporized and spread over the surface within a vapor plume. After cooling, the vapor would have condensed into an iron rain that mixed into the Earth’s still-molten mantle.
“The timing of Earth’s core formation can only be determined via chemical signatures in Earth’s mantle, a technique that requires assumptions about how well the iron is mixed. This new information actually changes our estimates for the timing of when Earth’s core was formed,” Kraus added.
Source: http://www.ineffableisland.com/2015/03/how-earths-core-formed-new-theory.html
Scientific Speculation.
Yup. Scientific speculation. Just like the “speculation” that allowed you to leave a comment. On a computer. Made via scientific speculation.
Precisely. A theory that can be examined, tested, and either rejected if evidence to the contrary is found or accepted as workable until something to contradict it comes along. The same kinds of theories that allowed us to build atomic bombs, computers, and medicines.
Joshua24:15 and The Rift are correct.
Except there is no science to it. Science says Earth doesn’t have a core.
Pressure waves don’t pass through the “core,” and they would if there was one.
And no, statistical analysis of noise is not the same as an observation. You can find anything you want to find in noise. My favorite example is the congressional JFK assassination investigators finding echoes of gunshots in radio static. And pinpointing the locations of gunmen.
Based on the assumption that if there’s noise where you want it to be, it came from the source you wanted it to come from.
The way the Earth — and the Moon — resonate after large quakes is more proof they are hollow.
The fact that the Earth was much smaller in the past is more proof. The continents – including continental shelf– fit together in the past.
The ocean basins were produced by expansion of the Earth. Expansion of the hollow center.
Oh and let’s not forget the Tamarack mine experiment. Cables nearly four-fifths of a mile long dangling down a mine shaft.
Contrary to expectation, they were further apart at the bottom of the shaft.
That’s science. An actual observation of “gravity” not pulling toward the center of the Earth but pulling sideways.
Doccus you were off topic altogether.
MrAnthony you have great faith that the science business has a scientific method to it.
And there is every evidence it does not.
And this article is a good example. It is babble, about something that doesn’t exist.
Its not science, its fantasy.