Talk:Earth's inner core/Archive 1

History
In the history section, is 100 degrees in Celcius or Fahrenheit? Sagittarian Milky Way 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This page needs updating and sources less than a decade old. Bluoxe (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)bluoxe

...another theory
I removed the recently added section which was referenced to the NU Journal of Discovery, "No second chance? Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?". A quote from the abstract: "Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion." Super fringe nonsense from a publish anything webjournal. Vsmith (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read, and in your case disprove, the theory before making a conclusion. As110
 * Please read reliable sources and explain how the NU Journal of Discovery passes the test. Vsmith (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot who we are dealing with here, the Arrogant Science Party. How do you propose the theory should be linked to this topic, so people can read about alternative views? As110


 * It isn't a theory. A theory is a scientifically acceptable body of principles that explain phenomena in a reasonable manner. People can read alternative views in thousands of blogs, pseudoscience pieces (books, movies, internet). They have no place in an encyclopedia that relies on reliable, verifiable sources. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your definition is incorrect. Einsteins theory of relativity wasn't accepted at all when he presented it, but it was still a quite valid theory. History is full of people rejected by people with your attitude... As110 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To be quite honest, were not as stupid as people back in the 15th century. We can actually prove these things with exploration and tests. They couldn't. The world CANNOT explode as a result of Global Warming. Its alot tougher than all these enviromentalists give it credit for, however we can't. It would take some extreme heat to cause any harm to the planet. Just because CO2 levels are at there highest in 20 odd million years doesn't mean the earths getting hotter. It means that we're making CO2. Before, there was nothing to add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Now theres us, and the increase is small but its still the highest in 20 million years. Unless we find a way to turn the air into a thick layer of greenhouse gases, the earth will never heat up more than 10 or so degrees, no matter how long you wait. Its physically impossible, as is the earth exploding. Don't bring crack-pot theories into the equation with unreliable sources, and get your facts straight :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metagraph (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As110, There's a theory that there's a secret underground civilization living in the Earth's Core. It's been in several books.  Please disprove this theory or I will include it.;-)  Then I suggest you read the Wiki on "Scientific theory" to find out what a theory actually IS.  The IDEA that "global warming" could heat the core enough to cause iron to "explode" (chemical explosion?  Deflagration?  Fusion?  Fission?  All of them impossible with iron) isn't even an hypothesis, isn't even pseudo-science.  It's just stupid.Mzmadmike (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What proof is there that the core is not frozen?
What proof is there that the core is not frozen? Is there some evidence that it is frozen? The core is frozen, at least in the sense that it is solid.

Or more importantly...what is keeping the core PIPING-HOT? Is it fusion?

Seems to me that pressure alone cannot cause heat. Pressure alone can cause heat--if you compress a gas, for example, it heats up. See Adiabatic heating.

Is the warm core theory based off of the mere existence of lava, wave travel speed...we can't even be sure what its made of?

I would argue that the idea that the core is frozen is more likely than the idea that it is warm because there is no heat source...and whatever warmth there was would have rapidly diminished thousands/millions of years ago.

I am no geologist, just a curious observer. Baffled by the core, and hoping someone can enlighten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.65.132 (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Tempurature
There is no tempureature range here. All you do is give the amount of preasure the inner core is at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisSS13 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

out of date
i sense this page is a little out of date, there is research from the 90's which sets a few of these things in stone. http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html 128.197.81.26 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

jk its up to date haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.197.66 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Feynman calculated that the core is now a few days younger than the surface due to relativistic effects. However, newer calculations show 2½ years difference. May be more relevant in Relativity than here, but here you go. TGCP (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is the Earth's core so hot? Radioactive material
I added the following text:
 * The core of the Earth is still hot because it contains radioactive uranium which was derived from a local supernova explosion before the earth formed. It is the heat produced by radioactive decay that has prevented the Earth's core from cooling and solidifying. Heat sources include gravitational energy released by the compression of the core, gravitational energy released by the rejection of light elements (probably S, O, or Si) at the inner core boundary as it grows, latent heat of crystallization at the inner core boundary, and radioactivity of K or U. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.16.225 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 November 2010

It seems likely that the earth's heat is largely residual, and is not significantly affected by fission or other radioactive decay. I've heard this a few times, though for direct sources I have this on hand: Observation of geo-neutrinos. Falkone (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced paragraph the 208... anon added back in November as it was copied from Planetary core without attribution. Vsmith (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be theory that within the inner core, there exists a five mile in diameter sphere of uranium which acts as a natural nuclear reactor. A source for this is Space Daily: The Nuclear Heart of the Earth. I'm not an earth scientist so don't really know how much weight to give this, but it might be worth mentioning.--Salix (talk): 13:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another article about this topic was published in Scientific American several years ago, stating that the theory had been confirmed. Is this consistent with the current scientific consensus? Jarble (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Put this page in to protected mode?
With the amount of vandalism in this article why not protect the article? Locking the page so only members can make edits would solve a lot of this nonsense. Xtraeme (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Core composition error
I've found an error in the Composition section: the section contains a mention to Francis Birch that is preceded by "Because it (the inner core Ed.) is less dense than pure iron"This is wrong according to USGS that inferred a inner core density of 12.8 ~ 13.1 $g/cm³$, much greater than pure iron (7.874 $g/cm³$) and nickel (8.908 $g/cm³$). The section also assume a presence of lighter than iron elements in the composition, also in conflict with the accepted theory of planetary formation and the iron catastrophe event that assume a sink of higher through lighter elements during the accretion of Earth. The Structure of Earth article also write: "Recent speculation suggests that the innermost part of the core is enriched in gold, platinum and other siderophile elements."

I've already corrected this error. Pippo Skaio (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Too hasty a correction I believe. This is why you need a reference, because, basically, although students should absolutely try to figure things out for themselves, they cannot out-geologize the trained geologists (usually). Typically these things happen in educational contexts and I hope you will be humble enough to take it in that context. You wanted to look the densities up yourself, so you did, but those densities were formulated at STP, standard temperature and pressure, which refer basically to the surface of the Earth. The densities change with temperature and pressure, and at those high values within the core no standard data exists. Studies have been done with diamond cell compression, and more with projectile impact, but today the mathematical geologist gets out pen and paper and performs higher-mathematical computations using quantum mechanics to get the most likely graph of density versus temp. and press. As it turns out, between 4000 and 8000 K the densities of iron and nickel are higher then the PREM values (which are cited in the article) by up to several percent. But, it does not stop there. The presence of one or more lighter elements must explain the density deficit, as it is called. There are basically two models, Oxygen and Silicon. Whichever it is, is lower in concentration by weight in the inner core, but higher in the outer core, resulting in a compositional current, which enhances any thermal liquid currents in the liquid outer core, helping to explain the persistence of the Geodynamo all these years. It must have been just invented in my lifetime because I heard nothing about it before I was born. In any case this Birch of whom you speak is not a crank to be exposed by Wikipedia geniuses but a founding father of modern mathematical geology. I know that modern articles are difficult to read, even sentence by sentence, but someone should try. Sorry, when you go to dump your spite on me I will not be logged in. Please update article.Branigan

New core structure theory
An article of 2008 of Xiaodong Song and postdoctoral research associate Xinlei Sun, Geologists at the University of Illinois, have confirmed the discovery of Earth’s inner, innermost core, and have created a three-dimensional model that describes the seismic anisotropy and texturing of iron crystals within the inner core. They found a distinct change in the inner core anisotropy, clearly marking the presence of an inner inner core with a diameter of about 1,180 kilometers, slightly less than half the diameter of the inner core. The layering of the core is interpreted as different texturing, or crystalline phase, of iron in the inner core, the researchers say.

I'm not so good in English to resemble the article and include into the section, maybe a native speaker can do it.Pippo Skaio (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Inner Core
Awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.186.195 (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoever was able to take up the gold, iron, platinum etc - not to mention the uranium! - would become master of the solar system. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.151.33 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)