Unified Theory of Evolution - Page 4

rodin · #91 (**permalink**) 10-September-2008, 01:05 PM

Please excuse if I break some BAUT by-law but I have been reading the previous thread on Expanding Earth. (Neal's science is wrong, but his observations of spreading on Earth and many other solar objects is excellent)

On response echoes my own thoughts and I quote

Quote:

...since you claim then that some land parts, which are now on totally different continents, would have lied close to each other, and would have need to have similar features. Same deposits of material, same magnetic field orientation for rocks that are same age, etc.
In the pangea model, these parts had not been connected and would not need to show of similar features.
So the existence or absence of such features would be good material that could either falsify or support your theory.

NEAL ADAMS expanding Earth model

May I ask are there any studies done on this?

On the same thread the Neal Adams camp gets itself in knots because they have to deny subduction. But IMO subduction is real. Perhaps initiated by the shrinkage of the Earth. Magma convection currents are logical also.

One feature of the spreading is the observation it is more on larger bodies. This prompted Neal's group to postulate exponential expansion, which lead them o6n a wild goose chase for esoteric matter creation (not that ordi6nary matter is not esoteric in itself

.) In fact producing hydrogen in a nuclear-type reaction explains this distribution since on smaller bodies more H is lost to space due to lower gravity. On the other hand larger bodies retain this hydrogen. Jupiter atmosphere is mostly Hydrogen as is Saturn's. Of course you ca6n argue that the Gas Giants always had a H/He atmosphere and perhaps they did.

Of note is that the spreading is not accompanied by evidence of subduction on smaller spheres, suggesting no shrinkage and/or less active cores. Unsurprising, as smaller bodies will cool quicker and lose hydrogen faster.

I was intrigued by my discovery of micro black holes

Quote:

In theory, a black hole can have any size or mass above the Planck mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

My point is - since black holes of any size are theoretically possible, could they in fact be the seeds of gravitational accretion? The bigger the hole the bigger the star or planet? And is it possible that black holes or neutron 'clumps' are gradually turned into hydrogen by neutrino capture?

thomheg · #92 (**permalink**) 10-September-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodin

Please excuse if I break some BAUT by-law but I have been reading the previous thread on Expanding Earth. (Neal's science is wrong, but his observations of spreading on Earth and many other solar objects is excellent)

The theory of expanding earth is something, that I have supported earlier, too. In fact I was influenced by Neill Adams videos. But let me explain, why I've looked at them.
It goes like this:
If we start from relativity and try to connect it to quantum-mechanics, we first have to make spacetime three-dimensional, because our observed world is three-dimensional. String-theory can't possibly be true, because we don't experience ten (or more) dimensions. This is so, because the term 'dimension' refers to various things, but one could say dimensions are the possible number of degrees of freedom. Since with any dimension we add a lot of degrees of freedom, ten dimensions are not possible. (to any degree of freedom there has to be an observed phenomenon in nature)
Imagine symmetry. Our observed world is symmetric. Makes no much difference, if we move back or forth, but it makes a difference, if we move up or down. Spacetime is antisymmetrric and space isn't. How put that together?
Imagine everything to turn left in spacelike direction. Where that is, depends on where you point to. This generates a three dimensional pattern and we're a part of that. We would certainly experience the world from our own state of being. This should be a world, wherever we go and how fast. This is the essence of relativity. There is no such thing as absolute space and where ever we go, your observation will be based on our own state of being. (Space is a relative observation, relative to ourselfs).
That is in fact counter-intuitive, but it is a proven (!) fact.
Now antisymmetry makes everything of opposite sign, if you change the direction. In spacetime-diagrams we could say; left is negative and right is positive (or any other duality names). As a matter of fact our world is not two dimensional but three dimensional and we must extend duality to triality. With such a model it is possible to model particles, just out of 'directions' of antisymmetry. It is pretty counter-intuitive, this is why I can just ask you to try that yourself. This leads to a vortex model, if we switch from spacetime view to real space.
After being there, it is easy to think the earth could expand, because the model doesn't require particles to move inside the earth. If the 'particle concept' doesn't hold, we would have to think in different terms. The particle concept is a corner stone of modern science and to abandon it, is next to impossible. But - that is my personal point of view - we have to.

TH

Hornblower · #93 (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

The theory of expanding earth is something, that I have supported earlier, too. In fact I was influenced by Neill Adams videos. But let me explain, why I've looked at them.
I'm not a physicist. In fact I ran a bar. That is a difficult business in Berlin and I got a lot of worries, that kept me awake many nights. This led to a deviation to some kind of use for that time and I started to develop an idea I had earlier. It was just a kind of hobby and had no porpoise at all. It goes like this:
If we start from relativity and try to connect it to quantum-mechanics, we first have to make spacetime three-dimensional, because our observed world is three-dimensional. I said, string-theory can't possibly be true, because we don't experience ten (or more) dimensions. This is so, because the term 'dimension' refers to various topics, but one could say dimensions are the possible numbers of degrees of freedom. Since with any dimension we add a lot of degrees of freedom, ten dimensions are absolutely not possible.
For some reasons I stumbled over quaternions and that worked. You must try it yourself, to make you convinced. It is quite easy:
Imagine symmetry. Our observed world is symmetric. Makes no much difference, if we move back or forth, but it makes a difference, if we move up or down. Spacetime is antisymmetrric and space isn't. How put that together?
Imagine everything to turn left if it goes through space and imagine being a part of that -well- patterns. You would certainly experience the world from your own state of being. This should be a world, wherever you go and how fast. This is the essence of relativity. There is no such thing as absolute space and where ever you go, your observation will be based on your own state of being.
That is in fact counter-intuitive, but it is a proven(!) fact.
Now antisymmetry makes everything of opposite sign, if you change the direction. In spacetime-diagrams we could say; left is negative and right is positive (or any other duality names). As a matter of fact our world is not two dimensional but three dimensional and we must extend duality to triality. With such a model it is possible to model particles, just out of 'directions' of antisymmetry. It is pretty counter-intuitive, this is why I can just ask you to try that yourself.
Being there, it is easy to think the earth could expand. If the 'particle concept' doesn't hold, we would have to think in different terms. The particle concept is a corner stone of modern science and to abandon it, is next to impossible. But - that is my personal point of view - we have to.

TH

If anyone knows what he is saying, please decipher it for me. My feeble brain is going nowhere fast.

Neverfly · #94 (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower

If anyone knows what he is saying, please decipher it for me. My feeble brain is going nowhere fast.

He mentions that physics is a fun distraction for him.

He tells his occupation- which incidentally- has raised my respect for Thomheg a wee bit.

He goes on to talk about the GUT- trying to unify Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. He rejects String Theory because it has 26 dimensions, 11 ( I think) of which are curled up into a little ball or something.
Anyway- He muses that more than Ten Dimensions is impossible for no other reason than ummm... Cuz he doesn't like it.

[Heck, I don't like it much either.

I like String Theory because it's fun to play with, but I don't like String Theory. <shrug>]

He then gets into antisymmetry and ummm...
He says some stuff about how it doesn't really make sense. Somehow.

Then he goes on to say that if the par....

You know what?
No.
I can't decipher it. Sorry.

pzkpfw · #95 (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 01:10 AM

If you can't have a porpoise, try a goldfish.

Neverfly · #96 (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 02:07 AM

Actually, it isn't really a linguistic problem, I think.

I mean, I'm the ignorant one. I'm fluent in only One language...

It's that Thomheg is inventing physics as he goes and giving it minor support with incidental knowledge that he's picked up in books or off of websites.

This is part of my frustration with Thomheg and why I've essentially quit bothering trying to respond to his posts:

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

thomheg · #97 (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower

If anyone knows what he is saying, please decipher it for me. My feeble brain is going nowhere fast.

What I want to say is that the idea of eternal particles moving through an absolute space is wrong, because relativity requires spacetime to be observed and that observation generates space as we know it.
It is a bit like an aether or a perfect fluid. But aether would be wrong, since that is stuff in space. Relativity requires space to be dependent on the observer and on its movement. We could imagine spacetime of GR to be that what we observe. Now that space needs a structure. We know a lot from electrodynamics and relativity. Spacetime is a kind of space, too, with weired features. Mainly it is multiplicative and imaginary.

Fortis · #98 (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

What I want to say is that the idea of eternal particles moving through an absolute space is wrong, because relativity requires spacetime to be observed and that observation generates space as we know it.
It is a bit like an aether or a perfect fluid. But aether would be wrong, since that is stuff in space. Relativity requires space to be dependent on the observer and on its movement. We could imagine spacetime of GR to be that what we observe. Now that space needs a structure. We know a lot from electrodynamics and relativity. Spacetime is a kind of space, too, with weired features. Mainly it is multiplicative and imaginary.

AT does not require spacetime to be observed. Where did you get this strange idea?

thomheg · #99 (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

AT does not require spacetime to be observed. Where did you get this strange idea?

We observe something. That is certainly a valid statement. What is that?
Stuff in space?? We see it that way, but the term 'space' is ill defined. What actually do we call space? We can measure distances and angles, that creates geometry and that space. Now we observe that kind of space to be curved, i.e. near the sun. Here is we concentrate on the fact, that space could be curved.
Why could space be curved? Well- it's a definition: space is empty, has a geometry and light moves with c. Straight lines could be curved by masses nearby.
Now we have to find out, what system could have such a behavior. In fact we know already, because GR calls it spacetime. So our observations are based on whatever that is. We don't know, what that actually is, but we are sure, our understanding of space and time must have a foundation in spacetime, because otherwise GR wouldn't work.
Are there any hints, that we observe anything else? Particles for examples or fields or whatever? I would say no, we don't, because all kinds of things including particles and fields could be modeled that way.
Now back to the expanding earth. It would violate, what I call the particle concept: tiny entities, that join together, build atoms and these all other things, that move through space and time, driven by invisible fields.
The growing earth is not compatible with this concept. A growing earth would rule out the particle concept and we would have to find something totally different to explain our observations. Why? The earth is growing from within (if growing) and that is a place a particle could not reach. Along with the growth we could not keep a number of conservation laws. This is quite a thing and would be at least interesting to research.

LotusExcelle · #**100** (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 11:02 AM

I agree that the growing earth concept is outright bunk - but your reasoning is quite flawed.

First of all space is *not* empty. We'll start with that one as its 6AM and I really don't want to get into it more right now.

thomheg · #**101** (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

It's that Thomheg is inventing physics as he goes and giving it minor support with incidental knowledge that he's picked up in books or off of websites.

I wanted to show an idea to those who's concern that would be. It's like Neill Adams: he said, this made sense to me. As a reply he got nasty reactions for forty years. Now we could regard him as kind of expert in this field. The only thing he asks for is to think about that idea seriously. It might be right or it might be wrong. Who knows? But we won't find out without a try. What else could he say than he's a writer and drawer of comics. Why on earth is he responsible for a new model about how matter is created or why? So why ask him?
You could ask me, since I had an idea, too, that I tried to hand over to those, who should take care. Nobody wanted, this is why I proceed on my own.

Fortis · #**102** (**permalink**) 11-September-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

We observe something. That is certainly a valid statement. What is that?
Stuff in space?? We see it that way, but the term 'space' is ill defined. What actually do we call space? We can measure distances and angles, that creates geometry and that space. Now we observe that kind of space to be curved, i.e. near the sun. Here is we concentrate on the fact, that space could be curved.
Why could space be curved? Well- it's a definition: space is empty, has a geometry and light moves with c. Straight lines could be curved by masses nearby.
Now we have to find out, what system could have such a behavior. In fact we know already, because GR calls it spacetime. So our observations are based on whatever that is. We don't know, what that actually is, but we are sure, our understanding of space and time must have a foundation in spacetime, because otherwise GR wouldn't work.
Are there any hints, that we observe anything else? Particles for examples or fields or whatever? I would say no, we don't, because all kinds of things including particles and fields could be modeled that way.
Now back to the expanding earth. It would violate, what I call the particle concept: tiny entities, that join together, build atoms and these all other things, that move through space and time, driven by invisible fields.
The growing earth is not compatible with this concept. A growing earth would rule out the particle concept and we would have to find something totally different to explain our observations. Why? The earth is growing from within (if growing) and that is a place a particle could not reach. Along with the growth we could not keep a number of conservation laws. This is quite a thing and would be at least interesting to research.

No. Still can't see where it is required that SR needs observers for spacetime to exist. Are you really claiming that in the absence of an observer, spacetime would simply disappear? This doesn't form part of any SR that I am familiar with.

thomheg · #**103** (**permalink**) 12-September-2008, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

No. Still can't see where it is required that SR needs observers for spacetime to exist. Are you really claiming that in the absence of an observer, spacetime would simply disappear? This doesn't form part of any SR that I am familiar with.

Somehow I mean the opposite. Our observation is based on that space GR calls spacetime.
If we observe something, than our observation is based on our own state of being. One could be here or there, but is always somewhere. Same with a thing, a machine or a particle. Now we could attach reference frames to all kinds of things and connect these via SRT.
Quaternions are a possible way to model spacetime. Their complex multiplication is antisymmetric. Antisymmetry means, we could define a direction to a circle. So a circle, or anything else is pointing always somewhere. The directions we could connect by complex multiplication. This is a simple model, but it could generate very complicated three dimensional patterns, that move in a timelike manner.
If we let these pointing vectors point into the direction of time, we couldn't see the circles. What is a behavior of material bodies. But we could turn it to the side a bit and would see the circle and experience that as a wave, because then the circle cuts through a timelike hypersheet.

Occam · #**104** (**permalink**) 12-September-2008, 01:08 AM

This idea is idiotic. Continental drift is already a viable theory and it can demonstrated to be still occurring. To introduce an entirely new theory, when the premise at its core - that of a growing planet - has absolutely no scientific precedence, is an act of profound stupidity. To my mind, all it really demonstrates is that the proponents of this idea cannot understand anything more complicated than a balloon as a concept.

Perhaps - and this is just my theory - perhaps this is why Neal Adams is a writer of comic books and not a geologist. As flakey as "paranormal investigators" are, even they do not use Casper The Friendly Ghost as a reference work. Just a thought.

Fortis · #**105** (**permalink**) 12-September-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomheg

Somehow I mean the opposite. Our observation is based on that space GR calls spacetime.
If we observe something, than our observation is based on our own state of being. One could be here or there, but is always somewhere. Same with a thing, a machine or a particle. Now we could attach reference frames to all kinds of things and connect these via SRT.
Quaternions are a possible way to model spacetime. Their complex multiplication is antisymmetric. Antisymmetry means, we could define a direction to a circle. So a circle, or anything else is pointing always somewhere. The directions we could connect by complex multiplication. This is a simple model, but it could generate very complicated three dimensional patterns, that move in a timelike manner.
If we let these pointing vectors point into the direction of time, we couldn't see the circles. What is a behavior of material bodies. But we could turn it to the side a bit and would see the circle and experience that as a wave, because then the circle cuts through a timelike hypersheet.

Just to be clear, are you now saying that the coordinatisation of space time is a human construct, and that physics knows nothing of coordinate systems? If so, then I think that we would all agree. Try reading MTW, which uses this view to motivate its use of tensors, etc.

novaderrik · #**106** (**permalink**) 12-September-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

Just to be clear, are you now saying that the coordinatisation of space time is a human construct, and that physics knows nothing of coordinate systems? If so, then I think that we would all agree. Try reading MTW, which uses this view to motivate its use of tensors, etc.

is it kind of like how we use inches, feet, and miles in the US and almost everyone else uses the metric system?
both systems get the same result, just using different mathematical formulas.
without humans here to invent those measuring systems, the earth still would exist and even be the same size.

rodin · #**107** (**permalink**) 12-September-2008, 11:45 PM

Several posters have discounted the idea of a variable-radius earth as ridiculous because there is an accepted Pangea paradigm for which there is evidence. But the evidence for Pangea also applies to a smaller Earth. And yes there are plates and tectonics. However how did they get there? I suggest the shrinking Earth is or was the prime driver of subduction.

Certain features of a smaller > larger > present Earth otherwise hard to account for are explained 5by my idea.

These are primarily

Why all the old continents fit together to form a sphere (smaller)

Why giantism flourished on Earth (larger)

In order to conserve angular momentum the smaller Earth must have had shorter days, and the larger Earth longer.

Orbit would be unchanged, even if some mass was lost as Hydrogen

Now, is there any evidence that refutes what I suggest has happened?

Quote:

This idea is idiotic.

Is not a deal breaker... but if there is one I will concede defeat

PS

I suspect at the root of all this is the reversible reaction n+v=p+e and that High Temp/Pressure and possibly Fe catalyst pushes the equilibrium to the left and supplies activation energy. Whereas, at the surface of the Earth with lower temp and pressure and density neutron decay is observed with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes.

rodin · #**108** (**permalink**) 12-September-2008, 11:47 PM

Credible (tested) Hydrogen Earth Theory

Quote:

The Hydridic Earth theory is a theory proposed in 1968 by Soviet geologist Vladimir Larin. The theory contradicts the generally accepted views on the Structure of the Earth. The theory makes certain predictions that can be falsified or proven through experiments.

Starting with the first principles, Dr. Larin proposed an explanation for the observed distribution of elements throughout the Solar system. Solar wind in the primordial system pushed elements away from the center. The elements with lower ionization potentials were trapped by the Sun's magnetic field and held closer to the sun, the elements with higher ionization potentials were pushed to the outer fringes. Assuming that the primordial abundance of the elements was similar to the current composition of the sun, the scheme accounts for the present rocky and metallic inner planets and gaseous outer planets.

The described distribution scheme suggested that Earth must contain orders of magnitude more hydrogen than actually observed. To account for it, Dr. Larin made the most controversial suggestion of metallic composition for the middle and lower mantles in the form of metal hydrides. He suggested that the silicate-oxide composition is confined to the upper mantle and crust primarily.

The theory made some predictions that were later found to be correct, such as predicting metal particles in Siberian lava fields. It can also naturally explain hydrogen venting from the ocean floor, and answer some questions in the isotope dating of the Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and U-Pb systems.

The theory also makes a prediction that, if proven correct, may have the most profound implications for energy production and a hydrogen economy. There are a few places on Earth where mantle comes sufficiently close (5-8km) to the surface to make drilling practical. Such a well could be used for "mining" hydrogen, much like mining for natural gas or oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydridic_Earth_theory

rodin · #**109** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 12:15 AM

I found this user group and am now arguing with Neal Adams FOR subduction

Quote:

scroll down to the relevant map

http://www.nealadams.com/challenge.html

The mid Pacific ridge all but disappears under North America

Looking again at the map - there are several points where mid-oceanic
ridges impinge on land (red veins). Think about it. HOW COME? With
pure expansion all red should be central to sea areas. I suggest Neal
does a Shrinking Earth model based on the areas where red veins
disappear and opening Earth further until red veins are central to all
ocean areas. Then you have the planet the dinosaurs walked on. A
slower larger thinner atmosphere planet where giant dragonflies could
survive

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/e...th/message/462

Occam · #**110** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 03:27 AM

Oh, it's a shrinking Earth now, is it? One question:
In the growing Earth/shrinking Earth mindset, where does the mass come from/go to?

Really, the lack of understanding involved here is quite astonishing. It's like a return to the dark ages.

rodin · #**111** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occam

Oh, it's a shrinking Earth now, is it? One question:
In the growing Earth/shrinking Earth mindset, where does the mass come from/go to?

Really, the lack of understanding involved here is quite astonishing. It's like a return to the dark ages.

If you had studied the thread properly you would have seen that expansion then contraction was my proposal. Also where the mass came from and went. The exact mechanism still to be determined but essentially it is a nuclear reaction expanding collapsed/condensed matter into atoms thereby expanding volume but not mass. Later hydrogen and/or helium produced that did not compound with the mantle or atmospheric oxygen would evaporate into space and quickly from an enlarged planet with lower gravity. Hydrogen is still bubbling up and can still escape Earth's gravity into space

Neverfly · #**112** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodin

If you had studied the thread properly you would have seen that expansion then contraction was my proposal. Also where the mass came from and went. The exact mechanism still to be determined but essentially it is a nuclear reaction expanding collapsed/condensed matter into atoms thereby expanding volume but not mass. Later hydrogen and/or helium produced that did not compound with the mantle or atmospheric oxygen would evaporate into space and quickly from an enlarged planet with lower gravity. Hydrogen is still bubbling up and can still escape Earth's gravity into space

I have followed the whole thread, seen your explanations- and wondered why you propose that which directly is in contradiction with observation.

jsispat · #**113** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 08:25 AM

i have new theory of birth of earth which is totally different. pls have a look.
1. earth has biological growth only and it taken birth from its seed after germinating that seed in universe.
2. meteroids are seeds of planets out of very few can germinate in asteroids and out these asteroids very few can convert in big planets.the whole system is like a tree in forest.same our planet is in universe.
3. earth is growing like a tree throw biological process but it has bark also like a bark of tree but this bark is shrinking.the layer obove the mantle is bark of earth that is made of dead cells. it is part to whom scientiest say crust.
all living thing have crust and core that all planets also have.
4. i have lot of visual evidence that supports my theory.
Core Crust

http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_572lo.JPG

Asteroid and Plant

http://img44.imagevenue.com/img.php?...JPG&loc=loc731

Seeds and Meteorids

http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_366lo.JPG

Bark of Tree and Earth

http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?..._122_801lo.JPG

Volcanoes

http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php...122_1119lo.JPG

Neverfly · #**114** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 08:41 AM

Uh huh...

jsispat, this is a hijack and this is no theory. It's not even a hypothesis.
It barely qualifies as an idea.
It MIGHT be a notion. If it tries really hard.

Anyway, it's been debunked already- not like that was difficult to do...

rodin · #**115** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I have followed the whole thread, seen your explanations- and wondered why you propose that which directly is in contradiction with observation.

In contradiction with what observation exactly?

rodin · #**116** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Uh huh...

jsispat, this is a hijack and this is no theory. It's not even a hypothesis.
It barely qualifies as an idea.
It MIGHT be a notion. If it tries really hard.

Anyway, it's been debunked already- not like that was difficult to do...

Precisely. And thank you for following this thread Neverfly

rodin · #**117** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 09:36 AM

Evidence for a hydrogen-rich atmosphere in earlier Earth

Quote:

A new University of Colorado at Boulder study indicates Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet.

http://www.physorg.com/news3633.html

rodin · #**118** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodin

Evidence for a hydrogen-rich atmosphere in earlier Earth

http://www.physorg.com/news3633.html

Comment on "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere"

Quote:

Tian et al. (1) argued that Earth's early atmosphere contained ~30% H2, suggesting that the rate of hydrogen escape to space would be extremely low because the base of Earth's exosphere (or exobase) would be cold. They further reasoned that a hydrogen-rich atmosphere would synthesize organic molecules important for the origin of life, an idea that has previously been dismissed (2). Do these findings undermine research concerning meteorite or hydrothermal sources of prebiotic organics? I argue that the assumptions behind the cold exobase in the Tian et al. model (1) are too unrealistic for their exobase temperature to be relevant. Second, whether the exobase temperature affects the rate of hydrogen escape needs more careful consideration, bearing in mind that today's escape of hydrogen is predominantly nonthermal.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...5757/38a?rss=1

Seems there is evidence for an earlier hydrogen-rich atmosphere but no realistic mechanism to explain it. Until now

rodin · #**119** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 10:01 AM

And as for a hydrogen-rich core...

Quote:

Hydrogen Partitioning into Molten Iron at High Pressure: Implications for Earth's Core

Takuo Okuchi

Because of dissolution of lighter elements such as sulfur, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, Earth's outer core is about 10 percent less dense than molten iron at the relevant pressure and temperature conditions. To determine whether hydrogen can account for a major part of the density deficit and is therefore an important constituent in the molten iron outer core, the hydrogen concentration in molten iron was measured at 7.5 gigapascals. From these measurements, the metal-silicate melt partitioning coefficient of hydrogen was determined as a function of temperature. If the magma ocean of primordial Earth was hydrous, more than 95 mole percent of H2O in this ocean should have reacted with iron to form FeHx, and about 60 percent of the density deficit is reconciled by adding hydrogen to the core.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../278/5344/1781

Now if the above researchers are correct and much hydrogen is present in the core (the idea is taken seriously enough to get published) - how did it get there? Fractionation by gravity should have expelled H to the surface.

rodin · #**120** (**permalink**) 13-September-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodin

Comment on "A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...5757/38a?rss=1

Seems there is evidence for an earlier hydrogen-rich atmosphere but no realistic mechanism to explain it. Until now

I notice this tidbit from the above link

Quote:

The isotopic mass fractionation of atmospheric xenon is consistent with the idea that hydrogen escaped so strongly that it dragged even xenon, the heaviest gas in the atmosphere, to space (13, 14).

Escaped or was outgassed from the core during a nuclear phase transition?

Please note I am not definitively proposing a mechanism for generating hydrogen, merely suggesting a number of possible. These are

1) Hydrogen gets absorbed as FeHx where x is very large and under HTP e and p of H are absorbed as free entities. x may be dependent on gravity/energy of forming planet

2) High temp/pressure forces H > neutron in presence of Fe catalyst*

3) Planets form around collapsed matter seeds that subsequently expand to atoms (unlikely)

4) Planetary core is undergoing fission thereby creating volume but not mass as more atoms are created

5) Core was a dense plasma

I favour 1) and/or 2) since this can explain the sequence of appearances of small planets > large planets > stars with a single and simple mechanism

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A unified theory of everything! Is it really possible?	Fadingstar	Science and Technology	29	14-July-2008 12:09 AM
Evolution: still a theory?	wake	Science and Technology	22	22-January-2008 04:49 PM
CPH-Theory	cph-theory	Against the Mainstream	21	23-May-2006 03:15 PM
MY THEORY	brankolesinger	Against the Mainstream	8	22-March-2005 09:04 AM
An Open Letter to Closed Minds (Big Bang)	EMF	Against the Mainstream	94	03-May-2004 12:45 AM