Why is the Earths core warm

Remember that viewed from space that the earth is mostly cloud covered. Heat from the earth's interior is absorbed by life as well and used to convert liquid water to vapor via the transpiration of plants. The recondensation and precipitaion acts to move heat to the atmosphere for loss to space. Air modulated the temperature and when we talk about CO2 holding heat it can, look to Venus for the results (probably because the ocean and resulting Water Cycle as we have on earth is non-existent). Venus' uncontrolled greenhouse effect is not in check due to the fact that ocean heat at the poles on earth (from the sun and interior) causes the reuptake of Carbon from the air to the seafloor (coal in a billion years). We musn't forget the thermodynamic equillibrium of the Water Cycle when asking and answering the question, "Where did the heat come from and where does it go?"

Mark

Mark Vitrone

Hi Mark, Your post is about what is stated in books about this detail of Earth's systems. The thing is even with all these extra factors the Earth and Venus radiate as black bodies. As to why Venus is so hot at its surface you need to consider the density of its atmosphere is somewhere near 100 times Earth's atmosphere. That fact should also clearly show Venus absorbs a lot less solar energy than Earth does. So, given that very little sun light reaches the surface of Venus it seems reasonable the insolating value of its dense atmosphere holds heat that is upwelling from the mantle of Venus. This is not a view anyone holds as far as I know but then at one time no one understood plate tectonics. In any case the flux from the interior of both bodies is grossly underestimated, disreguarded and avoided in standard models.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i> 10 july '06 20:39
No body asked me but in my opinion...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not true Jim, this forum exists to solicit opinions as long as they, (the opinions) adhere to the guidelines as provided.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Earth is older than 4.6 billion years...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would say that 4.6 b is a reasonably educated estimate but I think you should have elaborated, (how much older and why?)
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...and so hot because of unknown reactions within its interior.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"unknown" Unknown could also mean that the models are correct, I lean toward gravity and friction as the source of the internal heat.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree there are a lot of silly theories in science and else where.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Silly theories are like opinions, everybody has one.[] I have a few myself... like the blue sky, my theory is, the sky is blue because the background space is blue, my only reasoning is that space has an atmosphere, at least out past the moon, how silly is that? The theories I tend to ignore have phrases like "free energy" or "in the beginning everything was contained in a singularity". However, since this web site promotes the MM theory, (which I do not consider silly) I do think it would be courteous of you to either include or exclude the MM in you expression of what you consider is a silly theory.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the most silly is the belief in science that models speak the truth about nature.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If nothing else Jim, they speak the truth about the “nature of the theory”.
thebobgy

Hi thebobgy, You have lots of good points here. As to why I think the Earth is a lot older than 4.6by its because of the way that number was established from half-life data and because I don't have any faith in the fusion model. As for MM and any other model and even the fusion model I have no problem with any of them as models. What bugs me is how people project real processes into any of the models. Its like you can have a model jet plane but you can't go anywhere with it-yahno.

About gravity being the cause of the hot mantle. Do you think (since the Earth is a body falling at a rate of ~3mm/sec due to the sun's gravity) the sun's gravity field generates energy in the interior of planets and moons? Do falling bodies gain energy? And if they do how much energy?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i> 13 Jul 2006 : 18:06
<br />About gravity being the cause of the hot mantle. Do you think (since the Earth is a body falling at a rate of ~3mm/sec due to the sun's gravity) the sun's gravity field generates energy in the interior of planets and moons? Do falling bodies gain energy? And if they do how much energy?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Jim, second question first; “Do falling bodies gain energy?” No! Not in my opinion, nor do they loose energy unless the causation of their motion “falling” is self induced. If gravity disbursed energy, (which would be the cause of any energy gain) in its effect it would have been stronger in the past and be dissipating in the future and I see no evidence of that happening, however, although I do not discount the possibility I do minimize the probability.

As to the first question; “Do you think (since the Earth is a body falling at a rate of ~3mm/sec due to the sun's gravity) the sun's gravity field generates energy in the interior of planets and moons?” No! Not in my opinion. The Sun radiates heat energy into the interior of planets and moons but how far in I can’t venture a guess but I am sure not to their cores. Our moon is a good example. It shows signs of past volcanic activity that has long ago ceased. There is still a fair amount of heat there caused by its gravity but because their is no rotational friction the heat no longer raises to the point of volcanic eruption.

I think my answers render the third question moot.
thebobgy