Why is the Earths core warm

A body made of any material radiates the same wattage at the same temperature as any other body. The Earth radiates at an average temperature between 270 and 310 kelvin. If you use the lower temperature of 270 then Earth radiates about 50 watts per square meter more energy than it gets from the sun. At 300 kelvin Earth radiates about 250w/m^2 more energy than the sun provides. Where does that extra energy come from? The use of greenhouse theories does a good job of explaining all this but according to real laws the Earth radiates a lot more energy than the sun provides.

No Jim, only black bodies radiate that much energy. Most material in the universe is plasma, stars and hot gas, which may generally be black, but solids, such as comprise the crusts of rocky planets, are generally not black. Indeed, most crustal solids are a long way short of being black.

I use the term blackbody in the conventional manner; which is to say a body that radiates energy at a well known rate. There is no real body that is truely a blackbody but all bodied come close to the ideal blackbody. Look it up on any search engine and see for yourself what I mean by the term blackbody.

Jim, Under Radiation Laws at
electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/modules/m4/sources.htm

:"A blackbody is a body that absorbs all the radiation that falls onto it. It does not reflect any radiation. It reaches thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, and in thermal equilibrium emits exactly as much radiation it absorbs. It has emissivity = 1. Emissivity measures the fraction of radiative energy that is absorbed by the body." About halfway down

www.acreo.se/templates/Page____224.aspx

:"Planck's law is strictly valid only for ideal blackbodies . . . In the general case the emissivity is wavelength dependent. Objects with a less than unity and almost constant emissivity are named grey-bodies."

When one Googles on groups of phrases like "Planck Radiation Law" "infrared emissivity", the items that come up are often either meteorological or about infrared surveillance technology.

The meteorological items are often about the science and/or technology of measuring cloud emissivities, often much less than 1. Many of both sets of items show the clear atmospheric absorption spectrum, showing clear atmospheric emissivity less than 1 and so on.

So, while the Earth's crust is itself less than black, more or less grey, it is in effect coated by a more or less grey atmosphere containing more or less grey clouds.

New angle for consideration:

Have you considered that the earth's core acts in the same way as the plasma of stars? Stars grow over time, I think because their elements separate out by mass creating layers of differing charges. These layers are metallic in some cases, and may well act like plates that net the same effect Casimir published. In other words, plasma layers of opposite charges could be zones of zero point energy production, adding mass to the star by pulling energy
in from the aether and converting it into matter.

If this is happening in our core, then not only should we have over-unity heating in our core, but our planet should be increasing in girth as well. I checked on this and low and behold, GPS networks show we are growing at a rate of between two to four centimeters per year (as I recall, go here for one study in particular: [url] ray.tomes.biz/expand.html [/url]). It could be that our geophysical model regarding earthquakes is quite incomplete. Go here for a good treatment of the matter [url] www.aoi.com.au/bcw/FixedorExpandingEarth.htm [/url]


I consider myself a pragmatist; I'm willing to consider anything possible unless specifically excluded somehow. Our earth could have once been an ocean-less solid body that has been growing and expanding all her history. This would explain why our gravity as changed over time as well. That being said, I'd like to see a lot more consideration of plasma physics in production of zero point energy to confirm or denounce the idea that stars are fusion reactors instead of fission, or at the very least, both processes could be being carried out in different depths. Cold fusion research is coming into it's own in some ways (thanks to Eric Lerner in particular). I believe the answers I seek are coming soon. I just wonder, is anyone else thinking along this line of reasoning, that anyone here is aware of? What do you all think of this possibility?