Earth's Core Has Been Leaking for 2.5 Billion Years

[I AM]

Earth's Core Has Been Leaking for 2.5 Billion Years and Geologists Don't Know Why
July 18, 2019
https://www.livescience.com/65968-earth-leaky-core.html

https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-s-co ... s-of-years

[creator]

They don't really know anything about the core. They have theories. More likely the evidences they are finding are from the earth's crust, not the core. It's possible the core is hollow (which is also the biblical/scriptural theory).

[larsenb]

They don't really know anything about the core. They have theories. More likely the evidences they are finding are from the earth's crust, not the core. It's possible the core is hollow (which is also the biblical/scriptural theory).

And your idea of what it is to 'know' is what?

Theories of the composition of the layers of the earth are based mainly on assessment of how various types of seismic energy (basically sound energy: frequency/wavelength, type, intensity, attenuation) interact with these layers, and they even help define the layers. There is also heat-flow data, magnetic data, etc. More direct data comes from the assessment of the deepest rock layers known, and their seismic properties.

[GrandMasterB]

Just some more antichrist BS from the “scientific” community. The Lord describes how long it took to make the earth. He is the only one who doesn’t need a theory to explain to workings of planet earth as he is the one who created it. It definitely wasn’t billions of years ago.

[nightlight]

Sounds like exhaust..
noun
1.
waste gases or air expelled from an engine, turbine, or other machine in the course of its operation.
-----------

I'm sure it's made to do this.....so....

Of course.....that's if they're not completely wrong

Either way... I vote valve

[mes5464]

They don't really know anything about the core. They have theories. More likely the evidences they are finding are from the earth's crust, not the core. It's possible the core is hollow (which is also the biblical/scriptural theory).

I would be interested in knowing to what scriptures you are referring.

[creator]

They don't really know anything about the core. They have theories. More likely the evidences they are finding are from the earth's crust, not the core. It's possible the core is hollow (which is also the biblical/scriptural theory).

I would be interested in knowing to what scriptures you are referring.

From this post, for example: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=49553
on "Hollow Earth Theory and Scriptures"

Do I know the Hollow Earth theory is true? No. But it's just as valid a theory (if not more valid ) than scientists claiming what they think is in the core of the earth.

[DesertWonderer2]

They don't really know anything about the core. They have theories. More likely the evidences they are finding are from the earth's crust, not the core. It's possible the core is hollow (which is also the biblical/scriptural theory).

I would be interested in knowing to what scriptures you are referring.

From this post, for example: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=49553
on "Hollow Earth Theory and Scriptures"

Do I know the Hollow Earth theory is true? No. But it's just as valid a theory (if not more valid ) than scientists claiming what they think is in the core of the earth.

LOL not even close—but to be honest I can’t tell if you are being serious or if this is a joke.

[larsenb]

. . . . . Do I know the Hollow Earth theory is true? No. But it's just as valid a theory (if not more valid ) than scientists claiming what they think is in the core of the earth.

Unfortunately, you aren't going to get far with this assertion unless you can actually back it up w/evidence, logic and experiment, if possible. You need to understand why the theory was generated in the first place . . . . i.e., what the evidence for it is.

I'll be interested to see what you come up with.

[larsenb]

They don't really know anything about the core. They have theories. More likely the evidences they are finding are from the earth's crust, not the core. It's possible the core is hollow (which is also the biblical/scriptural theory).

I would be interested in knowing to what scriptures you are referring.

From this post, for example: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=49553
on "Hollow Earth Theory and Scriptures"

Do I know the Hollow Earth theory is true? No. But it's just as valid a theory (if not more valid ) than scientists claiming what they think is in the core of the earth.

LOL not even close—but to be honest I can’t tell if you are being serious or if this is a joke.

B. is probably trolling me, knowing I'm a geologist

[creator]

I'm not trolling. I don't have much trust in the so-called scientific community. Too many things are promoted as "truth" that remain just theories. I happen to believe in the theory of Hollow Earth more than I believe in those theories about the earth's core.

[larsenb]

I'm not trolling. I don't have much trust in the so-called scientific community. Too many things are promoted as "truth" that remain just theories. I happen to believe in the theory of Hollow Earth more than I believe in those theories about the earth's core.

Just a suggestion, but I think you would be well served to study the reasoning and evidence used by scientists for their model of how the earth is put together. Once you have done that, then see if you can state why their theory fails your test vs. the hypothesis of the hollow earth.

Just statements of belief don't contribute much, except paint you into a particular corner.

[brianj]

I'm not trolling. I don't have much trust in the so-called scientific community. Too many things are promoted as "truth" that remain just theories. I happen to believe in the theory of Hollow Earth more than I believe in those theories about the earth's core.

The so-called scientific community has theories that explain how the device you are using communicates with other devices so you can post your beliefs on this board.

You're welcome to prove me wrong. Start by defining theory, as used in the scientific community. Your "just theories" comment indicates you don't know the definition.

You can continue by explaining how p-waves, the compression waves in an earthquake, can travel straight through the middle of the planet, that core you don't believe in because you know the planet is hollow, so an earthquake can be measured on the opposite side of the planet. Any explanation will have to take into account the p-wave shadow zone, the fact that between about 100 degrees and 145 degrees around the planet those p-waves will not be detected. The so-called scientific community demonstrates that waves at a certain angle will pass through the core but waves at shallower angles will refract away from the core, and that waves passing through the core will reach the far side of the planet faster than waves could propagate along the crust.

[nightlight]

I'm not trolling. I don't have much trust in the so-called scientific community. Too many things are promoted as "truth" that remain just theories. I happen to believe in the theory of Hollow Earth more than I believe in those theories about the earth's core.

In other words, you are clueless and believe things without becoming informed about the principle. Which isn't surprising since the so-called scientific community has theories that explain how the device you are using communicates with other devices so you can post your beliefs on this board.

You're welcome to prove me wrong. Start by defining theory, as used in the scientific community. Your "just theories" comment indicates you don't know the definition.
You can continue by explaining how p-waves, the compression waves in an earthquake, can travel straight through the middle of the planet, that core you don't believe in because you know the planet is hollow, so an earthquake can be measured on the opposite side of the planet. Any explanation will have to take into account the p-wave shadow zone, the fact that between about 100 degrees and 145 degrees around the planet those p-waves will not be detected. The so-called scientific community demonstrates that waves at a certain angle will pass through the core but waves at shallower angles will refract away from the core, and that waves passing through the core will reach the far side of the planet faster than waves could propagate along the crust.

In your opinion...what are the chances the scientific community is wrong about the inner earth? Does it upset you that some people believe otherwise?

[larsenb]

I'm not trolling. I don't have much trust in the so-called scientific community. Too many things are promoted as "truth" that remain just theories. I happen to believe in the theory of Hollow Earth more than I believe in those theories about the earth's core.

In other words, you are clueless and believe things without becoming informed about the principle. Which isn't surprising since the so-called scientific community has theories that explain how the device you are using communicates with other devices so you can post your beliefs on this board.

You're welcome to prove me wrong. Start by defining theory, as used in the scientific community. Your "just theories" comment indicates you don't know the definition.
You can continue by explaining how p-waves, the compression waves in an earthquake, can travel straight through the middle of the planet, that core you don't believe in because you know the planet is hollow, so an earthquake can be measured on the opposite side of the planet. Any explanation will have to take into account the p-wave shadow zone, the fact that between about 100 degrees and 145 degrees around the planet those p-waves will not be detected. The so-called scientific community demonstrates that waves at a certain angle will pass through the core but waves at shallower angles will refract away from the core, and that waves passing through the core will reach the far side of the planet faster than waves could propagate along the crust.

In your opinion...what are the chances the scientific community is wrong about the inner earth? Does it upset you that some people believe otherwise?

brianj will probably want to reply to this. But here is my take.

The theory of the structure of the earth is based mainly on seismic evidence. In this case, the theory was largely suggested by this evidence. Why? Because the theory is based on logical interpretation of the evidence after taking into consideration the nature of seismic waves, i.e., the physics of seismic waves, etc.

Until someone demonstrates that the evidence was interpreted in the wrong way, or something essential was missing from it, or further evidence, or other types of evidence, is forthcoming that suggests a different interpretation, the current model will hold sway.

For me, it doesn't bother me at all that other people believe otherwise. I do feel a bit sorry for them if they go public with their beliefs without backing them up, because, for the most part, it shows they don't understand the 'scientific' evidence and why it is interepreted the way it is. I.e., they are publicly arguing from ignorance . . . which is always rather sad to see.

[mahalanobis]

Re: hollow Earth

I think if there was a hollow in the earth (more than just a big cave), I'm convinced that it would have to be miraculously maintained by the Lord to avoid collapse and other destructive events (from compressive stresses alone). Or an advanced civilization has sufficient tech to protect it. Also it would have to be hidden by the Lord to not be detected by gravimetry and magnetometry. I suppose all that is possible. I would probably do that if I created the earth lol.

Fwiw: This is something I want to believe, but I maintain healthy skepticism for now. Spiritual matter is more refined, so perhaps there's a spiritual hollow down there?

[nightlight]

Re: hollow Earth

I think if there was a hollow in the earth (more than just a big cave), I'm convinced that it would have to be miraculously maintained by the Lord to avoid collapse and other destructive events (from compressive stresses alone). Or an advanced civilization has sufficient tech to protect it. Also it would have to be hidden by the Lord to not be detected by gravimetry and magnetometry. I suppose all that is possible. I would probably do that if I created the earth lol.

Fwiw: This is something I want to believe, but I maintain healthy skepticism for now. Spiritual matter is more refined, so perhaps there's a spiritual hollow down there?

100% ^^^^ what im trying to say.

We, as believers in Christ, know the world is not what man belives it to be. I mean....just think about our doctrine.....it's wild.

To look down on those who see things contrary to the wisdom of man ....is what's sad

[larsenb]

Re: hollow Earth

I think if there was a hollow in the earth (more than just a big cave), I'm convinced that it would have to be miraculously maintained by the Lord to avoid collapse and other destructive events (from compressive stresses alone). Or an advanced civilization has sufficient tech to protect it. Also it would have to be hidden by the Lord to not be detected by gravimetry and magnetometry. I suppose all that is possible. I would probably do that if I created the earth lol.

Fwiw: This is something I want to believe, but I maintain healthy skepticism for now. Spiritual matter is more refined, so perhaps there's a spiritual hollow down there?

100% ^^^^ what im trying to say.

We, as believers in Christ, know the world is not what man belives it to be. I mean....just think about our doctrine.....it's wild.

To look down on those who see things contrary to the wisdom of man ....is what's sad

The other side of that coin is what may be considered the arrogance of those who pass judgement or dismiss some scientific proposal without understanding the reasoning and evidence behind it.

[creator]

planets-are-born-from-parent-planet.jpg (901.65 KiB) Viewed 1185 times

[SmallFarm]

Hollow Earth? Probably not.
Giant domes under the ice caps? Yes, possibly.

[justme]

planets-are-born-from-parent-planet.jpg

Just a quick hint: It is often a red flag when someone puts Ph.D. after their name. This may differ in some fields but is not common at all in the sciences. I know I have never put it after my name in my career. On rare occasion in formal correspondence I may put the Dr. before the name.

[creator]

Disagree with someone? Just attack something about the person instead of the actual substance of the discussion. Right? Wrong.

[brianj]

In your opinion...what are the chances the scientific community is wrong about the inner earth? Does it upset you that some people believe otherwise?

I would but the odds of not fully understanding the core of the Earth at almost 100%. Just a few years ago some Chinese geologists studying seismic data concluded that there are two layers to the inner core of the Earth. They proposed that iron crystals in the inner inner core are aligned differently from iron crystals in the outer inner core.

Of course we can't just drill a 3,900 mile deep hole for a good look at the core so we have to rely on indirect observation, specifically monitoring seismic waves (mostly p-waves) to identify the structure of the mantle and core.

Some people may want to say that indirect measurement is nonsense, but they are only showing ignorance. Ask someone with a big telescope (the bigger the better, but at least a 12 inch diameter) to show you the Pleiades, or look at a picture. You will see stars and some nebula. That nebula is what we call a reflection nebula: it is not emitting any light and we can only see it because light from nearby stars is reflected off of the nebula.

It wasn't long after stealth fighters and stealth bombers were deployed that engineers developed a way to track these aircraft. Since radio waves can't pass through them, a sufficiently clever and sensitive detection network can track the brief interruption in radio signals as a stealth aircraft flies by. This is another good example of indirect observation.

Once upon a time scientists believed molecules were as small as you could get. Then around 1800 a British chemist named John Dalton found experimental ways to prove that atoms exist and for decades people believed atoms were the smallest particles. In 1897 electrons were discovered and a "dirty snowball" model where electrons sit on the surface of an atom was generally accepted. Two years later the atomic nucleus was experimentally proven and the idea of electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets orbit a star became accepted. Then protons and neutrons were discovered. Then orbital shells and probability fields were discovered. Then quarks were discovered.

The point is that no good scientist and no intelligent person concludes that a generally accepted principle must be true. That principle is the best explanation that mankind has until another explanation that better fits the evidence comes along. Therefore I fully expect understanding of the structure of the earth to be refined as more data becomes available through tools yet to be devised.

[brianj]

planets-are-born-from-parent-planet.jpg

Just a quick hint: It is often a red flag when someone puts Ph.D. after their name. This may differ in some fields but is not common at all in the sciences. I know I have never put it after my name in my career. On rare occasion in formal correspondence I may put the Dr. before the name.

To be fair, most academics I have known will mention their doctorate on published works.

I did a couple searches and didn't find anything to suggest what his doctorate is in. Then I looked at reviews. Here's my favorite from the Deseret Book page:

"By steven, Submitted on 2015-02-25
I am an LDS scholar. I have earned a PhD in geology and I have also spent years reading and studying the scriptures. This book does a great disservice to LDS scholarship. The science taught in this book is juvenile and in many things outright wrong. I find that many of Dr. Skousen's interpretations of the scriptures regarding the creation of the Earth require a significant stretch from what is written. Many of the supporting quotes from previous apostles and prophets are from non-doctrinal sources (e.g. Journal of Discourses). This book is not an approach to truth, it obscures the truth and minimizes the true grandeur of our Father. Read the book if you want but remember that the scriptures are not a textbook of science."

[mahalanobis]

Our official doctrine also asserts the concept of eternal life and eternal creation. But this flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. Any self-respecting scientist would laugh at the notion of sustained life and/or complicated non-isentropic processes (such as creation itself) being perpetuated into eternity. So do we throw out that doctrine as being ludicrous?

For me, this is the biggest clash of our belief system with science, far more so than anachronisms in scriptural text. What happens when the universe is all the same temperature, no light is emitted, and there is no energy differential by which anything interesting can happen? All orbits decay, all chemicals erode... You can't run a steam engine, cells and DNA can't operate. Perhaps one can claim that resurrected beings can maybe reverse entropy, but all scientists will laugh at you. So what do we do? Do we throw the doctrine out?

What is my point? Sometimes you just have to trust that God knows more than man based on spiritual experiences and faith. I think these are part of the "mysteries of God". So yes, I personally don't believe that the second law of thermodynamics is the whole story - even if it means being ridiculed. This essentially means that I believe in entropy reversal! And so do you! That is a level of crazy that is up there with those "perpetual motion" scams and whackos! If you don't believe me, ask a thermodynamics expert.

Now do I think the earth is hollow? No, not really. But if God wants it to be hollow in a way that we can't detect, I believe He could do that... And I sure hope so just because of how cool that would be.