Thread: The earth is full of lava....?

The crust, even if relatively thin compared to the core, acts as an insulator.

Otherwise, we have volcanoes and hydrothermal vents that indicate high temperatures below us.

In regards to the vents and volcanoes...

Seventy percent are now dormant. It would seem that with such a thin crust, lava would be bubbling up all over the place.

Originally Posted by Noogah

In regards to the vents and volcanoes...

Seventy percent are now dormant. It would seem that with such a thin crust, lava would be bubbling up all over the place.

There is. Check out the edges of the continential/oceanic plates. There's some pretty sweet activity down there.

Betcha didn't know this, but there are underwater volcanoes, too~

The lava doesn't consume the whole planet, because once it hits the edge, it cools off and becomes part of a tectonic plate (the temperature of the atmosphere, which is a function of the temperature of space, as well as the composition of the Earth, are the factors here that decides how much of Earth's surface remains lava). It really is beautiful.

Also, people once thought that since we don't go flying off into space whenever we jump, the earth must not be moving, and as such, Copernican theory is wrong. It's funny the conclusions intuition will lead you to.

Yet it still doesn't explain the question: how was the core scientifically observed/analysed? I have no idea either, and I don't think some hasty conclusions taken by sound waves count. I can see how the core gets hotter because of the pressure, but I don't see how we know what the core is made of, how density and temperature vary, etc. If anyone has the answers, I'm eager.

Originally Posted by Abra

Betcha didn't know this, but there are underwater volcanoes, too~

I did, yet failed to consider it. Good point.

Originally Posted by Abra

The lava doesn't consume the whole planet, because once it hits the edge, it cools off and becomes part of a tectonic plate

But how does the edge maintain it's cool temperatures? It seems that in the course of history, the crust would start to wear away.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yet it still doesn't explain the question: how was the core scientifically observed/analysed?

Indeed. I also would like to know how that works.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yet it still doesn't explain the question: how was the core scientifically observed/analysed? I have no idea either, and I don't think some hasty conclusions taken by sound waves count. I can see how the core gets hotter because of the pressure, but I don't see how we know what the core is made of, how density and temperature vary, etc. If anyone has the answers, I'm eager.

"Scientific understanding of Earth's internal structure is based on observations of topography and bathymetry, observations of rock in outcrop, samples brought to the surface from greater depths by volcanic activity, analysis of the seismic waves that pass through the Earth, measurements of the gravity field of the Earth, and experiments with crystalline solids at pressures and temperatures characteristic of the Earth's deep interior."

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_waves

I don't see any hasty conclusions in the first place. Good reading

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yet it still doesn't explain the question: how was the core scientifically observed/analysed? I have no idea either, and I don't think some hasty conclusions taken by sound waves count. I can see how the core gets hotter because of the pressure, but I don't see how we know what the core is made of, how density and temperature vary, etc. If anyone has the answers, I'm eager.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/earths_core.html

This should answer most of your questions.


As for the Original Post:

Invader gave an answer, and since I've never wondered about it before I'll have to look it up, but I'll be using his answer as a guiding post.

Originally Posted by Noogah

But how does the edge maintain it's cool temperatures? It seems that in the course of history, the crust would start to wear away.

Empty space (above the mantle and atmosphere) is very cold.

When tracking the seismic waves of an earthquake, scientists can tell how long it takes the waves, specifically P and S, since P waves can travel through all states of matter in the earth and s waves can only travel through solids.
How come we don't freeze if the epic sub zero outersphere temperatures are dozens of miles above us?
There are plenty of active volcanoes under the ocean, and all the lava seeping out is causing seafloor shift....
knowledge is helpful.

A couple of dozen miles of solid rock isn't thin. You are talking about what is the equivalent of stacking 4 mount everst on top of each other. Even the best heat conductors in the world, are going to have trouble sending heat that distances.

Think of a welding torch, which runs hotter than the lava. Watch how much metal conducts the heat of that. The distance the heat travels is measured at best in feet(possibly even inches), not miles.

...is this a serious thread? I am confused...what are they teaching kids in school these days, anyway? Yes, the earth's crust is molten...how else do you explain the magnetic field around the entire planet, and the fact that said magnetic field is constantly shifting and changing? A liquid iron/nickel core is the only logical solution. The other posts above me pretty much cover the rest.

Originally Posted by Mario92

...is this a serious thread? I am confused...what are they teaching kids in school these days, anyway? Yes, the earth's crust is molten...how else do you explain the magnetic field around the entire planet, and the fact that said magnetic field is constantly shifting and changing? A liquid iron/nickel core is the only logical solution. The other posts above me pretty much cover the rest.

He's still a child-give him time, he will see the light. Once you grasp your head around it, you can see it, Noogah.

Originally Posted by Mario92

...is this a serious thread? I am confused...what are they teaching kids in school these days, anyway?

USA! USA! USA!

Isn't this Earth Science...like an 8th grade/9th grade science curriculum... And he's not a junior member anymore o.O
it's not that hard to see, Noogah. I'd like to hear(read) read your feedback on posts above...

I learned all of this in 6th grade.

Originally Posted by guitarboy

Isn't this Earth Science...like an 8th grade/9th grade science curriculum... And he's not a junior member anymore o.O
it's not that hard to see, Noogah. I'd like to hear(read) read your feedback on posts above...

He's a fundamentalist, so he's probably been raised and home schooled by anti-intellectuals who taught him that all science and foreigners are the devil incarnate.

Or he jst silly XD

Originally Posted by Carousoul

He's a fundamentalist, so he's probably been raised and home schooled by anti-intellectuals who taught him that all science and foreigners are the devil incarnate.

Do not patronize me. Is it stupid to ask questions about how tings work? Am I to idly sit by and accept every remark the school books attempt to hammer into my head?

No thank you. I have seen the results of stupid Americans who never think for themselves. They accept whatever the "scientists" say, and never question them. And if questioning what I hear somehow makes me inferior/unintelligent, I would very much prefer to be inferior/unintelligent.

I found the concept confusing, and made a thread.

Originally Posted by guitarboy

He's still a child-give him time, he will see the light. Once you grasp your head around it, you can see it, Noogah.

...uh....come again?

Anyways, in regards to the discussion:

The above posts makes the theory seem more plausible, but there are still aspects I find unrealistic. Of course, based on what we know, the theory of a molten inside is the most plausible, but I am not entirely certain if I believe it is completely made up of lava.

That sums up my thoughts.

Oh, a quick word regarding Jules Verne:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Jules Verne's novels have been noted for being startlingly accurate anticipations of modern times. Paris in the 20th Century is an often cited example of this as it arguably describes air conditioning, automobiles, the Internet, television, even electricity, and other modern conveniences very similar to their real world counterparts.

Another example is From the Earth to the Moon, which is uncannily similar to the real Apollo Program, as three astronauts are launched from the Florida peninsula and recovered through a splash landing. In the book, the spacecraft is launched from "Tampa Town"; Tampa, Florida is approximately 130 miles from NASA's actual launching site at Cape Canaveral.[10]

In other works, Verne predicted the inventions of helicopters, submarines, projectors, jukeboxes, and other later devices.

He also predicted the existence of underwater hydrothermal vents that were not discovered until years after he wrote about them.

Successful Predictions:

* Self-propelled submarines capable of diving to the ocean's floor, maneuvering underwater, and moving at high speeds beneath the surface of the waves.

* Practical demonstrations of electrical power.

* Electrical clocks that are more accurate than other kinds.

* Electrical stoves and heating coils.

* Electrical generators and motors used in propelling large engines.

* Electrical lights and high-beam searchlights.

* Underwater aqualungs capable of sustaining life for hours at a stretch.

* Practical wetsuits to enable divers to work on the ocean floor.

* Submarine warfare, which renders surface ships helpless against hidden attack.

* Discovery of the South Pole (in Verne's version, most of the polar region is underwater).

Courtesy of trivia-library.com

Additional information regarding Jules Verne's ideas of space travel .

As I've said before, I really enjoy the idea of a large subterranean universe, despite how unrealistic it may be.

It isn't impossible is it?

Originally Posted by Noogah

Do not patronize me. Is it stupid to ask questions about how tings work? Am I to idly sit by and accept every remark the school books attempt to hammer into my head?

No thank you. I have seen the results of stupid Americans who never think for themselves. They accept whatever the "scientists" say, and never question them. And if questioning what I hear somehow makes me inferior/unintelligent, I would very much prefer to be inferior/unintelligent.

I found the concept confusing, and made a thread.

...you know, as opposed to making a quick google search...

And also, you're really going to make the claim that scientists are evil? Really? It's a field DEDICATED to skepticism. Have you any idea how many impartial third-party scientists read through every little claim and scientific study? Unless you're really so stupid as to believe that every scientist in the world is banded together to trick the public and attack religion, a notion I find oozes with ignorance.

Anyways, in regards to the discussion:

The above posts makes the theory seem more plausible, but there are still aspects I find unrealistic. Of course, based on what we know, the theory of a molten inside is the most plausible, but I am not entirely certain if I believe it is completely made up of lava.

Technically, the first layer (the mantle) isn't the hot, flowing liquid you refer to as "lava." It is not a liquid so much as a plastic. Rock makes an excellent insulator, as stated above, which is why the crust doesn't melt and become a lake of lava. Space is cold, and siphons off heat from the earth rather nicely.

It isn't impossible is it?

http://geology.about.com/od/core/a/about_the_core.htm

We knew by the 1890s, from the Earth's response to the gravity of the Sun and Moon, that the planet has a dense core, probably iron. In 1906 Richard Dixon Oldham found that earthquake waves move through the Earth's center much slower than through the mantle around it—because the center is liquid.

Ayup, pretty much impossible. And also, reading back through Verne's book, it wasn't so much that he hit the center of the earth as he hit a small pocket nowhere near the core of the earth. They were all forced to escape to the surface before being able to continue onwards.

It isn't completely made up of lava. If memory serves me correct, the aesthenosphere is a harder molten substance, similar to plastic. It would harden closer to the crust, of course, and insulate. As it gets closer to the core, pressure increases, as does density.
Since it is lava, it isn't fully connected to the more solid strata- super rotation is found.
etc, etc, etc.

Ah, guitarboy beat me to it. Yeah, people get mislead because they are told the mantle is "fluid" and they think it's all a bunch of liquid lava or something. It's actually viscous, in the same way glass is viscous. So, mostly solid-looking to people, but technically "flowing" - you do know that glass is not technically considered a "solid" right? If you go look at ancient/aging windows on old churches and buildings, you can actually tell that they're thicker near the bottom than at the top, since they slowly flowed down over time.

Also, I don't believe anyone has ever successfully drilled all the way down into the mantle to retrieve a piece of it. It's been tried, but never with success. It's funny how we have an easier time observing the millions of lightyears surrounding us than the inside of our own planet.

Originally Posted by Replicon

you do know that glass is not technically considered a "solid" right? If you go look at ancient/aging windows on old churches and buildings, you can actually tell that they're thicker near the bottom than at the top, since they slowly flowed down over time.

Apparently that's a myth. Glass is a solid but it doesn't flow - at least not fast enough to be seen in old churches etc. The thickness is a result from the technique used to make the glass planes (or something like that, I don't remember exactly).

Originally Posted by guitarboy

Isn't this Earth Science...like an 8th grade/9th grade science curriculum... And he's not a junior member anymore o.O
it's not that hard to see, Noogah. I'd like to hear(read) read your feedback on posts above...

Originally Posted by CarmineEternity

I learned all of this in 6th grade.

Just want to point out that I find those arguments awful. You learn a lot of
crap in school and just having learnd something at an early age does not
mean that it can't further be questioned, ever, again.

I take it that not many had special + general relativity and quantum mechanics
in high school, but more or less the classical, newton based physics. Well,..
that stuff is pretty much outdated, yet it is still taught as scientific fact if I'm
not mistaken.

If he says, he has difficulties with the concept it should be very easy to
scientifically explain it to him, right? Usually it is a good thing to question
the so called facts of life, even though I'd like to add that it would be nice
if Noogah would not only question the world views he doesn't believe in.

Originally Posted by dajo

Just want to point out that I find those arguments awful. You learn a lot of
crap in school and just having learnd something at an early age does not
mean that it can't further be questioned, ever, again.

I take it that not many had special + general relativity and quantum mechanics
in high school, but more or less the classical, newton based physics. Well,..
that stuff is pretty much outdated, yet it is still taught as scientific fact if I'm
not mistaken.

If he says, he has difficulties with the concept it should be very easy to
scientifically explain it to him, right? Usually it is a good thing to question
the so called facts of life, even though I'd like to add that it would be nice
if Noogah would not only question the world views he doesn't believe in.

+1

But all I'm saying is that a simple google search would've provided him with more than enough proof...did he really need to make a thread on it when he could have invested ten minutes to find the solution himself? It's kind of like me making a thread called "Is space cold?"