 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:47382526@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
>
> > Some radioactive stuff does glow, most doesn't
>
> So... is it really true that the Earth's core is so hot due to neuclear
> reactions?
I believe that the current theory is that the heat is partially a leftover
from the planet's formation, and partially from the natural decay or
radioactive elements.
I may be wrong. Geology isn't my forte.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: 4738267c@news.povray.org...
> I believe that the current theory is that the heat is partially a leftover
> from the planet's formation, and partially from the natural decay or
> radioactive elements.
>
> I may be wrong. Geology isn't my forte.
>
That's the theory I read in some papers as well.
They say that if there was no radio-activity, the core and the mantle shoud
be solid and no more magnetic field and no more protection from Van Hallen
belt thus no more life on Earth
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:12:11 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>
<"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:
>
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:47382526@news.povray.org...
>> Gail Shaw wrote:
>>
>> > Some radioactive stuff does glow, most doesn't
>>
>> So... is it really true that the Earth's core is so hot due to neuclear
>> reactions?
>
> I believe that the current theory is that the heat is partially a
> leftover
> from the planet's formation, and partially from the natural decay or
> radioactive elements.
>
> I may be wrong. Geology isn't my forte.
Most of the heat is stored in the mantle which is the bit between the
crust that we live on and the moving outer liquid core that provides the
magnetic field. As you said the heat is made up of gravitational heat
(friction at the Earth's creation), latent heat (the inner core cooling
and expanding) with the majority being the decay of radioactive elements.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> True. But - at least according to Wikipedia - it's still due to making
> electrons jump between different energy levels in atoms (rather than
> building an electronic oscilator). It's just a lot more controlled than
> a whitehot lump of iron...
It's light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation. The photons
are in phase because each photon is created when another photon knocks
an electron between energy levels. And because when that happens, they
come out in phase. The math isn't even that hard for someone who knows
what a dot product is.
The light from a hot lump of iron isn't emitting stimulated light. It's
emitting light randomly and spontaneously.
It's the same difference between a lump of plutonium sitting there
giving off radiation and a lump of plutonium exploding in a bomb.
Hi FBI!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:00:37 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> A stopwatch and an astronaut with really quick reflexes.
>>
>> You're not joking. The first evidence that light had a speed was
>> someone (galileo?) noticing that the shadows cast by jupiter's moons
>> on jupiter's clouds were not where they should have been.
>
> I seem to recall something about a moon being eclipsed when it shouldn't
> have been.
Yeah, that sounds more likely. I knew it was something like that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Fair enough. I incorrectly thought the term photon was used only for
> electromagnetic phenomena.
Could be. But isn't that kind of what we're talking about? :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> so he's *describing* refraction in terms of particles not *explaining*
> it :-)
He explains why things work the way they do in terms of the underlying
science. He explains the mechanism whereby particles can refract like
waves, which is what I thought the original question was.
It's like buying a book on how to program in C, and then complaining
that nobody tells you why "*" is for pointers or why you need commas
instead of spaces between the arguments to a function. Do you want to
know how C works, or do you want to know why K&R made the decisions they
did while designing it? The latter is a bit more difficult when you're
talking about fundamental physics.
> Nada at various stores looks like I'm Amazon bound.
Well worth it. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
M_a_r_c wrote:
> news: 4738267c@news.povray.org...
>> I believe that the current theory is that the heat is partially a leftover
>> from the planet's formation, and partially from the natural decay or
>> radioactive elements.
>>
>> I may be wrong. Geology isn't my forte.
>>
> That's the theory I read in some papers as well.
> They say that if there was no radio-activity, the core and the mantle shoud
> be solid and no more magnetic field and no more protection from Van Hallen
> belt thus no more life on Earth
>
> Marc
>
>
While protection from Van Hallen sounds like a good idea, it is the Van
Allen radiation belt that you might be referring to :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4738ce31@news.povray.org...
>>
> While protection from Van Hallen sounds like a good idea, it is the Van
> Allen radiation belt that you might be referring to :)
Ooops you're right. Protection from van Halen only requires good earplugs,
of course :-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Fair enough. I incorrectly thought the term photon was used only
>> for electromagnetic phenomena.
>
> Could be. But isn't that kind of what we're talking about? :-)
I use the term electromagnetic only when there's an electric field
coupled to a magnetic one. But I suppose that's merely my idiosyncrasy.
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach him to use the Net
and he won't bother you for weeks.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
