Just what sustains Earth's magnetic field anyway?

June 1, 2016, Carnegie Institution for Science
Illustration of how the diamond anvil cell is used to mimic and study planetary core conditions. Credit: Stewart McWilliams

Earth's magnetic field shields us from deadly cosmic radiation, and without it, life as we know it could not exist here. The motion of liquid iron in the planet's outer core, a phenomenon called a "geodynamo," generates the field. But how it was first created and then sustained throughout Earth's history has remained a mystery to scientists. New work published in Nature from a team led by Carnegie's Alexander Goncharov sheds light on the history of this incredibly important geologic occurrence.

Our planet accreted from rocky material that surrounded our Sun in its youth, and over time the most-dense stuff, iron, sank inward, creating the layers that we know exist today—, mantle, and crust. Currently, the inner core is solid iron, with some other materials that were dragged along down during this layering process. The is a alloy, and its motion gives rise to the .

A better understanding of how heat is conducted by the solid of the inner core and the liquid in the outer core is needed to piece together the processes by which our planet, and our magnetic field, evolved—and, even more importantly, the energy that sustains a continuous magnetic field. But these materials obviously exist under very extreme conditions, both very high temperatures and very intense pressures. This means that their behavior isn't going to be the same as it is on the surface.

"We sensed a pressing need for direct thermal conductivity measurements of core materials under conditions relevant to the core," Goncharov said. "Because, of course, it is impossible for us to reach anywhere close to Earth's core and take samples for ourselves."

The team used a tool called a laser-heated diamond anvil cell to mimic planetary core conditions and study how iron conducts heat under them. The squeezes tiny samples of material in between two diamonds, creating the extreme pressures of the deep Earth in the lab. The laser heats the materials to the necessary core temperatures.

Using this kind of lab-based mimicry, the team was able to look at samples of iron across temperatures and pressures that would be found inside planets ranging in size from Mercury to Earth—345,000 to 1.3 million times normal atmospheric pressure and 2,400 to 4,900 degrees Fahrenheit—and study how they propagate heat.

They found that the ability of these iron samples to transmit heat matched with the lower end of previous estimates of thermal conductivity in Earth's core—between 18 and 44 watts per meter per kelvin, in the units scientists use to measure such things. This translates to predictions that the energy necessary to sustain the geodynamo has been available since very early in the history of Earth.

"In order to better understand core heat conductivity, we will next need to tackle how the non-iron materials that went along for the ride when sunk to the core affect these thermal processes inside of our planet," Goncharov added.

Explore further: Geochemical detectives use lab mimicry to look back in time

More information: Direct measurement of thermal conductivity in solid iron at planetary core conditions, Nature, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature18009

Related Stories

Geochemical detectives use lab mimicry to look back in time

April 28, 2016

New work from a research team led by Carnegie's Anat Shahar contains some unexpected findings about iron chemistry under high-pressure conditions, such as those likely found in the Earth's core, where iron predominates and ...

Liquid acoustics half way to the Earth's core

November 24, 2015

The most direct information about the interior of the earth comes from measuring how seismic acoustic waves—such as those created by earthquakes—travel through the earth. Those measurements show that 95% of the earth's ...

Recommended for you

People waste nearly a pound of food daily: study

April 18, 2018

Americans waste nearly a pound of food per person each day, but the exact amount of food we trash differs by how healthy your diet is, a new University of Vermont co-authored national study finds.

Coal mining reduces abundance, richness of aquatic life

April 18, 2018

Coal mining, under current US regulations, has significantly reduced the abundance and variety of fish, invertebrates, salamanders, and other aquatic life in streams, according to a new study from the University of Tennessee, ...

79 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
Lots of assumptions as to the mechanics of these processes. Oddly enough there is no magnetic field created when I blend salt water, it would be swell if they could explain how mixing of liquid hot magma would do so. As with most problems involving magnetism they likely have it remarkably wrong. Of course charge separation is needed to drive the currents necessary to produce the effects.

Maybe the following could 'splain some things...
https://youtu.be/RnaG6T-C14Q
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2016
Aaaannnnd...
What creates the initial charge current to begin with?
THAT would "'splain" things...
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2016
So you already watched the 40+ min video in 25mins? Maybe you missed some details by not watching explanation...
24volts
4.5 / 5 (11) Jun 01, 2016
Shouldn't there be more than iron in the core? Logically it should have some of everything that's heavier than iron too and that's a good number of different elements. I wonder how big a percentage of it those would be.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
"...with some other materials that were dragged along down during this layering process."

Yes, it said so, 24V.
And these will be solutes as well as inclusions and independent arrivals. IIRC, a lot of elements and compounds you would not expect to dissolve / alloy with iron will do so to a complicating extent at those temperatures and pressures...
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
Very promising,because of the implications for the early atmosphere and its relation to early life, as well as the implications for plate tectonic thermal flow drive forces.

@WG: A trick question, I think. You need to have a self sustaining (low resistivity) charge condition.

E.g."the diffusion time across a solar active region (from collisional resistivity) to be hundreds to thousands of years, much longer than the actual lifetime of a sunspot", while "a meter-sized volume of seawater has a magnetic diffusion time measured in milliseconds," [ https://en.wikipe...dynamics ]

Then the initial charges can be supplied by any means. Typically low pressure plasma spontaneously ignite due to cosmic radiation supplying the event; I have used these for years in diverse applications, so when ignorant people try to sell the typical 'MHD don't work' stuff I have to laugh. Of course the core here had and still has a massive radioactivity.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2016
@24V: Very good question!

Yes, the core is commonly described as an iron-nickel core. When the planet differentiated, the iron/nickel sank to the core and the iron soluble elements (siderophiles) went with it. [ https://en.wikipe...elements ] The oxygen reactive elements formed the silicon dominated crust (lithophiles), the water ocean and the initial carbon dioxide atmosphere.

In fact the siderophiles should have been completely emptied out, but the remaining contents match the volatiles that would have been delivered by remaining accretion up to about a few tenths of % of Earth mass. (I.e. the early bombardment before the Moon forming impact, explaining why Moon has siderophiles matching Earth.)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
@WG: A trick question, I think. You need to have a self sustaining (low resistivity) charge condition.

Thanks for response, TB. I think what I was trying to get at was that magnetic fields are constantly interacting and end up creating the electrical charges in baryonic matter when encountered.(or, at the very least, enables electron charge). Which in turn amplifies/solidifies those magnetic fields, increasing the attraction and alignment. Which in turn - and so on, depending on the density of baryonic materials at hand. This my lay-mans view - prob'ly not even close...
... so when ignorant people try to sell the typical 'MHD don't work' stuff I have to laugh.

Firm believer in the stuff...:-)
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (17) Jun 01, 2016
cantdrive85 (c85)
Oddly enough there is no magnetic field created when I blend salt water, it would be swell if they could explain how mixing of liquid hot magma would do so
Its not odd, its called Physics. Water/Salt is *very* different to magma & bear in mind Experimental Physics, preface ea Q with "What is"

1 ..temp of water/salt & magma
2 ..motion of both
3 ..conductivity of both
4 ..comparative method of measuring magnetic flux ie https://en.wikipe...etometer

c85 claims
.. problems involving magnetism they likely have it remarkably wrong
Such as, physics details, is Maxwell wrong ?

c85 says
..charge separation is needed to drive the currents necessary..
& the comparative index of both materials is ?

c85 says with a link
..'splain some things...
No. Read the abstract, suggests like charges collect together & that ions drive wind, nil experimental evidence for both

Where's specific Scientific Paper, ie The Physics ?

TBC
big_hairy_jimbo
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
Well I imagined that the liquid layer would not rotate like a record, but would spiral according to it's radius (radial velocity). Also add in convection up and down currents, and the motion starts to become complex. Friction giving rise to current differentials.Bingo magnetic fields forming. We this sort of thing on the surface of the sun.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) Jun 01, 2016
So you already watched the 40+ min video in 25mins? Maybe you missed some details by not watching explanation...

Had to let it go when he started up about wind being responsible for our planet's rotation...
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (19) Jun 01, 2016
Continued @cantdrive85
Just repeating same stuff without specific reference to any Scientific Papers doesn't help your case one bit & paints you as an obsessed uneducated loon, essential to get education in ElectroMagnetic (EM) Physics.

Note: The Engineering profession, especially Electrical/Electronic/Mechanical are up to speed on the proven Physics of electromagnetism ie Tested, used, designed in etc so very often & after many decades has *not* been found wanting in any way shape or form !

So, fringe tangential stuff you repeat *without* empirical evidence or even a plan for any appropriate Experimental Methodology re *any* EM Physics isn't convincing one bit.

NOT about belief & *not* about trying to convince - you need a sound basis arrived at by a clear connection of EM Physics/Math ie In a published Scientific Paper with appropriate references.

But, do you imagine you're equipped intellectually & psychologically to understand such ?

TBC
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
Of course charge separation is needed to drive the currents necessary to produce the effects.
CD, I believe the correct term is "charge differential"...
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
The amusing thing is that this article and paper don't actually talk about charge flows; they're only talking about heat flow. How exactly that determines the presence of charges and their flows is not covered here AFAICT.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2016
Whydening Gyre offers
Of course charge separation is needed to drive the currents necessary to produce the effects.
CD, I believe the correct term is "charge differential"...
General parlance sure, distinction lost on him, over-riding issue is local summing as per Gauss theorems with dielectric strength a key factor.

Been down this road with cantdrive85 few times & that is one key area re distinctions he just cannot comprehend especially as he suggests planetary orbits are "directed" or influenced by plasma currents...

cantdrive85 hasnt availed himself of key Physics education for whatever reason & as such is (emotionally) receptive to the type of propaganda the EU lobby spurt out :/

Fact Electric/Magnetic fields are polarized, ie tend to sum locally whilst gravity doesn't this means solar/galactic currents are extremely weak despite EM viewed (without summing) as much stronger...

Eg Sol's magnetic field isn't measurable on/near surface of Earth !
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
There's a hand-wave at it in the abstract of the paper;
In the cooling Earth's core, the thermal conductivity of iron alloys defines the adiabatic heat flux and therefore the thermal and compositional energy available to support the production of Earth's magnetic field via dynamo action.
Given that I doubt even the paper's text discusses the exact mechanism by which the magnetic field is produced. There is no trace of the paper on arXiv.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
Of course charge separation is needed to drive the currents necessary to produce the effects.
CD, I believe the correct term is "charge differential"...
Actually I think this is an MHD effect caused by ions in the liquid outer core, and liquid flow in the liquid outer core, which equals moving charges which means that there is an effective electric current. This in turn creates a magnetic field as all electric currents do. The liquid flow is likely convective, which would imply convection cells in the liquid core, moving the charges around in the standard up-across-down-back-up flow of such cells, on timescales of thousands of years. The ions would be created by the enormous heat and pressure in the liquid core.

But I freely admit this is all speculation on my part. This is not a well-explored area, particularly since we have no access even to the lower mantle, much less any part of the core. About all we can tell is general composition based on seismology.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Jun 01, 2016
Looks like I've got part of it right; there is an additional effect caused by the interaction of the electric and magnetic fields generated in the liquid core with the lower mantle that causes both MHD flows (that is, ions moving with a liquid flow) as well as more traditional electric currents to flow there, as well as back-action from those currents on the liquid core.

I was also right that this is not a well-explored area; however there is some pretty good hypothesizing here: https://en.wikipe...o_theory
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2016
Da Schneib offers
The amusing thing is that this article and paper don't actually talk about charge flows; they're only talking about heat flow. How exactly that determines the presence of charges and their flows is not covered here AFAICT
Sure & whenever these issues come up I find it useful to return to Maxwell as its presumed ie from foundational "2nd grand unification" of Physics.

ie Maxwell's equations, demonstrated so many times, show inextricable link between electric/magnetic fields at all levels & interesting implication scale isn't an issue.

As such charge separation/differentials are key to electromagnetic strength re dynamism Eg Closer charges are physically, more strongly they sum their local electric field therefore reduces contribution to overall magnetic field as they interact. Eg Neutrons nil EM effects

NB: Thorium/Potassium radioactive decay supply great heat re local flow/melt also implicitly offer means for charge separation/differential.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 01, 2016
You want to be careful here, @Mike, some of the "currents" they're talking about aren't conventional electrons-flowing-through-metal type currents, they are currents of molten iron and rock that are carrying ions. When you hear MHD these are the types of currents you should think about, not the type that most people think of (particularly in electronic and electrical engineering).
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2016
Da Schneib
You want to be careful here, @Mike, some of the "currents" they're talking about aren't conventional electrons-flowing-through-metal type currents...
Beg your pardon ?

My post ref to cantdrive85, Needs to learn Maxwell to start & relevant to article, 1st post direct to that, last re foundation

Da Schneib says
... think of (particularly in electronic and electrical engineering (EE)
You under impression uni EE doesn't address MHD & very well indeed ?

Twas 1st sem 2nd yr Electromagnetics 203/Physics 271/Maths 271 re power flow/computation fluid dynamics, Gauss/Maxwell/Faraday foundational re MHD *all* levels

Maybe you imagine requirement posts must be a student tutorial series as part of a full lecture program ?

Breadth up to poster, useful has relevance (or extend), counter pseudoscience & obfuscation

What in the heck must I be "careful" about please ?

Maybe you feel need to tutor re scope/breadth/intent or something else, please clarify ?
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
@Mike, mine didn't cover very much about MHD. They waved a stick over it once or twice and told us that was electrical engineering, not electronics. OTOH that was in the early to mid 1980s. They were a lot more interested in logic and chips and hard disks and monitors than they were in power generation.

Your post never talked about MHD at all. Everything you spoke of looked like standard electrical flow, not MHD fluid flows. Maybe if you know all that MHD stuff you should, you know, mention it or something. Or at least when you didn't not get all shirty when someone tries to give you a hint.

Having a bad day or something, maybe?
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2016
@Da Schneib
Sorry you didnt get as much grounding, I was @ Western Australian Institute of Technology 1976-82. Started f/time then p/time, lots of time to absorb material other than the rushed only f/time, where were you ?

Uni Engineering of note; Mech/Elect/Electro/Structural/Chem/Comms has same pre-requisites 1st year ie 2 sems ea of Maths, Physics & Chemical then 2nd year for most Eng is further 2 sems Maths & Physics (+ Chemical for Chem Eng) then last 2 yrs specialisation Eg electrical/electronic/chem covers MHD, others don't.

Da Schneib says
Your post never talked about MHD at all
So, don't have to, addressed cantdrive85.

Da Schneib says
.. looked like standard electrical flow, not MHD fluid flows. Maybe if you know all that MHD stuff you should, you know, mention it or something
Why, its beyond terms of ref re my post addressing cantdrive85's, what does it achieve ?

Anyway, I mentioned foundation; Gauss/Faraday/Maxwell all are MHD base...

TBC
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2016
Umm, you might be confused, I was responding to your post directed at me, not your post directed at @CD.

Sorry but I don't give PII on the open 'Net.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2016
Continued @Da Schneib says
... Or at least when you didn't not get all shirty when someone tries to give you a hint. Having a bad day or something, maybe?
Beg your pardon ?

I was Warned to "be careful", that's *not* a hint in anyone's language or why you think it is ?

Here are few examples of useful "hints", you might want to consider to elicit good dialog which doesn't provoke unhealthy exchange ie Not to open criticisms ie "be careful" !

@Mike..
a. .. can you offer a viewpoint re article & MHD ?
b. .. please expand on your post to cantdrive85, might MHD be relevant ?
c. .. do you consider Maxwell could have foreseen MHD being of relevance re his circuits ?
..

Hmm
You write as if MHD isnt within application of Math of Gauss/Faraday/Maxwell ?

Surely from your recent delving into MHD & relation to your earlier Eng training it doesn't matter the fluid as long as it has charge/dielectric properties as it clearly falls under Maxwell's "electric circuit" ?
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 02, 2016
Sorry if you were offended.

Bye now.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 02, 2016
Da Schneib replied
.. you might be confused, I was responding to your post directed at me..
No, not confused, see my last post, you write oddly as if MHD is something very different, not within the accepted purview of Gauss/Faraday/Maxwell ?

So delineating currents & warn me to "be careful" suggests you haven't had opportunity to assess connection in the detail needed hence my post to clarify which was also directed at you, that's my way of just making sure as its clear it doesn't matter the fluid or medium or even the absence of ie free space, beneath all these you must agree from Electrical Engineering Gauss et al rules ?

Da Schneib says
Sorry but I don't give PII on the open 'Net
Not asking re personals, just institute name?

Blimey it was ~30 yrs ago, what does it matter or you published your first name here already & your nick your last name - I'd guess not ?

My personals don't bother me for most part, my student no 7602128 @ Curtin uni :-)
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Jun 02, 2016
Da Schneib added
Sorry if you were offended. Bye now
No problem, apology accepted :-)

Not much offense direct, felt like you were telling me off as if to teach (as you touched on issue re accuracy previously re BB theory & GR immediately after BB re inflation) hence my comment re posts not having to have lecture like requirement needing full breadth, ie up to poster as they feel like posting about, their choice.

There's a lot of odd ball criticism/personal attacks dragging forum down & prejudice even added as preface to people's addressing nicknames, its childish stuff & seems there's an infectious aspect & likely rather unconscious. Glad we can overcome.

My primary focus has been to address those who mislead badly & upon (primarily emotional) beliefs not supported by empirical evidence, also betray either political agenda or personal attack motive - latter of which falls squarely within Criminology, nuff said there...

Can cantdrive85 ever answer my Q's ?
MalleusConspiratori
3 / 5 (18) Jun 02, 2016
Why is it that the very idiots that squawk loudest at AGW because "you don't have enough data" or "that's just a model" or "that's just a hypothesis" have no such concerns when it comes to things like understanding the earth's core? They systematically demonstrate every fallacy they accuse us of- and then whine that it's down to "the establishment" not accepting new ideas.

It's a very popular hypocrisy these days. Best has to be the right wing xtian luddite that "is just skeptical; doesn't have enough evidence to see that AGW is a reality"...but believes every word of their xtian fairy tales because "God wrote it, I believe it, that settles it". And then they turn around and ridicule "set and settled".

I'll tell you what. I know one of those types through a friend who is learning martial arts. I'm going to invite him to a sparring session, and will be seeing cantthink when I look at him the whole session.
MalleusConspiratori
3 / 5 (18) Jun 02, 2016
cantdrive85 1 /5 (9) 18 hours ago
So you already watched the 40+ min video in 25mins?


Grow up. You tube videos presenting a position ONLY exist because the idiot producing them doesn't want to be pinned down to falsifiable statements and/or is using persuasive personal presence to sell something. That is not science. QED: ANY YOUTUBE VIDEO PRESENTING A HYPOTHESIS IS CRAP!

Every. last. one. You instantly disqualify yourself by citing such garbage. You don't get that, do you? You're EXACTLY like a 12 year old that goes up to his teacher after sex ed. and tells her she doesn't know anything because what she covered didn't include things he's seen on the bathroom wall. You know, you write it on the bathroom wall...BECAUSE IT'S CRAP! Youtube. Same deal.

But then imagine that 12 year old shouting and throwing a tantrum because she won't consider his "evidence". Would you really expect her to go look? Then don't expect us to watch your YT kaka.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2016
Why is it that the very idiots that squawk loudest at AGW because "you don't have enough data" or "that's just a model" or "that's just a hypothesis" have no such concerns when it comes to things like understanding the earth's core?

Because they are playing the odds.

They have found out that they are dumb - by repeatedly having been exposed to situations where they are compared to others (school, work, social life, ... ). They *know* that by all objective measurements they are dumb. But no way is their ego allowing them to accept that.

The only way they can ever hope not to feel dumb is to use the shotgun approach by being contrary to anything and everything - hoping that once in their lives they'll happen (by pure chance) to be right. Then they'll come over all smug with "I knew it all along therefore I'm smart"

It's like people playing the lottery and when they win they think they were special/chosen all along.
ogg_ogg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2016
Is the Inner Core solid? What is the difference between a solid and a liquid at those pressures and temperatures? I've been under the (mis?) apprehension that the difference between solid and liquid is liquids flow under the gravitational force exerted on them. Is this definition useful at the Earth's Core? Even if you define a liquid as something which has atomic or molecular units that flow without breaking covalent bonds, does that get us close to what is happening in the Core? Another question: is "ion" really the appropriate term for the charge carriers down there? All this aside, without knowing composition, & we don't, I don't see how we can be at all confident that we know what's going on down there. I'd guess that solid and liquid are defined in terms of seismic behavior, and that that scale is far larger than that we consider for considering physical state. It seems a bit delusional to believe the Core is any more homogeneous than the lithosphere. Especially at higher Temp.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2016
@ogg, some answers.

Is the Inner Core solid? What is the difference between a solid and a liquid at those pressures and temperatures? I've been under the (mis?) apprehension that the difference between solid and liquid is liquids flow under the gravitational force exerted on them. Is this definition useful at the Earth's Core? Even if you define a liquid as something which has atomic or molecular units that flow without breaking covalent bonds, does that get us close to what is happening in the Core?
The big point here is the difference between the two different kinds of waves that earthquakes generate. One is transverse and the other longitudinal; these are called "shear" and "pressure" waves, AKA "S" and "P" waves. P waves can travel through all kinds of condensed matter, but S waves only travel through liquids. Because we have seismographs all over the Earth's surface, we can observe the propagation of these waves through the Earth.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
Thus, we can see the shadow of the Earth's core in the S waves, telling us it is solid. Furthermore, we can see how the P waves get refracted by the mantle, liquid core, and solid core, and how the S waves get refracted by the mantle and the liquid core, which gives us information about their density.

You can see that this difference between propagation of P and S waves gives a very good definition of "solid" and "liquid."

Another question: is "ion" really the appropriate term for the charge carriers down there?
Sure; those pressures and temperatures mostly aren't sufficient to interfere with the bond between nuclei and their electrons. Thus, an atom that has had some of its electrons stripped off is still properly called an ion.

All this aside, without knowing composition, & we don't, I don't see how we can be at all confident that we know what's going on down there.
Actually, we know a lot about composition. Here's how:
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
1. We know the Earth's total mass; we can tell that from its perturbations of the other planets' and asteroids' orbits.
2. We know the chemical composition of the Sun from spectroscopy, and we know the chemical compositions of meteorites that have fallen to Earth, and we know the composition of the Earth's crust for obvious reasons, and we know the composition of the mantle from the outflows of volcanoes.
3. Given that, we can check the composition of the lower mantle in the lab (these are lower pressures and temperatures that we've been able to generate for many decades now) by taking the composition of the upper mantle and testing its seismological qualities.
4. Now that we have a working knowledge of the composition of the surface and mantle, and of the primordial elements from the Sun and meteorites, we can use simple accounting to say what must be in the core; and we can cross-check that against the behavior of the P and S waves.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
4. contd
Furthermore, we can also cross-check it against the known mass of the Earth, and the known densities from the P and S waves, so we can be pretty sure we've got it right.

BTW, I made a mistake above; S waves can't travel through *liquid* so the shadow of the core is the shadow of the *outer* core, not the inner. And we can see the difference in refraction of the P waves between the outer and inner cores, showing there has to be a solid inner core.

As a further cross-check, we see different kinds of meteorites; two common types are nickel-iron and chondrites, and they are very different. This shows that mass segregation had already happened when they formed, and this strongly suggests mass segregation inside the Earth, and this is confirmed by the different refractions of the various layers of the mantle and core.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
I'd guess that solid and liquid are defined in terms of seismic behavior, and that that scale is far larger than that we consider for considering physical state.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. If you give me more information I'll try to answer as best I can.

It seems a bit delusional to believe the Core is any more homogeneous than the lithosphere.
The core is made from a different class of materials; we know this from the P and S wave refractions and from the meteorites and our composition analyses.

We know that these materials behave differently because metals and non-metals behave differently in the lab. And we know about homogenetity because we could see discontinuities in the refractions of the P waves, and we don't, at least not of the kind you seem to be talking about here.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2016
[contd]
Especially at higher Temp.
Actually we're in the process of figuring that out in the lab, as detailed in the article we're commenting on here.

I found a pretty good rundown of the evidence, organized better than I have here (because I was responding to your stream of thought, not making an organized explanation) and I think you should look it over; hopefully I haven't screwed anything up too badly. Have a look: https://www.soest...ore.html

Hope that helps. And BTW, good questions! I gave a 5.
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2016
Is the Inner Core solid?

Looking to figure 6 in http://www.hpcat....2006.pdf and assuming it is indeed a FeNi alloy I would say it is a solid.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 02, 2016
It's like people playing the lottery and when they win they think they were special/chosen all along
@AA_P
wait... what?
... that's my retirement plan, you know
[hyperbole]

good points about playing the odds too... it also applies to some of the educated folk here who make all-encompassing statements that are directly refuted by statistics or facts, BTW... they're waiting for the next publication hoping for it to be in their favour

.

.

Hope that helps
@DaSchneib
just wanted you to know that people like you are the reason i keep coming back to PO

when yall post explanations that help folk learn that also correlate to classes or easily found research ... that is the real waffle-cone holding the ice cream together

THANKS
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 02, 2016
No. Read the abstract, suggests like charges collect together & that ions drive wind, nil experimental evidence for both

You should get out from under that rock, ionic wind experiments have been going on since the 16th century. As far as like charges collecting, when you get out from under that rock, look to the sky and occasionally you may see some fluffy things floating up there. And here's a hint, sometimes lightning "falls" out of the clouds (due to gravity obviously), that's a really big clue that would suggest like charges do collect together exactly what was claimed. Any more there Eyesenstein?
Mark Thomas
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
It seems reasonable that MHD and Earth's spinning inner and outer cores must have something to do with producing our magnetic field, but the exact mechanism is still unclear and we should treat it accordingly. https://arxiv.org...7195.pdf
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 02, 2016
@ogg: "What is the difference between a solid and a liquid at those pressures and temperatures? I've been under the (mis?) apprehension that the difference between solid and liquid is liquids flow under the gravitational force exerted on them. Is this definition useful at the Earth's Core?"

Good questions! Science is good at adapting to the context to pull qualitative and quantitative information out of systems. What you are describing is fully correct, but it applies to the mantle, that deforms viscously (as a liquid) on time scales of 100 Myrs when you translate its high viscosity into terms of flow.

What DaSchneib describes is fully correct, but it applies to the core where seismology and geodynamo effects defines what it means to be "liquid". The wave velocity of seismological waves are much too fast to see the mantle as liquid, the geodynamo flows places somewhere in between but agrees with seismology but not plate tectonics.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
In this case solid means that the matter has crystalline order. Liquid FeNi alloys should have low viscosity, like any liquid metal. Mercury is a good example. The mantle is also liquid but highly viscous, like sirup. Seismologists know how to use these differences to model the internal structure of the Earth.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Jun 02, 2016
So much postulating about "MHD effects" despite the FACT that "we know from experiments these equations to be wrong".
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (13) Jun 02, 2016
So much postulating about "MHD effects" despite the FACT that "we know from experiments these equations to be wrong"
CD85, you posted a link to a youtube video of a guy who suggested that it's the wind blowing on the mountains that makes the world go 'round. What's wrong with your brain? As if the oceans and their tides wouldn't have a much greater effect than the air? Can you calculate the effect of the tides on the Earth's rotation? No, you're too busy with FACTs on MHD.

Have a look at some real science, CD85 -- http://bowie.gsfc...tro.html
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 02, 2016
@CD, do you seriously contend that ions being carried in, say, water, don't constitute a current in the Maxwellian sense of moving charges?

I just gotta ask here.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 03, 2016
Da Schneib. Very nice set of posts. Just wanted to add that not only does the refraction behavior of seismic waves give information but also their arrival speed (since waves travel through different media at different speeds depending on composition and density...well..the different speeds being the actual cause of refraction in the first place because of the different (complex) impedance values of various materials)

In the end the technique is very much like what we do with modern day ultrasound imaging devices (A-mode).
ericpelser
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2016
Hey ! we don't know everything yet, however, we will with time get it, and figure it out.
ericpelser
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2016
Am I helping, if not I will shut-up. Number of posts tonight, let me know.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
.. applies to some of the educated folk here who make all-encompassing statements that are directly refuted by statistics or facts..
Huge Irony !

1. Is this directed at me re your annoyance I pointed out you totally misread a Scientific Paper (SP) construing a mere model was "proof" a wide radiation band is harmless (!) or something else directed at who ?

2. Spit it out man, be scientifically precise, not vague assertions jammed into threads !

CS claims
.. BTW... they're waiting for the next publication hoping for it to be in their favour
In reference to what - see 2.

NB
Before any emotive facile uneducated posters make "all-encompassing" claims of practical proofs from mere math models as gross:- https://en.wikipe...sconduct

They *need* to learn Electromagnetic Physics with all the inherent permutations to do the hard yards ie Tutes/Labs & comprehend value of logic so they can interpret SPs properly !
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2016
Best return to article, great posts Da Schneib (1 of your passions?) & torbjorn's update. My understanding incomplete, comments on my questions:-

1. At those temp/pressures is delineation re solid/liquid precise enough or is aspect of plasticity & its delta relevant, especially re S & P wave (SPw) resolutions
2. How confident are we inner core hasn't heterogeneous eutectic properties not just Fe/Ni, can variance in SPw offer clues
3. Re 2 & as far as we know given Th/K decay primary thermal drivers, do we know their comparative solubility in outer core vs inner core or even lower mesosphere
4. Re 3 can this offer a coupling differential re charge with feedbacks sustaining overall field ie if we consider more Alpha emitters @ inner core vs more Beta at outer core re +/- gradients
5. Given high inner core temps can we expect high electron mobility & the difference in mobility inner to outer offering magnetic stability transiently re 3

Clearly I must read more, tah
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 03, 2016
Correction to last post re Q 3, neglected Uranium, apologies. Seems Alpha emitters far exceed Beta emitters as highest sources of radiogenic heating, my ref
https://en.wikipe...t_budget
as a start but, haven't waded through the references in much detail yet. Other than adding U to Th & K in my question 3, others stand but I wonder adding

6. Could we add combination longitudinal/transverse waves from a suitable explosion driven transducer which has enough power with a modulation aspect to assess the equivalent electronic filter coefficients via the properties of the materials they pass through.

ie
Had this vague idea filling an unused oil well hole (that goes down a few Kms) with a plastique explosive with a fiber optic staged linear detonator & thus produce a desired wave-shape of many frequency components - selected frequencies of which would have different low/high/bandpass attenuations as they pass through the earth's strata...
pongobongo
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 03, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
.. applies to some of the educated folk here who make all-encompassing statements that are directly refuted by statistics or facts..
Huge Irony !
If you would like to see a huge irony, read the following rant.

1. Is this directed at me re your annoyance I pointed out you totally misread a Scientific Paper (SP) construing a mere model was "proof" a wide radiation band is harmless (!) or something else directed at who ?

2. Spit it out man, be scientifically precise, not vague assertions jammed into threads !
Asking someone else to be precise? Are you joking?

They *need* to learn Electromagnetic Physics with all the inherent permutations to do the hard yards ie Tutes/Labs & comprehend value of logic so they can interpret SPs properly !


Your sense of irony is misplaced. To include advice on what others need to learn in order to comprehend the value of logic and interpret anything,,, there is the irony.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (16) Jun 03, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
@Mike
talk about irony... if ya can't answer a simple question where you copy/paste a simple set of references after counting them... how can you argue this other crap you posted above?

until you learn to read and post without making up your syntax, shortcuts and terminology as you go when posting, then i aint responding to you - especially as you've not addressed my points, comments or requests in the other thread yet
Is this directed at me
Nope
(you do know that it aint all about you, right mike?)

i aint thought of you for a while as you're not actually responding to my requests

but if you really want to open the door to criticism... read @pongobongo above

then google and read up on "clear concise communication" eh?
thanks
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 03, 2016
Thanks, @antialias, I appreciate that!
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2016
@Captain Stumpy
Mere uneducated assertions :/

Focus & learn to comprehend the simple logic your claim of "Proof" is False !

A. Mere models without Experimental Method/Empirical Evidence are NOT ever any Proof

AND

B. Claiming multiple studies "validate" is false unless they address the "scope of work" of your claim that "Terahertz radiation is harmless"

Making all-encompassing claims without; caveats, exclusions, conditions etc isn't just Scientific Misconduct - it is completely wrong, misleading & negligent !

Captain Stump:- Find ONE paper on terahertz radiation with Experimental Method AND Empirical Evidence which addresses your all-encompassing claim and you MIGHT have a point?

But, comprehend the permutations are VAST therefore its highly unlikely one exists or can have Experimental Methods broad enough over long enough period to have validity :/

Why focus on me, show paper to an independent high school EM Physics teacher ?

& Get Empirical Evidence !
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2016
@Captain Stumpy,

Try to Comprehend, your claims & my observations are well beyond any prior use of pertinent abbreviations which were not directed at you, that was a totally different topic & you should be ashamed resorting to attack like mentality, please focus !

In respect of your claim re this paper:- http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf
& the thread which continued your run of mere claim:-
http://phys.org/n...ica.html

Onus is not on me to refute papers you cite because you haven't yet shown ONE even close to your open ended claim "Terahertz radiation is harmless" ie Without Evidence ?

Proofs arise from Empirical Evidence according to properly designed Experimental Methodology within the "scope of work" of claims/papers & if you like which specifically cover the model offered.

You must try to Comprehend the model is *only* for DNA & the language in that paper is qualitative.

You need Empirical Evidence !
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
Mere uneducated assertions
@ mikey
1- if ya had proof of this you would not be ranting here, you would have discussed it with me on the other thread

2- you still haven't addressed my points on the other thread, so what makes you think that you can suddenly "win the day" by ranting and crying about it here?

3- what you are doing right now is cross-posting an argument you failed to address in another thread because you couldn't answer the basics nor communicate clearly - again, what makes you think that you can suddenly "win the day" by ranting and crying about it here?

if ya can't answer it there, what makes you think you will do better here? it's the same argument
you still failed
you still aint answered

you still can't read, apparently, cause the request was simple ... and reading the req would answer your above, BTW

Focus & learn to comprehend the simple logic & Get Empirical Evidence !
Try to Comprehend, You need Empirical Evidence !

Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) claims
simple set of references after counting them
Really - your references are "simple" ie "clear & concise" Experimental Methodology & Empirical Evidence properly analyzed ?

Counting achieves what - is mere qty (& size) more important than Empirical Evidence ?

CS says
.. read up on "clear concise communication" eh? thanks
Cool, what a great idea & appropriate to the Audience of course re technical terms & use of language especially qualitative vs quantitative - surely you must agree with that ?

Isn't it intelligent to settle it maturely & inform the audience & me who you claim "can't read", the precise logic steps within your "clear concise communication" protocol that led you from the paper
(P1) http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf
to your subsequent open ended & all-encompassing claim
(C1) "i said the paper proved THz was harmless".

What formal logic can you educate audience so as to go from paper P1 & arrive @ claim C1 ?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
Captain Stumpy slipped up again with
Focus & learn to comprehend the simple logic & Get Empirical Evidence !
Try to Comprehend, You need Empirical Evidence !
These are a composite of My words earlier, did you mean to quote them & if so in conjunction with what ?

This discussion is not refute & counter refute etc, in ALL cases it has to be about Intent & Scope of Work re Evidence

ie. If a paper has nil Scope to further an Experimental Methodology & thus has nil Empirical Evidence that it is Scientific Misconduct to claim it as proof.

You determine intent & scope of work from title & abstract primarily.

Rather than citing earlier references to support method you NEED to cite a paper which has an Experimental Methodology that is soundly based on ElectroMagnetic (EM) Physics AND has key Empirical Evidence.

Please site just ONE paper from your growing list of 20+ papers that has that ?

Have you thought that, citing more papers shows P1 wasn't sufficient ?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
pongobongo (PB) claims
.. would like to see a huge irony, read the following rant
No. A question & pertinent observation Captain Stumpy (CS) has badly misread a Scientific Paper

ie.
Irony is purely CS claim I made an all-encompassing statement. No, it is he who made the all-encompassing claim that "THz radiation is harmless", can you not see such distinction ?

PB with satire Asking someone else to be precise? Are you joking? No, if anyone isnt precise incl me then ASK to clarify, that's mature !

CS' huge problem, he made all-encompassing claim which can't be proven from a model which Also urges experiment, can't you see that ?

PB says
Your sense of irony is misplaced
No, see the paper CS claims as proof, tell us in your best clear & concise communication whether a model minus evidence can be a proof ?

PB says
To include advice on what others need to learn in order to comprehend..
Np, sad is CS believes minus relevant training/experience :/
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
@pongobongo,

Is your last post just a facile means to get on a bandwagon & spurt idle prejudice or do you have any useful Physics to add to my 2 posts ie 6 questions relevant to article & Da Schneib's introduction re P & S or any aspect at all ?

ie. Your pattern appears overwhelmingly that of a mere prejudicial follower ie sad :/

Not the more entertaining side leading a discussion to offer Science, ie Either addressing logic to deal with a claim or offering discussion base upon exploratory questions relevant to the article :/

Can you see 'mob style' robotic following is just one of the most serious failings of human nature - ie Desire to gain self-esteem by bullying & following as sheep ?

Which raises the question, why are you here ?
AND
Also raises question, what can we glean from Captain Stumpy's Motivation to repeat paper P1 links many times until challenged by me ?

CS still hasn't addressed my much earlier question, he claimed P1 is "rigorous" - how so ?
pongobongo
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2016
@ Mike_Massen. I would love to accommodate you but I can't really pin down your questions. They "seem" to be mere devices that have what you think are the only answers. The irony is that you think others are in fault for a lack of precise and logical communication while your abilities with plain language are dismal.

Do you communicate the way you do because you think it makes you look lofty and pithy? Or is it studied in the hope of making it difficult for the persons you are addressing, a defensive technique so to speak?

Your egocentric way of approach is working. I can't answer your questions, because the questions are lost in an incomprehensible jumble of ad hoc abbreviations, odd slang, totally unique syntax and punctuation. It has to be an intentional defense mechanism otherwise you would make some small attempt to correct it.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
@pongobongo,
There is no question of devices re ego. Notice I concede *at start* my understanding of P&S waves re Earth's core etc incomplete !

a. So why would you accuse me thus when I start with conceding... ?

If you'll care to notice all the terms I used in relation to the six questions are engineering/physics conventionally used & relevant to Science the article relates to.

b. Please inform which question has worst syntax in your experience which excludes your ability to infer & from what perspective is that experience based - industry/academia/documentaries etc ?

c. Is my punctuation so haphazard you can't infer intent of the question at all, even to entertain dialog of the nature of "Re Q1 When you said delineation, did you mean difference or separation" etc ?

d. Rather than make claims, isnt it more convergent to ask for clarification ?

I still don't see any pertinent Science from you & note you decline to comment on Captain Stumpy's invalid claim...
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
pongobongo (PB) claims
.. questions are lost in an incomprehensible jumble of ad hoc abbreviations, odd slang, totally unique syntax and punctuation
Beg Pardon ? see my last post, terminology within Science of which the article is a component & is relevant.

Instead of wide of the mark unfocused claims of ad-hoc, pin the term please ?

Why won't you show us how precise You are to set an example I obviously need to follow ?

PB claims
. has to be an intentional defense mechanism otherwise you would make some small attempt to correct it
No, audience selectivity/exclusion pre-dialectic

Why "has to" you saying you do have understanding to parse Q's but refuse to so as merely to draw attention to syntax ??

Where's "odd slang", "unique syntax" educate all please ?

In Science dialectic its efficient to converge instead of hand-waved vague assertions, unfocused claims easy for those as defense mechanism to distract they don't know the subject :/

Do you ?
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
sigh
your references are "simple" ie "clear & concise" Experimental Methodology & Empirical Evidence properly analyzed ?
@mike
1- this demonstrates you failed to read a single reference i posted

2- the definition of a "study" is 2b and 2c here: http://www.thefre...om/study

until you can differentiate between a study and a claim...

and until we can meet in some middle ground as to communication where you can be clear, concise, and stop sticking your head up your own *ss while ignoring the empirical evidence i've posted...

and until you can stop OT cross-posting the argument all over PO with irrelevant BS claims when you didn't read the initial posts, references or adhere to the requests for clarity...

then we really can't communicate clearly, can we?

now, you can keep posting if you want, but ... ???

PROTIP, one of my references actually states the exact same thing i did
which is how i know you aren't reading them
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) not being efficient claims
and until we can meet in some middle ground as to communication where you can be clear, concise...
I have repeatedly been concise & clear in asking for Empirical Evidence Which ONE & the link please ?

CS says
.. we really can't communicate clearly
Indeed, why evade ?

Its easy IF you link Evidence & refusing to articulate the logic path you follow from initial paper to your claim it was a "proof" suggests you don't have any logical connection at all !

CS claims
PROTIP, one of my references actually states the exact same thing i did
which is how i know you aren't reading them
Then link it please ?

Making more claims minus link, makes you evasive !

Which Paper has any necessary essentials to even *start* & establish your case:-

a. Experimental Methodology re your all-encompassing claim of a mere model
AND
b. Empirical Evidence which arises from a.

WHY claim when far more efficient to link it please ?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2016
@Captain Stumpy (CS)
What are the precise logic steps within your "clear concise communication" protocol that led you from the paper
(P1) http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf
to your subsequent open ended & all-encompassing claim
(C1) "i said the paper proved THz was harmless"

CS claims
1- this demonstrates you failed to read a single reference i posted
2- the definition of a "study" is 2b and 2c here: http://www.thefre...om/study
No, YOU made a claim - if you Must wander there look at 4. as its closest ie a "test"

1- I read the references, there are none which have Experimental Method with associated Empirical Evidence to even come a wee bit close to your claim :/

Which ONE - link it please ?

ie. Prove me wrong show me where I missed that ONE key crucial Paper you say has key Empirical Evidence re your claim C1

CS why evade, what led you from P1 to C1 in the first place ?
AND
Find at least ONE paper re Empirical Evidence on C1 & link please ?
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2016
mike ranting like a homeless degenerate schizophrenic on PCP, Meth and crack attempting to have relations with a greased football says
Captain Stumpy (CS) not being efficient claims

crossposted and OT
taken to the other thread

AND
if ya can't at least answer the single request which can begin the "clear concise communication" then there aint no reason to continue poking your schizophrenic paranoid delusional brain, right?
CS why evade
ROTFLMFAO
this is actually funny rc...er, i mean benni... viko? no. uba!
...oops, you're mike...sorry, you re acting like all the other trolls now so it's hard to keep up with your BS

how many posts have you made while refusing to answer the two simple requests i made so we can begin to clarify the issue & point?
I count 13...

i could be wrong because i was also laughing pretty hard....

who's evading ????
you are mike
LMFAO

PS - not gonna continue this here, troll-girl
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) loses it finally showing himself up with his best personal attack :/
mike ranting like a homeless degenerate schizophrenic on PCP, Meth and crack attempting to have relations with a greased football says
Beg Pardon ?

Instead of wasting space on personal attack isn't it far more sensible, intelligent & mature to link directly to the paper which has the Experimental Methodology AND the Empirical Evidence you claim which supports your all encompassing unsupportable contention:-
"THz radiation is harmless" ?

Why *must* you resort to unintelligent personal attack trying to distract to put people down ?

Just link to the paper, its fast, efficient & the best method of educated convergence to arrive at the essential truth ?

CS again lost it again[q .. troll-girl Falling into personal attack mode shows you cannot find the paper to support your belief :/

So you are shown to be false in your claim
OR
Where is the link to the paper please ?
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
how many posts have you made while refusing to answer the two simple requests i made so we can begin to clarify the issue & point?
Beg Pardon ?

How does your odd ball request make any sense, you've already listed & counted them, so what the heck does it achieve that you require me to repeat ?

a. List the papers that you already have ?
b. Count them as well as you already have ?

ie Pointless waste of time !

What's achieved by such undertaking, anything at all useful for anyone ?

CS adds
count 13..
i could be wrong because i was also laughing pretty hard..
Why laughing when not ONE of the papers you list has the Experimental Methodology AND the Empirical Evidence (as you claim) to support your all encompassing contention that "THz radiation is harmless" ?

Please link to at least ONE paper. Its efficient & concise, takes seconds & allows the Audience, which is far more than mere me, to assess whether you are genuine ?

or Tragic
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2016
@mikey/bschott/benni/uba/liar-kam cant read
isn't it far more sensible, intelligent & mature to link directly to the paper which has the Experimental Methodology AND the Empirical Evidence
you do realize that i've already linked it (and referred you back to it), right?
http://phys.org/n...ens.html

http://phys.org/n...ion.html

http://phys.org/n...ica.html

if you can't read the onus is upon you - not i
i've presented the evidence - it's not my fault you can't read it
Why *must* you resort to unintelligent personal attack trying to distract to put people down
maybe you can explain it first?
CS bully
(CS) with his panties in a bunch
CS facile claim
Only to untrained
(CS) loses it
maybe then you will have an answer?

perhaps you can consider answering this in a relevant thread as requested too?
or can you read?
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) claims
. i've already linked it
Many papers scattered over many links but, not ONE has Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence to support your all-encompassing claims "THz radiation is harmless" :/

Must have missed it so its obvious to link directly to it - which ONE & author please ?

CS says
.. read the onus is upon you
Maybe, which ONE & author please ?

CS says
..it's not my fault you can't read it
I've read the papers but, not ONE has the "Scope of Work" to cover your claim, since I must have missed it - which ONE & author please ?

CS asks
..maybe you can explain it first? CS bully, with his panties in a bunch, facile claim, Only to untrained...
Already did & yes you are sadly untrained & uneducated & inexperienced that's why you *need* to learn EM Physics to comprehend that paper & others...:/

Which ONE paper & Author please ?

Can someone else fill in for CS' evasion, which paper & Author ?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2016
Already did
you explained why you are a bully and using attacks, ad hominem and spam posting irrelevant OT material all over PO?

can you link where you explained that... all i need is the thread. i actually know how to read, thanks
Which ONE paper & Author please ?
wait... you said you read it! you said:
I don't need to be walked through papers on subjects I have been specifically trained in at higher education level
found here: http://phys.org/n...ica.html

now, since you know all the papers... you can finally validate the study that contains:
Terahertz
THz
Thermal effects
Cellular effects
Biological effects

also contains the experiments ref'd, rev'd and list'd for your reading pleasure!

thanks mikeytroll
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2016
I've read the papers but
no no no... no buts @mikey/liar-kam/uba/benni/bschott
you either read them or you didn't

you claimed you did... so when i ref'd a study that contained: Terahertz, THz, Thermal effects, Cellular effects, Biological effects and more, you should have known instantly which one it was... especially since i listed it as a ref as a point... one point that THz fog that you/liar was hysterically portraying as the potential death of us all will be essentially harmless
the other being that we're surrounded by the harmless THz and it's not killing us off, yet there are potential uses for it that "can" harm us

this was the driving point of the LASER analogy you f*cked up, misquoted, misunderstood and ignorantly/stupidly cherry picked to make "your" points

tell me little liar boy - learned to read yet?
http://www.readingbear.org/

https://www.psych...ttle-ego
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2016
OK - LAST POST TO MIKE
i will repeat this elsewhere

i gave you the evidence
the onus of reading it is upon you, not i
the responsibility of finding it yet again is upon you because i've battled with you long enough on too many threads where the argument is irrelevant (like this one)

so i will say this one last time: the evidence is here
http://phys.org/n...ens.html]http://phys.org/n...ens.html[/url]

every future post you make about this while blatantly lying and intentionally misrepresenting content will be ignored, and i will only respond to you on the threads linked below (while open)
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

http://phys.org/n...ens.html]http://phys.org/n...ens.html[/url]

no more spamming, @mikey/liar-kam/uba/benni/bschott
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy claims
so i will say this one last time: the evidence is here
http://phys.org/n...ens.html
No, its not !

There is NO paper on that thread which covers the Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence re the "Scope of Work" to cover your all encompassing claim that "THz radiation is harmless"

Why do you STILL refuse to link directly to the paper - if at least to prove me wrong ?

Direct link to paper please to be efficient with name of Author ?

Why MUST you avoid linking directly to the paper, what might you lose doing that ?
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) claims
so when i ref'd a study that contained: Terahertz, THz, Thermal effects, Cellular effects, Biological effects and more, you should have known instantly which one it was
No. You haven't referenced a study you linked to a thread - big difference

Please link direct to the paper as I've repeatedly asked ?

CS claims
.. THz fog that you/liar was hysterically portraying as the potential death of us all will be essentially harmless
Just because we survive EM radiation doesn't prove at all its harmless, not heard of keratinocytes re aging & keratosis or even skin or optic cancers ?

CS claims
.. it's not killing us off,
It is though quite slowly. Those uneducated in EM Physics just don't learn to notice :/

CS says
.. LASER analogy you f*cked up, misquoted, misunderstood and ignorantly/stupidly cherry picked to make "your" points
No. A Scientific paper doesn't need to rely upon them as incomplete & distract from Scope of Work

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.