To: MtnClimber
Why don't they mention radioactive decay as the source of the heat? Only stored heat? Really?
25 posted on
01/19/2017 8:32:53 AM PST by
103198
(It's the metadata stupid...)
To: 103198
.
>> “Heat from Earth’s core could be underlying force in plate tectonics” <<
Vaporware and circular reasoning combine to release brain farts as “science.”
The heat of the Earth’s core has to be the result of friction. There isn’t a nuclear reactor buried down there.
26 posted on
01/19/2017 8:39:06 AM PST by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
To: 103198
Why don't they mention radioactive decay as the source of the heat?That is a quandary for them. It is easier to explain residual heat and the less inquisitive will accept that. If they allow that the heat might be produced by fission, then they have to explain what becomes of the material by-products of that fission, namely hydrogen.
27 posted on
01/19/2017 8:44:40 AM PST by
webheart
(All comments are considered to be sarcasm unless otherwise noted)
To: 103198
.
Radioactive material is up in the crust, not down in the core.
Volcanic ejecta is not measurably radioactive.
.
30 posted on
01/19/2017 8:46:56 AM PST by
editor-surveyor
(Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson