Complications of displaced core material?Reaching the ocean's end (EDIT: and the Earth's core)Creating a stable split earthCould exoplanet with Earth's magnetic field orbiting a binary star system harbour intelligent life?Could a human colony persist long term on a planet with limited food and water resources?The World of Floating IslandsWhat would be the side effects of a massive, strong magnetic field?If Earth's Core had ALL Of the Heavy MetalsAll the Radioactive Metals Inside Earth's Core--How Would They Affect Convection?If Earth's Moon Were Ganymede-Like, Part I: RotationHow do I give my planet a stronger magnetic field? Playing with variables
Payment instructions from HomeAway look fishy to me
How would a aircraft visually signal in distress?
Why is the application of an oracle function not a measurement?
Why is the relationship between frequency and pitch exponential?
Translating 'Liber'
What can plausibly explain many of my very long and low-tech bridges?
Company did not petition for visa in a timely manner. Is asking me to work from overseas, but wants me to take a paycut
Java guess the number
How did students remember what to practise between lessons without any sheet music?
Trapping Rain Water
How do I write "Show, Don't Tell" as a person with Asperger Syndrome?
Select items in a list that contain criteria #2
Strat tremolo bar has tightening issues
How Can I Tell The Difference Between Unmarked Sugar and Stevia?
What do we gain with higher order logics?
Traffic law UK, pedestrians
Efficient integer floor function in C++
PL/SQL function to receive a number and return its binary format
Can you really not move between grapples/shoves?
Where does this pattern of naming products come from?
What is the purpose of building foundations?
What LISP compilers and interpreters were available for 8-bit machines?
How is it possible that Gollum speaks Westron?
What's the correct term for a waitress in the Middle Ages?
Complications of displaced core material?
Reaching the ocean's end (EDIT: and the Earth's core)Creating a stable split earthCould exoplanet with Earth's magnetic field orbiting a binary star system harbour intelligent life?Could a human colony persist long term on a planet with limited food and water resources?The World of Floating IslandsWhat would be the side effects of a massive, strong magnetic field?If Earth's Core had ALL Of the Heavy MetalsAll the Radioactive Metals Inside Earth's Core--How Would They Affect Convection?If Earth's Moon Were Ganymede-Like, Part I: RotationHow do I give my planet a stronger magnetic field? Playing with variables
$begingroup$
If there were an absolutely terrible accident, and part of Earth's core was displaced toward the surface, making a bubble of liquid nickel and iron, what would be the major problems with this?
geography alternate-earth magnetism
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If there were an absolutely terrible accident, and part of Earth's core was displaced toward the surface, making a bubble of liquid nickel and iron, what would be the major problems with this?
geography alternate-earth magnetism
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You may want to narrow down this question a bit, at least define how much was displaced. For example, displacing a couple ounces of core would be very different from displacing half of it (and would cause a few extra problems for anyone directly underneath wherever it's displaced).
$endgroup$
– Giter
May 20 at 14:24
$begingroup$
I don't see how this is possible, because nickel-iron is denser than the overlying rock. If you are after a volcano of extreme short-term violence, but less globally damaging than a supervolcano eruption, I'd suggest the eruptions that gave us diamonds in Kimberlite pipes. We have never seen one and may wish not to. Anything that can transport diamonds from the depths where they are stable up to the surface, fast enough to cool them before they decompose to graphite, must be rather awesome -- and ripe for fictionalization.
$endgroup$
– nigel222
May 21 at 9:42
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If there were an absolutely terrible accident, and part of Earth's core was displaced toward the surface, making a bubble of liquid nickel and iron, what would be the major problems with this?
geography alternate-earth magnetism
$endgroup$
If there were an absolutely terrible accident, and part of Earth's core was displaced toward the surface, making a bubble of liquid nickel and iron, what would be the major problems with this?
geography alternate-earth magnetism
geography alternate-earth magnetism
edited May 20 at 13:58
Cyn
15k23070
15k23070
asked May 20 at 13:39
Greenie E.Greenie E.
53615
53615
1
$begingroup$
You may want to narrow down this question a bit, at least define how much was displaced. For example, displacing a couple ounces of core would be very different from displacing half of it (and would cause a few extra problems for anyone directly underneath wherever it's displaced).
$endgroup$
– Giter
May 20 at 14:24
$begingroup$
I don't see how this is possible, because nickel-iron is denser than the overlying rock. If you are after a volcano of extreme short-term violence, but less globally damaging than a supervolcano eruption, I'd suggest the eruptions that gave us diamonds in Kimberlite pipes. We have never seen one and may wish not to. Anything that can transport diamonds from the depths where they are stable up to the surface, fast enough to cool them before they decompose to graphite, must be rather awesome -- and ripe for fictionalization.
$endgroup$
– nigel222
May 21 at 9:42
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
You may want to narrow down this question a bit, at least define how much was displaced. For example, displacing a couple ounces of core would be very different from displacing half of it (and would cause a few extra problems for anyone directly underneath wherever it's displaced).
$endgroup$
– Giter
May 20 at 14:24
$begingroup$
I don't see how this is possible, because nickel-iron is denser than the overlying rock. If you are after a volcano of extreme short-term violence, but less globally damaging than a supervolcano eruption, I'd suggest the eruptions that gave us diamonds in Kimberlite pipes. We have never seen one and may wish not to. Anything that can transport diamonds from the depths where they are stable up to the surface, fast enough to cool them before they decompose to graphite, must be rather awesome -- and ripe for fictionalization.
$endgroup$
– nigel222
May 21 at 9:42
1
1
$begingroup$
You may want to narrow down this question a bit, at least define how much was displaced. For example, displacing a couple ounces of core would be very different from displacing half of it (and would cause a few extra problems for anyone directly underneath wherever it's displaced).
$endgroup$
– Giter
May 20 at 14:24
$begingroup$
You may want to narrow down this question a bit, at least define how much was displaced. For example, displacing a couple ounces of core would be very different from displacing half of it (and would cause a few extra problems for anyone directly underneath wherever it's displaced).
$endgroup$
– Giter
May 20 at 14:24
$begingroup$
I don't see how this is possible, because nickel-iron is denser than the overlying rock. If you are after a volcano of extreme short-term violence, but less globally damaging than a supervolcano eruption, I'd suggest the eruptions that gave us diamonds in Kimberlite pipes. We have never seen one and may wish not to. Anything that can transport diamonds from the depths where they are stable up to the surface, fast enough to cool them before they decompose to graphite, must be rather awesome -- and ripe for fictionalization.
$endgroup$
– nigel222
May 21 at 9:42
$begingroup$
I don't see how this is possible, because nickel-iron is denser than the overlying rock. If you are after a volcano of extreme short-term violence, but less globally damaging than a supervolcano eruption, I'd suggest the eruptions that gave us diamonds in Kimberlite pipes. We have never seen one and may wish not to. Anything that can transport diamonds from the depths where they are stable up to the surface, fast enough to cool them before they decompose to graphite, must be rather awesome -- and ripe for fictionalization.
$endgroup$
– nigel222
May 21 at 9:42
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You ask about a portion of the core being displaced toward the surface. This would move the center of mass toward the surface of the earth.
How much of the core moves, what the shape is of the part that moves, and how far that bit of core moves all matter when determining the effect. If, for instance, some of the core reaches the surface we have a new kind of volcanic activity that could make the Yellowstone Traps seem insignificant. For a less dramatic movement, the core being too close to the surface could result in much higher geothermal heating for that region, perhaps turning the Mediterranean Sea into a gigantic pot of bouillabaisse.
For this answer, I will assume that the core doesn't come to the surface, and that the mantle is essentially intact. Some part of the core moves "outward" from the core so that the core grows a bulge and is no longer best approximated as a sphere. Since the core is denser than the surrounding structures, the bulge moves the center of mass.
The center of mass is really important. It defines the point through which the planet's spin axis passes. The drama of the effect would depend on how much the center of mass were displaced. To avoid the "everybody dies" scenario, let's assume it moves a small amount, say about 7 miles. That can't be so bad on a 7000 mile diameter sphere. Right?
Except that it can. One change is that the water will flow so that it forms a smooth sphere around the center of mass. The low part will be covered with an added 7-mile deep ocean. The high part will be higher than the tallest mountains. If displaced in the right direction, the Mariana trench could become a salt lake above the new sea level as it is left to dry.
Another change is that the air will also recenter on the center of mass. Those former sea-level plains which are now 7 miles high will be uninhabitable without pressure suits.
The third substance that surrounds the core will also, slowly, flow to once again equilibrate to a sphere, and the earthquakes will be spectacular as the surface rock and mantle slowly flow and reform.
In summary, the low side is lost to deep water. The high side is lost to anoxia. The middle would still be habitable, provided you survive the earthquakes.
But, maybe 7 miles is more than you have in mind.
Even 500 feet would completely reform the coast lines. Dial in the displacement you want, look at topographic maps of the earth for the starting configuration and cover or expose whatever you'd like. On the low end, climate change for every spot on the planet. On the high end, a grand experiment in reshaping life after nearly all life on land and much of life on the ocean floor is destroyed.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
It may be worthwhile to note that "how much" of the core is moving that distance really matters. If only a third of the core moves 7 miles, the CoG of the core only moves a little more than 2 miles. Which doesn't account for the huge amount of mass that isn't part of the core. What really matters is the center of gravity for the entire planet (of which the core is about 1/3) - so moving e.g. 1/3 of the core should move the total CoG a bit less than 1/9 the distance you move it (a little less because other rock will fill in the space left to balance the movement a little).
$endgroup$
– Delioth
May 20 at 19:18
$begingroup$
Thank you for our comment. I updated the answer to set greater context.
$endgroup$
– cmm
May 20 at 19:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The major problem is that the mantle is not made of liquid magma as Holywood likes to portray. It is rock solid, no pun intended. The fact that it moves on a geological time scale helps keeping the lay idea of a liquid mantle alive.
So, the core went to the surface. That presents three problems:
Moving it there. It won't be like a bubble working its way from the bottle of a cup of sparkly water. It will be like moving the seed of an avocado past its shell by pushing from the outside with a chisel and a hammer. What is on top of the core will be moved out of the way just like that.
Gravity. If the Earth was just a small asteroid, the kind that is just a handful kilometers wide, we could stop at the avocado analogy above. However, you are moving up to a third of the mass of the planet towards its surface. That's a lot of mass. The side distant from the core will be pulled towards and collapse on top of it. Then the whole planet will rearrange itself around the new position of the core and become round again. Remember the IAU's definition for what is a planet (emphasis mine):
a planet is a celestial body which (...) has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape)...
- Heat. The amount of energy involved here is much greater than things likes detonating all the atomic arsenal, or being hit by dino-killing asteroids multiple times per second. The heat generated by this will melt the planet. And I mean melt - the crust will become a proper liquid, unlike the mantle as it is right now. The oceans will vaporize and together with the atmosphere escape to space, and we probably won't have another bombardment of icy asteroids again, so the new Earth will not be able to harbor life (as we know it) after the Hadean this core displacement event would cause. The new Earth could look more like Venus after a couple billion years, but with more seismic activity.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The core is the densest part of our planet, being made, as you state, of iron and nickel. Offsetting it while the planet keeps rotating means changing the momentum of inertia of the whole planet.
This will induce quite some shaking on the entire planet, altering the day-night cycle and inducing quite some earthquakes while things settle down again. Think of what happens to the wheels of your car when they are not balanced.
Moreover it will also disturb the dynamo generating the magnetic field protecting us from the solar wind. And also the magnetic poles will be shifted.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147362%2fcomplications-of-displaced-core-material%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You ask about a portion of the core being displaced toward the surface. This would move the center of mass toward the surface of the earth.
How much of the core moves, what the shape is of the part that moves, and how far that bit of core moves all matter when determining the effect. If, for instance, some of the core reaches the surface we have a new kind of volcanic activity that could make the Yellowstone Traps seem insignificant. For a less dramatic movement, the core being too close to the surface could result in much higher geothermal heating for that region, perhaps turning the Mediterranean Sea into a gigantic pot of bouillabaisse.
For this answer, I will assume that the core doesn't come to the surface, and that the mantle is essentially intact. Some part of the core moves "outward" from the core so that the core grows a bulge and is no longer best approximated as a sphere. Since the core is denser than the surrounding structures, the bulge moves the center of mass.
The center of mass is really important. It defines the point through which the planet's spin axis passes. The drama of the effect would depend on how much the center of mass were displaced. To avoid the "everybody dies" scenario, let's assume it moves a small amount, say about 7 miles. That can't be so bad on a 7000 mile diameter sphere. Right?
Except that it can. One change is that the water will flow so that it forms a smooth sphere around the center of mass. The low part will be covered with an added 7-mile deep ocean. The high part will be higher than the tallest mountains. If displaced in the right direction, the Mariana trench could become a salt lake above the new sea level as it is left to dry.
Another change is that the air will also recenter on the center of mass. Those former sea-level plains which are now 7 miles high will be uninhabitable without pressure suits.
The third substance that surrounds the core will also, slowly, flow to once again equilibrate to a sphere, and the earthquakes will be spectacular as the surface rock and mantle slowly flow and reform.
In summary, the low side is lost to deep water. The high side is lost to anoxia. The middle would still be habitable, provided you survive the earthquakes.
But, maybe 7 miles is more than you have in mind.
Even 500 feet would completely reform the coast lines. Dial in the displacement you want, look at topographic maps of the earth for the starting configuration and cover or expose whatever you'd like. On the low end, climate change for every spot on the planet. On the high end, a grand experiment in reshaping life after nearly all life on land and much of life on the ocean floor is destroyed.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
It may be worthwhile to note that "how much" of the core is moving that distance really matters. If only a third of the core moves 7 miles, the CoG of the core only moves a little more than 2 miles. Which doesn't account for the huge amount of mass that isn't part of the core. What really matters is the center of gravity for the entire planet (of which the core is about 1/3) - so moving e.g. 1/3 of the core should move the total CoG a bit less than 1/9 the distance you move it (a little less because other rock will fill in the space left to balance the movement a little).
$endgroup$
– Delioth
May 20 at 19:18
$begingroup$
Thank you for our comment. I updated the answer to set greater context.
$endgroup$
– cmm
May 20 at 19:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You ask about a portion of the core being displaced toward the surface. This would move the center of mass toward the surface of the earth.
How much of the core moves, what the shape is of the part that moves, and how far that bit of core moves all matter when determining the effect. If, for instance, some of the core reaches the surface we have a new kind of volcanic activity that could make the Yellowstone Traps seem insignificant. For a less dramatic movement, the core being too close to the surface could result in much higher geothermal heating for that region, perhaps turning the Mediterranean Sea into a gigantic pot of bouillabaisse.
For this answer, I will assume that the core doesn't come to the surface, and that the mantle is essentially intact. Some part of the core moves "outward" from the core so that the core grows a bulge and is no longer best approximated as a sphere. Since the core is denser than the surrounding structures, the bulge moves the center of mass.
The center of mass is really important. It defines the point through which the planet's spin axis passes. The drama of the effect would depend on how much the center of mass were displaced. To avoid the "everybody dies" scenario, let's assume it moves a small amount, say about 7 miles. That can't be so bad on a 7000 mile diameter sphere. Right?
Except that it can. One change is that the water will flow so that it forms a smooth sphere around the center of mass. The low part will be covered with an added 7-mile deep ocean. The high part will be higher than the tallest mountains. If displaced in the right direction, the Mariana trench could become a salt lake above the new sea level as it is left to dry.
Another change is that the air will also recenter on the center of mass. Those former sea-level plains which are now 7 miles high will be uninhabitable without pressure suits.
The third substance that surrounds the core will also, slowly, flow to once again equilibrate to a sphere, and the earthquakes will be spectacular as the surface rock and mantle slowly flow and reform.
In summary, the low side is lost to deep water. The high side is lost to anoxia. The middle would still be habitable, provided you survive the earthquakes.
But, maybe 7 miles is more than you have in mind.
Even 500 feet would completely reform the coast lines. Dial in the displacement you want, look at topographic maps of the earth for the starting configuration and cover or expose whatever you'd like. On the low end, climate change for every spot on the planet. On the high end, a grand experiment in reshaping life after nearly all life on land and much of life on the ocean floor is destroyed.
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
It may be worthwhile to note that "how much" of the core is moving that distance really matters. If only a third of the core moves 7 miles, the CoG of the core only moves a little more than 2 miles. Which doesn't account for the huge amount of mass that isn't part of the core. What really matters is the center of gravity for the entire planet (of which the core is about 1/3) - so moving e.g. 1/3 of the core should move the total CoG a bit less than 1/9 the distance you move it (a little less because other rock will fill in the space left to balance the movement a little).
$endgroup$
– Delioth
May 20 at 19:18
$begingroup$
Thank you for our comment. I updated the answer to set greater context.
$endgroup$
– cmm
May 20 at 19:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You ask about a portion of the core being displaced toward the surface. This would move the center of mass toward the surface of the earth.
How much of the core moves, what the shape is of the part that moves, and how far that bit of core moves all matter when determining the effect. If, for instance, some of the core reaches the surface we have a new kind of volcanic activity that could make the Yellowstone Traps seem insignificant. For a less dramatic movement, the core being too close to the surface could result in much higher geothermal heating for that region, perhaps turning the Mediterranean Sea into a gigantic pot of bouillabaisse.
For this answer, I will assume that the core doesn't come to the surface, and that the mantle is essentially intact. Some part of the core moves "outward" from the core so that the core grows a bulge and is no longer best approximated as a sphere. Since the core is denser than the surrounding structures, the bulge moves the center of mass.
The center of mass is really important. It defines the point through which the planet's spin axis passes. The drama of the effect would depend on how much the center of mass were displaced. To avoid the "everybody dies" scenario, let's assume it moves a small amount, say about 7 miles. That can't be so bad on a 7000 mile diameter sphere. Right?
Except that it can. One change is that the water will flow so that it forms a smooth sphere around the center of mass. The low part will be covered with an added 7-mile deep ocean. The high part will be higher than the tallest mountains. If displaced in the right direction, the Mariana trench could become a salt lake above the new sea level as it is left to dry.
Another change is that the air will also recenter on the center of mass. Those former sea-level plains which are now 7 miles high will be uninhabitable without pressure suits.
The third substance that surrounds the core will also, slowly, flow to once again equilibrate to a sphere, and the earthquakes will be spectacular as the surface rock and mantle slowly flow and reform.
In summary, the low side is lost to deep water. The high side is lost to anoxia. The middle would still be habitable, provided you survive the earthquakes.
But, maybe 7 miles is more than you have in mind.
Even 500 feet would completely reform the coast lines. Dial in the displacement you want, look at topographic maps of the earth for the starting configuration and cover or expose whatever you'd like. On the low end, climate change for every spot on the planet. On the high end, a grand experiment in reshaping life after nearly all life on land and much of life on the ocean floor is destroyed.
$endgroup$
You ask about a portion of the core being displaced toward the surface. This would move the center of mass toward the surface of the earth.
How much of the core moves, what the shape is of the part that moves, and how far that bit of core moves all matter when determining the effect. If, for instance, some of the core reaches the surface we have a new kind of volcanic activity that could make the Yellowstone Traps seem insignificant. For a less dramatic movement, the core being too close to the surface could result in much higher geothermal heating for that region, perhaps turning the Mediterranean Sea into a gigantic pot of bouillabaisse.
For this answer, I will assume that the core doesn't come to the surface, and that the mantle is essentially intact. Some part of the core moves "outward" from the core so that the core grows a bulge and is no longer best approximated as a sphere. Since the core is denser than the surrounding structures, the bulge moves the center of mass.
The center of mass is really important. It defines the point through which the planet's spin axis passes. The drama of the effect would depend on how much the center of mass were displaced. To avoid the "everybody dies" scenario, let's assume it moves a small amount, say about 7 miles. That can't be so bad on a 7000 mile diameter sphere. Right?
Except that it can. One change is that the water will flow so that it forms a smooth sphere around the center of mass. The low part will be covered with an added 7-mile deep ocean. The high part will be higher than the tallest mountains. If displaced in the right direction, the Mariana trench could become a salt lake above the new sea level as it is left to dry.
Another change is that the air will also recenter on the center of mass. Those former sea-level plains which are now 7 miles high will be uninhabitable without pressure suits.
The third substance that surrounds the core will also, slowly, flow to once again equilibrate to a sphere, and the earthquakes will be spectacular as the surface rock and mantle slowly flow and reform.
In summary, the low side is lost to deep water. The high side is lost to anoxia. The middle would still be habitable, provided you survive the earthquakes.
But, maybe 7 miles is more than you have in mind.
Even 500 feet would completely reform the coast lines. Dial in the displacement you want, look at topographic maps of the earth for the starting configuration and cover or expose whatever you'd like. On the low end, climate change for every spot on the planet. On the high end, a grand experiment in reshaping life after nearly all life on land and much of life on the ocean floor is destroyed.
edited May 20 at 19:31
answered May 20 at 16:36
cmmcmm
998210
998210
8
$begingroup$
It may be worthwhile to note that "how much" of the core is moving that distance really matters. If only a third of the core moves 7 miles, the CoG of the core only moves a little more than 2 miles. Which doesn't account for the huge amount of mass that isn't part of the core. What really matters is the center of gravity for the entire planet (of which the core is about 1/3) - so moving e.g. 1/3 of the core should move the total CoG a bit less than 1/9 the distance you move it (a little less because other rock will fill in the space left to balance the movement a little).
$endgroup$
– Delioth
May 20 at 19:18
$begingroup$
Thank you for our comment. I updated the answer to set greater context.
$endgroup$
– cmm
May 20 at 19:33
add a comment |
8
$begingroup$
It may be worthwhile to note that "how much" of the core is moving that distance really matters. If only a third of the core moves 7 miles, the CoG of the core only moves a little more than 2 miles. Which doesn't account for the huge amount of mass that isn't part of the core. What really matters is the center of gravity for the entire planet (of which the core is about 1/3) - so moving e.g. 1/3 of the core should move the total CoG a bit less than 1/9 the distance you move it (a little less because other rock will fill in the space left to balance the movement a little).
$endgroup$
– Delioth
May 20 at 19:18
$begingroup$
Thank you for our comment. I updated the answer to set greater context.
$endgroup$
– cmm
May 20 at 19:33
8
8
$begingroup$
It may be worthwhile to note that "how much" of the core is moving that distance really matters. If only a third of the core moves 7 miles, the CoG of the core only moves a little more than 2 miles. Which doesn't account for the huge amount of mass that isn't part of the core. What really matters is the center of gravity for the entire planet (of which the core is about 1/3) - so moving e.g. 1/3 of the core should move the total CoG a bit less than 1/9 the distance you move it (a little less because other rock will fill in the space left to balance the movement a little).
$endgroup$
– Delioth
May 20 at 19:18
$begingroup$
It may be worthwhile to note that "how much" of the core is moving that distance really matters. If only a third of the core moves 7 miles, the CoG of the core only moves a little more than 2 miles. Which doesn't account for the huge amount of mass that isn't part of the core. What really matters is the center of gravity for the entire planet (of which the core is about 1/3) - so moving e.g. 1/3 of the core should move the total CoG a bit less than 1/9 the distance you move it (a little less because other rock will fill in the space left to balance the movement a little).
$endgroup$
– Delioth
May 20 at 19:18
$begingroup$
Thank you for our comment. I updated the answer to set greater context.
$endgroup$
– cmm
May 20 at 19:33
$begingroup$
Thank you for our comment. I updated the answer to set greater context.
$endgroup$
– cmm
May 20 at 19:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The major problem is that the mantle is not made of liquid magma as Holywood likes to portray. It is rock solid, no pun intended. The fact that it moves on a geological time scale helps keeping the lay idea of a liquid mantle alive.
So, the core went to the surface. That presents three problems:
Moving it there. It won't be like a bubble working its way from the bottle of a cup of sparkly water. It will be like moving the seed of an avocado past its shell by pushing from the outside with a chisel and a hammer. What is on top of the core will be moved out of the way just like that.
Gravity. If the Earth was just a small asteroid, the kind that is just a handful kilometers wide, we could stop at the avocado analogy above. However, you are moving up to a third of the mass of the planet towards its surface. That's a lot of mass. The side distant from the core will be pulled towards and collapse on top of it. Then the whole planet will rearrange itself around the new position of the core and become round again. Remember the IAU's definition for what is a planet (emphasis mine):
a planet is a celestial body which (...) has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape)...
- Heat. The amount of energy involved here is much greater than things likes detonating all the atomic arsenal, or being hit by dino-killing asteroids multiple times per second. The heat generated by this will melt the planet. And I mean melt - the crust will become a proper liquid, unlike the mantle as it is right now. The oceans will vaporize and together with the atmosphere escape to space, and we probably won't have another bombardment of icy asteroids again, so the new Earth will not be able to harbor life (as we know it) after the Hadean this core displacement event would cause. The new Earth could look more like Venus after a couple billion years, but with more seismic activity.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The major problem is that the mantle is not made of liquid magma as Holywood likes to portray. It is rock solid, no pun intended. The fact that it moves on a geological time scale helps keeping the lay idea of a liquid mantle alive.
So, the core went to the surface. That presents three problems:
Moving it there. It won't be like a bubble working its way from the bottle of a cup of sparkly water. It will be like moving the seed of an avocado past its shell by pushing from the outside with a chisel and a hammer. What is on top of the core will be moved out of the way just like that.
Gravity. If the Earth was just a small asteroid, the kind that is just a handful kilometers wide, we could stop at the avocado analogy above. However, you are moving up to a third of the mass of the planet towards its surface. That's a lot of mass. The side distant from the core will be pulled towards and collapse on top of it. Then the whole planet will rearrange itself around the new position of the core and become round again. Remember the IAU's definition for what is a planet (emphasis mine):
a planet is a celestial body which (...) has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape)...
- Heat. The amount of energy involved here is much greater than things likes detonating all the atomic arsenal, or being hit by dino-killing asteroids multiple times per second. The heat generated by this will melt the planet. And I mean melt - the crust will become a proper liquid, unlike the mantle as it is right now. The oceans will vaporize and together with the atmosphere escape to space, and we probably won't have another bombardment of icy asteroids again, so the new Earth will not be able to harbor life (as we know it) after the Hadean this core displacement event would cause. The new Earth could look more like Venus after a couple billion years, but with more seismic activity.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The major problem is that the mantle is not made of liquid magma as Holywood likes to portray. It is rock solid, no pun intended. The fact that it moves on a geological time scale helps keeping the lay idea of a liquid mantle alive.
So, the core went to the surface. That presents three problems:
Moving it there. It won't be like a bubble working its way from the bottle of a cup of sparkly water. It will be like moving the seed of an avocado past its shell by pushing from the outside with a chisel and a hammer. What is on top of the core will be moved out of the way just like that.
Gravity. If the Earth was just a small asteroid, the kind that is just a handful kilometers wide, we could stop at the avocado analogy above. However, you are moving up to a third of the mass of the planet towards its surface. That's a lot of mass. The side distant from the core will be pulled towards and collapse on top of it. Then the whole planet will rearrange itself around the new position of the core and become round again. Remember the IAU's definition for what is a planet (emphasis mine):
a planet is a celestial body which (...) has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape)...
- Heat. The amount of energy involved here is much greater than things likes detonating all the atomic arsenal, or being hit by dino-killing asteroids multiple times per second. The heat generated by this will melt the planet. And I mean melt - the crust will become a proper liquid, unlike the mantle as it is right now. The oceans will vaporize and together with the atmosphere escape to space, and we probably won't have another bombardment of icy asteroids again, so the new Earth will not be able to harbor life (as we know it) after the Hadean this core displacement event would cause. The new Earth could look more like Venus after a couple billion years, but with more seismic activity.
$endgroup$
The major problem is that the mantle is not made of liquid magma as Holywood likes to portray. It is rock solid, no pun intended. The fact that it moves on a geological time scale helps keeping the lay idea of a liquid mantle alive.
So, the core went to the surface. That presents three problems:
Moving it there. It won't be like a bubble working its way from the bottle of a cup of sparkly water. It will be like moving the seed of an avocado past its shell by pushing from the outside with a chisel and a hammer. What is on top of the core will be moved out of the way just like that.
Gravity. If the Earth was just a small asteroid, the kind that is just a handful kilometers wide, we could stop at the avocado analogy above. However, you are moving up to a third of the mass of the planet towards its surface. That's a lot of mass. The side distant from the core will be pulled towards and collapse on top of it. Then the whole planet will rearrange itself around the new position of the core and become round again. Remember the IAU's definition for what is a planet (emphasis mine):
a planet is a celestial body which (...) has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape)...
- Heat. The amount of energy involved here is much greater than things likes detonating all the atomic arsenal, or being hit by dino-killing asteroids multiple times per second. The heat generated by this will melt the planet. And I mean melt - the crust will become a proper liquid, unlike the mantle as it is right now. The oceans will vaporize and together with the atmosphere escape to space, and we probably won't have another bombardment of icy asteroids again, so the new Earth will not be able to harbor life (as we know it) after the Hadean this core displacement event would cause. The new Earth could look more like Venus after a couple billion years, but with more seismic activity.
edited May 20 at 14:07
answered May 20 at 14:01
RenanRenan
58.3k16130288
58.3k16130288
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The core is the densest part of our planet, being made, as you state, of iron and nickel. Offsetting it while the planet keeps rotating means changing the momentum of inertia of the whole planet.
This will induce quite some shaking on the entire planet, altering the day-night cycle and inducing quite some earthquakes while things settle down again. Think of what happens to the wheels of your car when they are not balanced.
Moreover it will also disturb the dynamo generating the magnetic field protecting us from the solar wind. And also the magnetic poles will be shifted.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The core is the densest part of our planet, being made, as you state, of iron and nickel. Offsetting it while the planet keeps rotating means changing the momentum of inertia of the whole planet.
This will induce quite some shaking on the entire planet, altering the day-night cycle and inducing quite some earthquakes while things settle down again. Think of what happens to the wheels of your car when they are not balanced.
Moreover it will also disturb the dynamo generating the magnetic field protecting us from the solar wind. And also the magnetic poles will be shifted.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The core is the densest part of our planet, being made, as you state, of iron and nickel. Offsetting it while the planet keeps rotating means changing the momentum of inertia of the whole planet.
This will induce quite some shaking on the entire planet, altering the day-night cycle and inducing quite some earthquakes while things settle down again. Think of what happens to the wheels of your car when they are not balanced.
Moreover it will also disturb the dynamo generating the magnetic field protecting us from the solar wind. And also the magnetic poles will be shifted.
$endgroup$
The core is the densest part of our planet, being made, as you state, of iron and nickel. Offsetting it while the planet keeps rotating means changing the momentum of inertia of the whole planet.
This will induce quite some shaking on the entire planet, altering the day-night cycle and inducing quite some earthquakes while things settle down again. Think of what happens to the wheels of your car when they are not balanced.
Moreover it will also disturb the dynamo generating the magnetic field protecting us from the solar wind. And also the magnetic poles will be shifted.
answered May 20 at 15:47
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
97.7k30230472
97.7k30230472
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147362%2fcomplications-of-displaced-core-material%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
You may want to narrow down this question a bit, at least define how much was displaced. For example, displacing a couple ounces of core would be very different from displacing half of it (and would cause a few extra problems for anyone directly underneath wherever it's displaced).
$endgroup$
– Giter
May 20 at 14:24
$begingroup$
I don't see how this is possible, because nickel-iron is denser than the overlying rock. If you are after a volcano of extreme short-term violence, but less globally damaging than a supervolcano eruption, I'd suggest the eruptions that gave us diamonds in Kimberlite pipes. We have never seen one and may wish not to. Anything that can transport diamonds from the depths where they are stable up to the surface, fast enough to cool them before they decompose to graphite, must be rather awesome -- and ripe for fictionalization.
$endgroup$
– nigel222
May 21 at 9:42