How do we know this??
>more anti-molepeople propaganda its all so tiresome
>>16388417They infer it through evidence. Like there has to be a molten core because where does hot lava come from? Or they did deep into the ground and figure the temperature of the dirt changes it's chemistry etc.It's not that complicated anon
>>16388417Penetrative Neutrino Spectroscopy, obviously. It's how we know the elements of each layer. You really could've just googled this
>>16388417it's called science. you should look into it
You detected this with seismic waves. There are a bunch of seismographs around the world, when an earthquake hits you can see how there is an epicenter but also various minor waves can be detected and the math points to an inner reflection of these waves inside the Earth and you can infer the density of the layers. The magnetic influence is also a good indicator of what goes on inside Earth's core.
>>16388417>weDo you? You should know it then.
>>16388417>How do we know this??>How do we know this??Science!Science!Seriously though, we know with high certainly that there must be a liquid layer because we have siezmographs all over the planet and when an earthquake happens at a point, there is a "shadow" region where the wave types that can't travel through liquid (S-waves) are blocked to that portion of the planet. This shows us the size of the liquid region. Based on the curvature of the other waves, we can infer the pressure at the depth just above that, so it can't be a hollow region. The logical conclusion is that there is a hot liquid core. The solid inner core is a more recent assumption, but if the pressure as a function of depth holds true (and it must), there has to be a region where the pressure is too great for the substance to remain liquid.
Let's suppose that advancements in materials science allow for sufficiently sharp drills and sufficiently strong walls.Could we tunnel straight through the core, connecting Spain to New Zealand?Would this be a practical means of transport, preferable to flying?
>>16388610It is disprovable by how seismic waves propagate.
>>16388417Obviously its fake. That isnt what planet earth looks like. The entire top half is missing, who do they think they're fooling with such a blatant lie?
>>16388611Thanks for a good answer>>16388529Likewise
>>16388644isn't the planet like, you know, a pressure vessel? wouldn't like, drilling a hole through it like, allow the pressure and material within the interior to rapidly escape? I can imagine that like, get this, it would totally have to rely on gravity and maybe magnetism since a breakdown or whatever would be like, waaaay bad news >t. my dad owns a car dealership
>>16388649don't tell them that models of reality must be in concordance with observational data
>>16388644>>16388666Even the deepest largest volcanoes don't bring lava from such depths, they scratch the surface of Earth. It's 6000 kilometers to the center of the planet. For reference, the Mariana trench is 11 kilometers deep.
>>16388727
>>16388417The Russians dug really deep. Eventually they gave up because the deep ground kept melting their boreing equipment.
>>16388529This. The type of wave and the rate of its propagation from point to point is used to construct a picture of the depth and density of the materials they pass through. Its pretty interesting. i'll see if i can dig up some of the graphs i've seen of this data.
>>16388610its based on the known behavior of waves traveling through materials which have been tested in detail. There are likely some gaps in the model but unless you have a strong case against the basic foundations then you can't really dismiss it out of hand.Its a best fit for what is known and observed so far.But then, you sound like a flat earther so nobody expects that you know a single thing about the subject beyond a couple youtube videos a a dumb meme
Finding out it's not all uniform and neat is like finding out dinosaur fossils aren't really bones or a lot of NASA's space images use false color. Or atoms aren't neat like that either. Science is a lie.
>>16389292theres no lie in those things you mentioned, just a mistaken reliance upon the most basic and introductory understandings in each case.
>>16389298It's how they are always presented so you just assume. Especially false color nebulas where they either use multiple spectrums or assign a color to a specific element. And rarely whenever you saw a picture in a book did it say "false color" or what that even meant.
>>16389304>It's how they are always presentedin the lowest brow pop-sci articles. It's silly to call science a lie if all you base your understanding of any part of it on comes from such sources.>you just assume.there is your error. Why assume such things instead of making the effort to know more?> use multiple spectrums or assign a color to a specific element. without saying 'false color'....That would depend upon the level of the book it appears in. It is always possible, especially these days, to check into the source of the image and how it was made.It's no lie to present an image combining visible light and near infrared, with the IR represented with a certain palette of visible light colors so we can see them unless it says clearly that 'this image is how it would look to the human eye' or something like that.I've got an astronomy book right here, at a level for the interested amateur adult, and its full of such images. But you can tell from the context of the chapter and page what they are showing you.To assume its all lies and deception instead of trying to understand each image in its context is bizarre.
>>16388417>THE SCIENCE COMMANDS YOU TO BELIEVE.
