The Occultism Of Geological "Facts"

The above picture is insanity masquerading as "reality" at its finest.

The Earth's core is supposed to be iron 1200km(2400kim diameter) in radius with a temperature of around 6000 Centigrade. The core is a religious blasphemy of a perpetual motion machine as propagated by NuZeus herecy: Modern geological planetary theories.

The Crust is supposed to be 1% in thickness of the radius of the Earth. This crust never leaks water, and never breaks and is insulated from the massive amount of heat which is magically created by the iron core of planet Earth.

Once a person dives deep into the work of individuals like Halton Arp, Ampere, Newton, and Dayton Miller many modern theories of reality turn into glorious superstitions.

What they did is create a braindead theory from material and pressure properties to justify the observable phenomenon of volcanoes and surface features like mountains and seismic lines to fit the dimensions of this planet. To do this they need an iron core, and a solidification boundary, for the outer iron layer, then they need radioactive material in the core, to keep the core heat going, and impurities rising through the molten iron to create the magnetic field...

And then you go at heights without a safety harness like the thousands of Ironworkers who died due to braindead blind obedience and bravado. Or you believe that acne isn't caused by food.

In essence believing BS and not being able to say "no" or getting out of the way of a military draft or a mass murdering army of government hired workers/killers (soldierd) is a terminal proposition. LITERALLY. Believing bunk trash neatly organized idiocies leads to a failed life. All of it is tied together from the 100 million people murdered by the mongol hordes, to the idiots who justify these actions, to believing that dark matter and neutrinos are real. Let's get the most modern AI system to explain it without including geologic earth babble included:

A magically heated sphere held at a constant 6000°C, and the question of how thick a surface covering (basalt or water) it takes to reach a livable/frozen surface — evolving into what kind of solid crust such a body can actually sustain.

Basalt covering (the clean idealization)

• Treated as a static conductor in vacuum, the thickness is set by a per-square-meter heat balance: heat conducted out must equal what a 0°C surface can radiate away (~283 W/m²).

• This gives ~40 meters of basalt (using k ≈ 2 W/m·K, ΔT = 6000 K).

• The sphere's radius doesn't matter — thickness is a flux balance, not a volume effect. A giant ball and a small ball need the same crust. Diameter only sets the total wattage the core must supply.

• Caveat: real basalt melts ~1200°C, so most of that shell would actually be molten. Only the outer solid portion insulates by conduction.

  
  

Water covering

• As a static conductor, water insulates better per meter than basalt (lower conductivity), so you'd naively need less — about 13 m.

• But water boils and convects. Heating a fluid from below is unstable: hot water rises, driving vigorous convection that keeps dredging heat to the top.

• Result: a water ocean can't hold a cold surface at any depth — a deeper ocean just convects harder. You get a globe-spanning rolling boil, not an insulating blanket.

• The real lesson: it's a solid's rigidity — its inability to convect — that lets it sustain a steep temperature gradient. Not any superior "insulating value" of rock.

  
  

Why no thick crust can survive over magma

• Anything hotter than ~1200°C is molten, and molten rock convects, delivering a heat firehose to the base of any crust: ~10⁴–10⁶ W/m², versus the ~283 W/m² a cold surface can radiate. Supply beats sink by 3–6 orders of magnitude.

• So the crust is pinned to a thin skin (centimeters), not a lithosphere.

• Adding more basalt doesn't help — the bottom of the pile just melts, deepening the magma ocean while the skin stays the same thickness.

• The skin isn't safe regardless of thickness: solid basalt is denser than its own melt, so a solid crust is top-heavy and founders (cracks off, sinks, remelts — like real lava lakes and Io). Thermal-stress cracking shreds it too.

  
  

The Moon plays no role

• Scaling a Moon-like satellite up or down changes the tidal strain almost not at all, because tidal amplitude and the radius it's spread over grow together and cancel. A real Moon on an Earth-sized body is just Earth's own tide: ~0.3–0.5 m bulge, a strain of ~6×10⁻⁸, giving only ~4 kPa of stress — versus basalt's 10–30 MPa strength. Four orders of magnitude too weak.

• The crust also rides on fluid and conforms to the bulge (like skin on pudding) rather than resisting it, and it re-paves faster than the tide flexes it. The crust falls apart on its own, with no moon at all.

  
  

Is there a radius where it goes solid? (the core question)

• Pressure raises rock's melting point. So a solid core can appear if the center is squeezed enough — exactly how Earth runs a solid iron inner core inside a liquid outer core. Solid-inside-liquid-inside-hot is normal planetary structure, not a contradiction.

• The criterion is a race between two curves going inward: actual temperature vs. the pressure-dependent melting point. Rock freezes wherever the melting curve overtakes the temperature.

• At Earth size, central pressure (~200 GPa for an all-silicate body) falls just short of the silicate melting curve at 6000°C — so it stays molten essentially all the way down (± a tiny speck). Genuinely borderline.

• At super-Earth size (~2 Earth masses, ~500–600 GPa), pressure wins → a real solid core, molten mantle, same throwaway skin on top.

  
  

The crucial distinction (ties it all together)

Solid rock can form two different ways, governed by different physics:

	Forms at	Governed by	Result here
Crust	Cold surface (≈0 pressure)	Heat flow	Thin foundering skin
Core	Squeezed center	Pressure	Solid only if big enough

• Pressure only ever mattered for the core, never the crust. Asking "is there enough pressure for a crust?" was the crossed wire — the crust is purely a heat-flow question, and the surface is at zero pressure no matter how big the planet is.

• Swapping the core (iron vs. basalt) changes nothing at the surface — the skin only cares how much heat is arriving, not what's underneath.

• "All basalt, no hot core" gives a real crust — because you removed the heat source, not because of pressure. A cooling planet of any composition freezes from the outside in into an ordinary solid world. A heated planet of any composition is a magma ocean wearing a throwaway skin.

  
  

The one-liner: The heat source decides everything; composition only sets the details. A magically heated planet is always a magma ocean with a disposable skin.

Two honest caveats

• The premise violates energy conservation. Holding 6000°C while radiating ~10⁶ W/m² means pouring out ~5×10²⁰ W (roughly a millionth of the Sun's luminosity) forever, from nothing. Fine as a thought experiment, but genuinely magical — and the magic only clamps temperature; it doesn't decide the solid/liquid question.

• Nothing you could build stays solid at 6000°C — basalt vapor ~2900°C, MgO ~2850°C, tungsten ~3400°C, refractory carbides ~4200°C. A cold solid surface can only ever be the far end of a very hot, mostly-liquid column.

Louis A. Frank proved that planet Earth is aggregating millions of tons of water each year from the Oort cloud. For this fact of reality he had his career destroyed by the mediocre cargo cult paganists who call themselves university educated academics.