RE Timescales Destroy the Earth

  • 14 Replies
  • 1679 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« on: July 20, 2017, 03:14:28 PM »
Puddles form on rainy days, yet these do not just stay where they are. They evaporate, but how? Water boils at 100C, anything less and it'd just sit there. I doubt it ever gets that hot where you are though. The hottest place I've ever been wasn't even half that, yet it wasn't filled with puddles.
The answer is simple. Essentially, it still takes in energy from sunlgiht, getting the energy needed for a tiny portion to evaporate, section after section, until nothing is left. This is a simplified explanation, but it contains the key to the underlying principle.
It takes just a few hours for water to evaporate this way.
What might be achieved over days? Weeks? Months? Years? Centuries? Four and a half billion years?
According to RET, that's the approximate age of the Earth. You'd have thought we'd have seen more of an effect by now, wouldn't you? Even stone melts. Certainly it needs a much higher temperature, but if it takes six hours for a puddle to vanish (at best), we have 6570000000000 times that with the supposed extreme heat of the core an extra supply of energy along with the Sun, and what, we see nothing?
If the Earth was as old as RET claims, it would have ceased to exist long ago, the same way puddles evaporate after rain.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2017, 03:22:01 PM »
Puddles form on rainy days, yet these do not just stay where they are. They evaporate, but how? Water boils at 100C, anything less and it'd just sit there. I doubt it ever gets that hot where you are though. The hottest place I've ever been wasn't even half that, yet it wasn't filled with puddles.
The answer is simple. Essentially, it still takes in energy from sunlgiht, getting the energy needed for a tiny portion to evaporate, section after section, until nothing is left. This is a simplified explanation, but it contains the key to the underlying principle.
It takes just a few hours for water to evaporate this way.
What might be achieved over days? Weeks? Months? Years? Centuries? Four and a half billion years?
According to RET, that's the approximate age of the Earth. You'd have thought we'd have seen more of an effect by now, wouldn't you? Even stone melts. Certainly it needs a much higher temperature, but if it takes six hours for a puddle to vanish (at best), we have 6570000000000 times that with the supposed extreme heat of the core an extra supply of energy along with the Sun, and what, we see nothing?
If the Earth was as old as RET claims, it would have ceased to exist long ago, the same way puddles evaporate after rain.

What.....
« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 03:30:17 PM by Just in for the lolz »

*

Logick

  • 299
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2017, 03:24:12 PM »
Puddles form on rainy days, yet these do not just stay where they are. They evaporate, but how? Water boils at 100C, anything less and it'd just sit there. I doubt it ever gets that hot where you are though. The hottest place I've ever been wasn't even half that, yet it wasn't filled with puddles.
The answer is simple. Essentially, it still takes in energy from sunlgiht, getting the energy needed for a tiny portion to evaporate, section after section, until nothing is left. This is a simplified explanation, but it contains the key to the underlying principle.
It takes just a few hours for water to evaporate this way.
What might be achieved over days? Weeks? Months? Years? Centuries? Four and a half billion years?
According to RET, that's the approximate age of the Earth. You'd have thought we'd have seen more of an effect by now, wouldn't you? Even stone melts. Certainly it needs a much higher temperature, but if it takes six hours for a puddle to vanish (at best), we have 6570000000000 times that with the supposed extreme heat of the core an extra supply of energy along with the Sun, and what, we see nothing?
If the Earth was as old as RET claims, it would have ceased to exist long ago, the same way puddles evaporate after rain.

What.....
lmao
quod erat demonstrandum

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2017, 07:52:07 PM »
Puddles form on rainy days, yet these do not just stay where they are. They evaporate, but how? Water boils at 100C, anything less and it'd just sit there. I doubt it ever gets that hot where you are though. The hottest place I've ever been wasn't even half that, yet it wasn't filled with puddles.
The answer is simple. Essentially, it still takes in energy from sunlgiht, getting the energy needed for a tiny portion to evaporate, section after section, until nothing is left. This is a simplified explanation, but it contains the key to the underlying principle.
It takes just a few hours for water to evaporate this way.
What might be achieved over days? Weeks? Months? Years? Centuries? Four and a half billion years?
According to RET, that's the approximate age of the Earth. You'd have thought we'd have seen more of an effect by now, wouldn't you? Even stone melts. Certainly it needs a much higher temperature, but if it takes six hours for a puddle to vanish (at best), we have 6570000000000 times that with the supposed extreme heat of the core an extra supply of energy along with the Sun, and what, we see nothing?
If the Earth was as old as RET claims, it would have ceased to exist long ago, the same way puddles evaporate after rain.
No, JROWE.  No.  Come on buddy.  What are you doing?  This isn't up to par for you.  Where do you think the water goes?  Where does rain come from?  It's a closed system, you know this, you have argued it before.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2017, 03:00:29 AM »
Puddles form on rainy days, yet these do not just stay where they are. They evaporate, but how? Water boils at 100C, anything less and it'd just sit there. I doubt it ever gets that hot where you are though. The hottest place I've ever been wasn't even half that, yet it wasn't filled with puddles.
The answer is simple. Essentially, it still takes in energy from sunlgiht, getting the energy needed for a tiny portion to evaporate, section after section, until nothing is left. This is a simplified explanation, but it contains the key to the underlying principle.
Yes, that is a very simplified explanation.

Here is a more complex one:
Liquid water is always in equilibrium with its gaseous phase (as are all liquids).
This means near a body of water, some of it will be turning into gas and some will be turning from gas into liquid.

This is an equilibrium, and results in water having a vapour pressure.
If left to equilibrium in a sealed environment, the water will have just enough convert to the gaseous state such that the pressure of the water vapour is the vapour pressure of water.

The boiling point of water is merely the temperature at which the vapour pressure of water matches ambient pressure.

(the sun doesn't play much into it other than by slightly raising the temperature).

You also ignore the rest of the water cycle, where the water cools and condenses and falls as rain.

According to RET, that's the approximate age of the Earth. You'd have thought we'd have seen more of an effect by now, wouldn't you? Even stone melts. Certainly it needs a much higher temperature, but if it takes six hours for a puddle to vanish (at best), we have 6570000000000 times that with the supposed extreme heat of the core an extra supply of energy along with the Sun, and what, we see nothing?
And do you know why?
Because Earth isn't just taking energy in. It is also radiating it out.
It reaches an equilibrium temperature.

We see what we would expect for an Earth that old.

If the Earth was as old as RET claims, it would have ceased to exist long ago, the same way puddles evaporate after rain.
No it wouldn't. The same way that putting a pot on a stove doesn't melt it, regardless of how long you leave it for.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2017, 03:14:02 AM »
The water cycle doesn't matter, we are talking about a change of state. It doesn't matter where it ends up going, we would notice if any of the Earth changed state. Whole landscapes would be altered, monuments destroyed, nothing could ever be built on such a shifting foundation...
If you want rocks to cool and fall from the sky you're more than welcome to it, but we don't see that either.

The Earth radiates heat, but it cannot radiate more than it takes in, and it is not going to be 100% efficient because nothing is. The Earth's surface takes in heat from the Earth's core and the Sun. Where are the consequences we'd expect?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2017, 03:35:49 AM »
Puddles form on rainy days, yet these do not just stay where they are. They evaporate, but how? Water boils at 100C, anything less and it'd just sit there. I doubt it ever gets that hot where you are though. The hottest place I've ever been wasn't even half that, yet it wasn't filled with puddles.
The answer is simple. Essentially, it still takes in energy from sunlgiht, getting the energy needed for a tiny portion to evaporate, section after section, until nothing is left. This is a simplified explanation, but it contains the key to the underlying principle.
It takes just a few hours for water to evaporate this way.
What might be achieved over days? Weeks? Months? Years? Centuries? Four and a half billion years?
According to RET, that's the approximate age of the Earth. You'd have thought we'd have seen more of an effect by now, wouldn't you? Even stone melts. Certainly it needs a much higher temperature, but if it takes six hours for a puddle to vanish (at best), we have 6570000000000 times that with the supposed extreme heat of the core an extra supply of energy along with the Sun, and what, we see nothing?
If the Earth was as old as RET claims, it would have ceased to exist long ago, the same way puddles evaporate after rain.

I take it the study of 'latent heat of evaporation or vaporisation ' was off the curriculum when you attended school, or possibly you bunked off that day?.......given your past displays you must have done a lot of bunking off. Tell me was it during your periods of bunking off that you wrote your dual earth nonesense?

Trying to make a point based on no more than your basic ignorance of science is hardly worth entering into.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2017, 04:25:32 AM »
The water cycle doesn't matter, we are talking about a change of state. It doesn't matter where it ends up going, we would notice if any of the Earth changed state.
And we do notice. We notice the water turn to vapour, and then that vapour turn to liquid and fall.

What we don't notice is it just change state one way, instead we notice it cycling. So no, the water cycle DOES matter.

If you want rocks to cool and fall from the sky you're more than welcome to it, but we don't see that either.
Why would they need to?
The sun doesn't heat them up enough to melt them or vaporise them.

The Earth radiates heat, but it cannot radiate more than it takes in, and it is not going to be 100% efficient because nothing is. The Earth's surface takes in heat from the Earth's core and the Sun. Where are the consequences we'd expect?
It can radiate more than it takes in.
It can continue to radiate until it has no energy left to radiate out.

Efficiency doesn't come into it at all.

As I said before, the consequence you would expect is Earth having a temperature which is roughly an equilibrium as a result of the heat coming in and the heat lost due to its temperature.

All objects radiate heat based upon their temperature by a formula akin to E=A*k*T^4 (the more complex one separates k into a universal constant and a constant based upon the material, even more complex ones then split it up into its frequency components i.e. having a specific wavelength of IR be different to another, and then you can take into consideration absorption/scattering by greenhouse gasses).

So if the temperature increases, the rate of heat being emitted will increase.

Thus you will always be able to find some T which is an equilibrium temperature where Ein=Eout.

You won't just have Earth magically continue to heat up.

Again, it is akin to a steel pot on a stove.
It doesn't matter how long you leave it there for, it isn't going to melt. You need a stove which can trap the heat better (i.e. a furnace)
« Last Edit: July 21, 2017, 04:27:49 AM by JackBlack »

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2017, 04:28:37 AM »
The water cycle doesn't matter, we are talking about a change of state. It doesn't matter where it ends up going, we would notice if any of the Earth changed state. Whole landscapes would be altered, monuments destroyed, nothing could ever be built on such a shifting foundation...
If you want rocks to cool and fall from the sky you're more than welcome to it, but we don't see that either.

The Earth radiates heat, but it cannot radiate more than it takes in, and it is not going to be 100% efficient because nothing is. The Earth's surface takes in heat from the Earth's core and the Sun. Where are the consequences we'd expect?

But the surface of Earth in fact does change it's state on the long term by erosion, plate tectonics and vulcanism.
What are you trying to say?
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2017, 04:53:08 PM »
Quote
Trying to make a point based on no more than your basic ignorance of science is hardly worth entering into.
At least I am capable of making a point. You only seem able to sling insults.

Quote
Why would they need to?
The sun doesn't heat them up enough to melt them or vaporise them.
You are the one that brought up the water cycle. if you want a cycle, then there has to be a cycle. You cannot go from saying there's a cycle, to saying there's no change of state thus no opportunity for anything remotely like the water cycle.
Further, you do not get to just boldly claim that the Earth wouldn't melt on RE timescales. That is the whole discussion. The perpetual heating of both the Sun and core under RET ought to provide more than eneough energy on the vast expanse of time you rely on. Puddles indicate that this is possible. You can bring up the water cycle all you want, but where is this analogous cycles? You admit rocks don't fall from the sky.

Quote
It can radiate more than it takes in.
Ludicrous, plain and simple.

Quote
But the surface of Earth in fact does change it's state on the long term by erosion, plate tectonics and vulcanism.
What are you trying to say?
What?
Erosion does not change the state of anything, it turns a larger solid into smaller solids. Plate tectonics also have no connection to state, and vulcanism moves a liquid from one location to another, again not changing states. None of that is what you claim.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2017, 05:23:12 PM »
You are the one that brought up the water cycle. if you want a cycle, then there has to be a cycle. You cannot go from saying there's a cycle, to saying there's no change of state thus no opportunity for anything remotely like the water cycle.
For water there is a water cycle, where the water evaporates and condenses.
For rock there is kind of a cycle like that, but the sun has nothing to do with it.

Further, you do not get to just boldly claim that the Earth wouldn't melt on RE timescales.
Good thing I didn't and instead I explained why.
On the other hand you just boldly claimed that it would melt, with no rational backing.

That is the whole discussion. The perpetual heating of both the Sun and core under RET ought to provide more than eneough energy on the vast expanse of time you rely on.
Sure, if that was all that was happening. But it isn't.
Instead Earth is also radiating heat out.
The sun and core need to provide more energy than Earth dissipates. But as the temperature rises the heat output of Earth also rises.
From a simple point of view, in order to double the temperature of Earth you would need to put in 16 times as much POWER. Not energy, POWER.
You can't just dump in the energy and expect Earth to keep it, you need to be providing 16 times the energy in a a given time (i.e. power) to match Earth outputting 16 times the energy in that same time.

Puddles indicate that this is possible. You can bring up the water cycle all you want, but where is this analogous cycles? You admit rocks don't fall from the sky.
No they don't.
Again, refer to my analogy with a pot on a stove.
I can put water in that pot and have the water boil away. I can put more water in and have it boil away. I can keep on doing this, for as long as I want, so I can just keep on providing energy. Yet no matter how long I leave it for, the iron (it is simpler to analyse than steel which has numerous compositions) pot wont melt.

Iron has a heat capacity of 460 J/kg K.
It has a latent heat of fusion of 272 kJ/kg.
It has a melting point of 1538 C.
So that means, going from 20 C up to its melting point would be 1518 K.
So if I take a steel pot that weighs 1 kg, it would take (1518 * 460 + 272000) J to melt.
That is 970 kJ.
What about water?
I'm not going to bother with the heating part, that will take more energy but I don't care, the vast majority of the energy is in boiling it.
Water has a latent heat of vaporisation of 2257 kJ/kg.
That means boiling 1 kg of water will take 2257 kJ of energy
So just boiling 1 kg of water, not even heating it up, instead starting with it at 100 C, takes over twice the energy that it takes to heat up and melt steel.

I can easily boil over 1 kg of water in an hour. Yet if I leave a 1kg steel pot on the stove for that long, it comes no where near to melting.

This alone indicates there is far more too it.

Do you know what it is? The fact that things will lose energy, they will radiate it away (or otherwise dissipate it).

In the case of the pot on the stove, the dominant factor is the heat lost to the air, which is proportional to the temperature difference.
So a pot at the same temperature as the room wont lose energy to the room.
Water at 100 C, or roughly 80 C hotter than the room will lose some significant energy (especially if it is in a steel pot)
The same steel pot at 820 C will be losing 10 times the energy and thus need 10 times as much power as simmering water to merely keep it at 820 C.

So no, puddles evaporating doesn't mean rocks should melt, just like boiling water on a stove doesn't mean the steel pots on the stove should melt.

Quote
It can radiate more than it takes in.
Ludicrous, plain and simple.
WHY?
It has energy, why can't it radiate it out?

If I take a glass of 100 C water, and put it in a cold room, is it incapable of cooling down because it isn't taking in energy and thus can't put out energy?
What if I mix sodium and water together so I don't even need to put in energy to heat the water up and instead it heats itself (akin to heat from the core), is the sodium water mix now incapable of cooling?

No.

It is your claim that it must radiate less than it takes in which is ludicrous.

Erosion does not change the state of anything, it turns a larger solid into smaller solids. Plate tectonics also have no connection to state, and vulcanism moves a liquid from one location to another, again not changing states. None of that is what you claim.
Actually, plate tectonics and volcanoes do result in state changes.
Subduction results in the rock going deeper into Earth and melting to a liquid. This liquid can come out of volcanoes and solidify.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2017, 11:36:34 AM »
Quote
Good thing I didn't and instead I explained why.
On the other hand you just boldly claimed that it would melt, with no rational backing.
You offer no explanation. You offer inexplicable straw men arguments, I am still baffled as to why you're persisting in talking about the water cycle as though it has any connection to what's going on, and let us take:

Quote
I can easily boil over 1 kg of water in an hour. Yet if I leave a 1kg steel pot on the stove for that long, it comes no where near to melting.

This alone indicates there is far more too it.
No, it indicates it takes more heat to melt steel than water, which is addressed right back in my first post. You are making claims, you are not responding. The Earth has existed for more than an hour.

Quote
Actually, plate tectonics and volcanoes do result in state changes.
Subduction results in the rock going deeper into Earth and melting to a liquid. This liquid can come out of volcanoes and solidify.
And as ever we have this from you, petty 'victories' with no relation to the core discussion. Tectonics themselves are not a state change, vulcanism itself is not a state change. That's like calling the Sun a state change: it isn't, it can just cause it to entirely separate entities. If you want to have a discussion you need to be capable of back-and-forth and not this childish 'gotcha!' nonsense.

Quote
WHY?
It has energy, why can't it radiate it out?
It can only radiate out the energy that it has. You're claiming it can radiate more energy than it has taken in. This is completely ludicrous.

It takes a tremendous amount of time for the energy necessary to melt the Earth to accumulate. All you are doing is constantly repeating that, and acting as though it's a refutation when it's what I have been saying from the very first post.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #12 on: July 22, 2017, 04:45:39 PM »
Quote
Good thing I didn't and instead I explained why.
On the other hand you just boldly claimed that it would melt, with no rational backing.
You offer no explanation. You offer inexplicable straw men arguments, I am still baffled as to why you're persisting in talking about the water cycle as though it has any connection to what's going on, and let us take:
No, I did offer an explanation.
I explained that Earth isn't simply taking energy in. It is also emitting it. The amount it emits is roughly based upon its temperature, where P=k*T^4.
So for the sun and core to cause the temperature of Earth to double, they would need to collectively pump in 16 times as much power. (16 is 2^4, If you want to go from T1 to T2 where T2=2*T1, then using the above, you have P1=k*T1^4, and P2=k*T2^4=k*(2*T1)^4=k*2^4*T1^4=16*k*T1^4=16*P1).

If the sun and core is not pumping in that energy then Earth will cool.

I also explained using a pot on a stove analogy. Now can you rationally refute that?

Quote
I can easily boil over 1 kg of water in an hour. Yet if I leave a 1kg steel pot on the stove for that long, it comes no where near to melting.
This alone indicates there is far more too it.
No, it indicates it takes more heat to melt steel than water, which is addressed right back in my first post. You are making claims, you are not responding. The Earth has existed for more than an hour.
I'm not comparing melting steel to melting water.
I am comparing melting iron to boiling water.
I also showed that is not the case.

The energy needed to merely boil 1 kg of water at 100 C is 2257 kJ.

The amount of energy needed to heat 1kg of iron to its melting point and then to melt it is 970 kJ.

Are you trying to tell me 970 is greater than 2257?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 2257 is greater than 970, and thus it takes over twice as much energy to boil 1kg of water at 100 C than it does to take iron from 20 C to its melting point and melt it.

This has not been addressed at all.
The simple fact is it takes far more energy to boil water than it takes to melt an iron pot, yet you can leave the pot on the stove for ages without it melting but you can fill it with water and rather quickly boil it dry.

So clearly energy is not the issue.

If you wish to claim otherwise, you are going to need to back it up.

Quote
Actually, plate tectonics and volcanoes do result in state changes.
Subduction results in the rock going deeper into Earth and melting to a liquid. This liquid can come out of volcanoes and solidify.
And as ever we have this from you, petty 'victories' with no relation to the core discussion. Tectonics themselves are not a state change, vulcanism itself is not a state change. That's like calling the Sun a state change: it isn't, it can just cause it to entirely separate entities. If you want to have a discussion you need to be capable of back-and-forth and not this childish 'gotcha!' nonsense.
No, it is a pathetic attempt by you to claim victory.
He pointed out somewhat of a cycle analogous to the water cycle.
You have plate tectonics resulting in subduction which results i the rock returning to the inside of Earth and melting, as well as other plate technonics and volcanoes putting the molten (liquid) rock back out and having it solidify.
This is a cycle which has phase changes.
But it is irreverent to the topic at hand which is entirely to do with you not understanding how things melt or boil.

Quote
WHY?
It has energy, why can't it radiate it out?
It can only radiate out the energy that it has. You're claiming it can radiate more energy than it has taken in. This is completely ludicrous.
I am claiming it can radiate the energy it has, regardless of if it was generated internally (such as from geothermal energy) or if it was taken in from outside (such as the sun), and regardless of if that energy was taken in 1 second ago or 1 billion years ago.
I am claiming if it has energy, it can radiate it out.

You are claiming that it can't radiate out all the energy it has and instead can only radiate out a portion of what it receives. That is completely ludicrous akin to saying if you turn off the stove, the pot of boiling water will remain at 100C as it can't radiate any energy out as it isn't receiving any.

But I should have expected such straw man tactics from you.

It takes a tremendous amount of time for the energy necessary to melt the Earth to accumulate. All you are doing is constantly repeating that, and acting as though it's a refutation when it's what I have been saying from the very first post.
No I'm not.
I am pointing out your claim is BS.
It isn't accumulating.
Earth is taking in some energy and outputting some energy and keeping its temperature fairly constant. (The greenhouses gases and the like will effect the emissitivity of Earth and thus change the temperature required to keep the energy out=energy in balance).

Do you understand that?

It doesn't matter if you wait 1 minute or 1 billion years, Earth isn't accumulating energy.

I even gave an analogy, with the pot on the stove. It isn't accumulating energy. It is taking energy in and putting energy out. It's temperature is based upon a balance between these 2. It doesn't matter how long you leave it for, it isn't going to magically accumulate enough energy to reach a high enough temperature to melt the pot.

Now can you try to address this, or will you just repeat the same nonsense?

Perhaps you can tell us how Earth magically accumulates this energy rather than achieving an equilibrium state where energy out=energy in (including from internal sources) as basically everything does?
Perhaps you can tell us why a 1 kg iron pot wont melt regardless of how long I leave it on the stove, even though it takes less than half the energy than it would to boil 1kg of water at 100C, and that can be done fairly quickly?

If you can't melt a steel pot on a stove by leaving it there (especially with it taking less energy to melt than water takes to boil), why would you expect Earth to melt?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #13 on: July 22, 2017, 04:47:09 PM »
If that is too long, here is the short version:

The energy needed to merely boil 1 kg of water at 100 C is 2257 kJ.

The amount of energy needed to heat 1kg of iron to its melting point and then to melt it is 970 kJ.

Are you trying to tell me 970 is greater than 2257?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 2257 is greater than 970, and thus it takes over twice as much energy to boil 1kg of water at 100 C than it does to take iron from 20 C to its melting point and melt it.

The reason it doesn't melt is because it is in an equilibrium where energy in=energy out, which effectively fixes the temperature. The energy doesn't magically accumulate.

If you can't melt a steel pot on a stove by leaving it there (especially with it taking less energy to melt than water takes to boil), why would you expect Earth to melt?

Re: RE Timescales Destroy the Earth
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2017, 07:23:12 PM »
Puddles form on rainy days, yet these do not just stay where they are. They evaporate, but how? Water boils at 100C, anything less and it'd just sit there. I doubt it ever gets that hot where you are though. The hottest place I've ever been wasn't even half that, yet it wasn't filled with puddles.
The answer is simple. Essentially, it still takes in energy from sunlgiht, getting the energy needed for a tiny portion to evaporate, section after section, until nothing is left. This is a simplified explanation, but it contains the key to the underlying principle.
It takes just a few hours for water to evaporate this way.
What might be achieved over days? Weeks? Months? Years? Centuries? Four and a half billion years?
According to RET, that's the approximate age of the Earth. You'd have thought we'd have seen more of an effect by now, wouldn't you? Even stone melts. Certainly it needs a much higher temperature, but if it takes six hours for a puddle to vanish (at best), we have 6570000000000 times that with the supposed extreme heat of the core an extra supply of energy along with the Sun, and what, we see nothing?
If the Earth was as old as RET claims, it would have ceased to exist long ago, the same way puddles evaporate after rain.
Evaporation vs saturation vs boiling.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/vappre.html

This explains all of the fluid processes.  As for the rest of your post, it seems as if you're assuming solids would behave as fluids.  I don't believe that's a supportable assumption.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.