The first site looks pretty good.
It has references, no glaring errors or psych tricks, and is not pushing a point of view.
Other positive indicators are that it is longwinded
and dosen't make "absolute Certainty" conclusions.
The site at the second link there dosen't look very believable at all.
Quote:
|
the solid core of our planet could never be smaller or lighter than a certain minimum, otherwise the core would not be able to remain in the center of the planet.
|
Smaller or lighter.
That preys on the common sense that tells you something bigger is heavier, and heavier things sink.
However, the important bit here is DENSITY. If the core were both smaller and lighter, it could still be the same density, and end up at the center.
Dunking ever smaller rocks and pebbles into water will not get you one that floats!
Quote:
|
Since the inner core could have only been larger and heavier in the past than it is today - it cannot be the result of any "crystallization". This simple conclusion has astonishing consequences.
|
Now they're just making things up, based very loosely on the above, and faulty argument.
Quote:
|
The main consequence of the above is that all heat generated inside Earth is of radionic origin.
|
This is suspect, too. It may be an exaggeration for imagery purposes, but that's still out of character.
Quote:
|
Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient cooling of this reactor - a process that is controlled primarily by the atmosphere.
|
Seriously? I guess the 3000 kilometer blanket of rock/magma all around the core has no effect on it then.
However, by this point, the article should have worn down your will to resist, and you wouldn't notice it.
ETC...
.................
This has been a test of the Emergency Skeptic System...
had this been a real emergency, there would be people screaming in the streets, and maybe a stock market crash as well 
[ October 08, 2002, 21:11: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]