Could a terrestrial planet have water for a core?












3












$begingroup$


There’s a planet called eaglypt whose surface is 100% barren desert. However, there is a twist: the planet’s core consists of liquid water, and there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where civilizations can spring up, using the oases for irrigation. Is this realistic for a planet to exist like this or would it take serious artistic license for it to exist?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    There’s a planet called eaglypt whose surface is 100% barren desert. However, there is a twist: the planet’s core consists of liquid water, and there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where civilizations can spring up, using the oases for irrigation. Is this realistic for a planet to exist like this or would it take serious artistic license for it to exist?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      There’s a planet called eaglypt whose surface is 100% barren desert. However, there is a twist: the planet’s core consists of liquid water, and there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where civilizations can spring up, using the oases for irrigation. Is this realistic for a planet to exist like this or would it take serious artistic license for it to exist?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      There’s a planet called eaglypt whose surface is 100% barren desert. However, there is a twist: the planet’s core consists of liquid water, and there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where civilizations can spring up, using the oases for irrigation. Is this realistic for a planet to exist like this or would it take serious artistic license for it to exist?







      reality-check planets water deserts






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 6 hours ago









      L.Dutch

      80.5k26192391




      80.5k26192391










      asked 6 hours ago









      The Weasel SagasThe Weasel Sagas

      1,172121




      1,172121






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          For water to be at the core of the planet, it must mean that there are no other elements or components which are denser than water.



          Now, water is pretty dense, but nowhere dense as most of the metals or oxides.



          It can happen that only light elements are collected by gravity, but such a planet could not host life as we know it: no magnetic field to shield stellar wind, just to cite one big difference.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Couldn't elements be present if they were bound in low-density compounds? Not sure if that would admit a magnetic field or not.
            $endgroup$
            – R..
            2 hours ago



















          3












          $begingroup$

          Water cannot remain fluid at the pressures of a terrestrial planet's core. However, it doesn't need to for your setting to be viable. The planet's crust could simply possess large, deep aquifers that provide water to oases. Some good examples of large aquifers beneath a desert are Australia's Great Artesian Basin, and the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            What happens to water at the pressure of a terrestrial planets core? For water I would think fluid would be the most compact phase.
            $endgroup$
            – Willk
            21 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            @Willk It's a balance between temperature and pressure really, but for water, the most thermodynamically favourable phases at high pressures are various forms of exotic ice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_VII
            $endgroup$
            – Arkenstein XII
            12 mins ago



















          1












          $begingroup$

          Yes. Water for a core, mantle and crust.



          cold desert



          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert




          Polar deserts are a particular class of cold desert. The air is very
          cold and carries little moisture so little precipitation occurs and
          what does fall, usually snow, is carried along in the often strong
          wind and may form blizzards, drifts and dunes similar to those caused
          by dust and sand in other desert regions.




          Your water world is dry on top because it is cold. Below the packed snow is ice, and more ice, and very eventually you will get down to liquid water. From OP




          there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and
          reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where
          civilizations can spring up....




          These hydrothermal springs come up thru cracks in the ice and sometimes can form pools of liquid water - very, very deep pools.



          As regards a magnetosphere - I can think of no reason a water world should not have a magnetosphere. Salt water is a fine conductor of electricity and just as the moving metal of our world generates a magnetosphere to shield us from the solar wind, so too the salt water of your world's interior.



          As regards those deep pools - it is a cold, dry, hardscrabble desert topside. Not so underneath. Fueled by the deep heat of the core, the life of the subsurface water world is rich and varied, and the fishing can be very good once you can get through. But if you hook something that does not put up a fight, cut your line fast and get everyone clear of the edge. Whatever it is might be coming up to have a look.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            0












            $begingroup$

            It would take serious artistic license to exist, but...



            I do not believe a planet could naturally evolve into this state. The problem isn't actually pressure. People assume that the further down you go, the more pressure there is. It's true to an extent, but the closer to the center you get the less you experience gravity (zero gravity at the center!). Pressure is something that makes sense when you're talking about the crust or rigid mantle. But if it applied to the liquid core, every crack in the mantle would result in massive eruptions — but they don't.



            On the other hand, what you do get is heat. We don't really have proof of what's at the center of our planet, but a century of science has given us some really good guesses. We guess that there's a solid core. It's spinning at a different speed compared to the crust. Everything in the middle is subject to tremendous friction. Result = super heated rock. We think.



            From the perspective of "solid stuff slowly combines via gravity over bazillions of years until some fool stamps his feet and says, 'let's call it a planet,'" this model works very well — but it doesn't explain where water comes from and that's actually been something scientists have pondered for a long time.



            So, let's pretend that your world started as a honking lot of water orbiting a newly forming star and it starts to gather via gravity...



            Why not? It's your world. From this perspective your world has a very, very low average density. There may still be a solid core of stuff (almost everything sinks through water, which is a better than average argument against this, unless there's a honking lot of water) but the middle isn't molten rock, it's super heated water.



            And when the crust breaks, what you get is steam.



            The crust is similar to a Roman arch — it's all spun out such that the bedrock is very, very flat and uniform. There would be no mountains — no plate tectonics to speak of — hot water, unlike magma, doesn't have the mass to push the surface around, which means earthquakes are caused by the heating/cooling cycle of the sun and occur most often at what we would call the tropics of cancer and capricorn (latitudes of highest thermal gradient between the poles and the equator).



            This has the potential of meaning a lot of aquifers, but I'm having trouble keeping the land a desert. Water + sunlight = life. It would have to be a closer-to-the-sun planet such that the heat would burn off the water and the life. The consequence (thanks to the humidity) would be a lot of clouds, storms, and the night-side would get cold.



            At least that's what I think.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Sorry, mate... this is not a very good answer. The interior of the Earth is under immense pressure. Whether or not one "experiences gravity" is utterly meaningless to the question of pressure. Pressure is the result of the weight of thousands of kilometres of rock bearing down from above. At the boundary between the outer and inner cores, pressure is roughly 360 gigapascals. Furthermore, friction is not the cause of internal heating. At all. Rather, it is the result of the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the core.
              $endgroup$
              – Arkenstein XII
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              @ArkensteinXII Sorry, mate. Weight is a function of gravity. No gravity, no weight. When you're at the center of the planet, all the mass is "above" you and nothing is bearing down on you. Where did you get that number for the pressure at the boundary? The deepest hole we've ever drilled is only 7.5 miles and that's only half-way through the crust. Do you have any actual science to back up your complaint?
              $endgroup$
              – JBH
              1 hour ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              The only point in the Earth that experiences zero gravity is the centre of gravity. Everywhere else, gravity is being exerted. As to where I got that figure, we should start with the fact that I am a qualified geoscientist. If that is insufficient, I will point out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and cites the following: David. R. Lide, ed. (2006–2007). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (87th ed.). pp. j14–13
              $endgroup$
              – Arkenstein XII
              54 mins ago












            • $begingroup$
              A link to a Physics.SE question that covers this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184032/…
              $endgroup$
              – Arkenstein XII
              48 mins ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              Engineering PhD here. Arkenstein is correct. If the pressure at the core was lower than the pressure in upper layers, then that would create a net downward force which would compress the core until it had at least as much pressure as the upper layers. Roughly speaking, gravity tells you how fast pressure is increasing with depth - so as you approach the centre, pressure will plateau, but not drop.
              $endgroup$
              – Geoffrey Brent
              15 mins ago











            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137186%2fcould-a-terrestrial-planet-have-water-for-a-core%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4












            $begingroup$

            For water to be at the core of the planet, it must mean that there are no other elements or components which are denser than water.



            Now, water is pretty dense, but nowhere dense as most of the metals or oxides.



            It can happen that only light elements are collected by gravity, but such a planet could not host life as we know it: no magnetic field to shield stellar wind, just to cite one big difference.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Couldn't elements be present if they were bound in low-density compounds? Not sure if that would admit a magnetic field or not.
              $endgroup$
              – R..
              2 hours ago
















            4












            $begingroup$

            For water to be at the core of the planet, it must mean that there are no other elements or components which are denser than water.



            Now, water is pretty dense, but nowhere dense as most of the metals or oxides.



            It can happen that only light elements are collected by gravity, but such a planet could not host life as we know it: no magnetic field to shield stellar wind, just to cite one big difference.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Couldn't elements be present if they were bound in low-density compounds? Not sure if that would admit a magnetic field or not.
              $endgroup$
              – R..
              2 hours ago














            4












            4








            4





            $begingroup$

            For water to be at the core of the planet, it must mean that there are no other elements or components which are denser than water.



            Now, water is pretty dense, but nowhere dense as most of the metals or oxides.



            It can happen that only light elements are collected by gravity, but such a planet could not host life as we know it: no magnetic field to shield stellar wind, just to cite one big difference.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            For water to be at the core of the planet, it must mean that there are no other elements or components which are denser than water.



            Now, water is pretty dense, but nowhere dense as most of the metals or oxides.



            It can happen that only light elements are collected by gravity, but such a planet could not host life as we know it: no magnetic field to shield stellar wind, just to cite one big difference.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 6 hours ago









            L.DutchL.Dutch

            80.5k26192391




            80.5k26192391












            • $begingroup$
              Couldn't elements be present if they were bound in low-density compounds? Not sure if that would admit a magnetic field or not.
              $endgroup$
              – R..
              2 hours ago


















            • $begingroup$
              Couldn't elements be present if they were bound in low-density compounds? Not sure if that would admit a magnetic field or not.
              $endgroup$
              – R..
              2 hours ago
















            $begingroup$
            Couldn't elements be present if they were bound in low-density compounds? Not sure if that would admit a magnetic field or not.
            $endgroup$
            – R..
            2 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Couldn't elements be present if they were bound in low-density compounds? Not sure if that would admit a magnetic field or not.
            $endgroup$
            – R..
            2 hours ago











            3












            $begingroup$

            Water cannot remain fluid at the pressures of a terrestrial planet's core. However, it doesn't need to for your setting to be viable. The planet's crust could simply possess large, deep aquifers that provide water to oases. Some good examples of large aquifers beneath a desert are Australia's Great Artesian Basin, and the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              What happens to water at the pressure of a terrestrial planets core? For water I would think fluid would be the most compact phase.
              $endgroup$
              – Willk
              21 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Willk It's a balance between temperature and pressure really, but for water, the most thermodynamically favourable phases at high pressures are various forms of exotic ice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_VII
              $endgroup$
              – Arkenstein XII
              12 mins ago
















            3












            $begingroup$

            Water cannot remain fluid at the pressures of a terrestrial planet's core. However, it doesn't need to for your setting to be viable. The planet's crust could simply possess large, deep aquifers that provide water to oases. Some good examples of large aquifers beneath a desert are Australia's Great Artesian Basin, and the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 2




              $begingroup$
              What happens to water at the pressure of a terrestrial planets core? For water I would think fluid would be the most compact phase.
              $endgroup$
              – Willk
              21 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Willk It's a balance between temperature and pressure really, but for water, the most thermodynamically favourable phases at high pressures are various forms of exotic ice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_VII
              $endgroup$
              – Arkenstein XII
              12 mins ago














            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            Water cannot remain fluid at the pressures of a terrestrial planet's core. However, it doesn't need to for your setting to be viable. The planet's crust could simply possess large, deep aquifers that provide water to oases. Some good examples of large aquifers beneath a desert are Australia's Great Artesian Basin, and the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Water cannot remain fluid at the pressures of a terrestrial planet's core. However, it doesn't need to for your setting to be viable. The planet's crust could simply possess large, deep aquifers that provide water to oases. Some good examples of large aquifers beneath a desert are Australia's Great Artesian Basin, and the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 6 hours ago









            Arkenstein XIIArkenstein XII

            2,367425




            2,367425








            • 2




              $begingroup$
              What happens to water at the pressure of a terrestrial planets core? For water I would think fluid would be the most compact phase.
              $endgroup$
              – Willk
              21 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Willk It's a balance between temperature and pressure really, but for water, the most thermodynamically favourable phases at high pressures are various forms of exotic ice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_VII
              $endgroup$
              – Arkenstein XII
              12 mins ago














            • 2




              $begingroup$
              What happens to water at the pressure of a terrestrial planets core? For water I would think fluid would be the most compact phase.
              $endgroup$
              – Willk
              21 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @Willk It's a balance between temperature and pressure really, but for water, the most thermodynamically favourable phases at high pressures are various forms of exotic ice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_VII
              $endgroup$
              – Arkenstein XII
              12 mins ago








            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            What happens to water at the pressure of a terrestrial planets core? For water I would think fluid would be the most compact phase.
            $endgroup$
            – Willk
            21 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            What happens to water at the pressure of a terrestrial planets core? For water I would think fluid would be the most compact phase.
            $endgroup$
            – Willk
            21 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            @Willk It's a balance between temperature and pressure really, but for water, the most thermodynamically favourable phases at high pressures are various forms of exotic ice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_VII
            $endgroup$
            – Arkenstein XII
            12 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            @Willk It's a balance between temperature and pressure really, but for water, the most thermodynamically favourable phases at high pressures are various forms of exotic ice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_VII
            $endgroup$
            – Arkenstein XII
            12 mins ago











            1












            $begingroup$

            Yes. Water for a core, mantle and crust.



            cold desert



            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert




            Polar deserts are a particular class of cold desert. The air is very
            cold and carries little moisture so little precipitation occurs and
            what does fall, usually snow, is carried along in the often strong
            wind and may form blizzards, drifts and dunes similar to those caused
            by dust and sand in other desert regions.




            Your water world is dry on top because it is cold. Below the packed snow is ice, and more ice, and very eventually you will get down to liquid water. From OP




            there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and
            reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where
            civilizations can spring up....




            These hydrothermal springs come up thru cracks in the ice and sometimes can form pools of liquid water - very, very deep pools.



            As regards a magnetosphere - I can think of no reason a water world should not have a magnetosphere. Salt water is a fine conductor of electricity and just as the moving metal of our world generates a magnetosphere to shield us from the solar wind, so too the salt water of your world's interior.



            As regards those deep pools - it is a cold, dry, hardscrabble desert topside. Not so underneath. Fueled by the deep heat of the core, the life of the subsurface water world is rich and varied, and the fishing can be very good once you can get through. But if you hook something that does not put up a fight, cut your line fast and get everyone clear of the edge. Whatever it is might be coming up to have a look.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              1












              $begingroup$

              Yes. Water for a core, mantle and crust.



              cold desert



              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert




              Polar deserts are a particular class of cold desert. The air is very
              cold and carries little moisture so little precipitation occurs and
              what does fall, usually snow, is carried along in the often strong
              wind and may form blizzards, drifts and dunes similar to those caused
              by dust and sand in other desert regions.




              Your water world is dry on top because it is cold. Below the packed snow is ice, and more ice, and very eventually you will get down to liquid water. From OP




              there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and
              reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where
              civilizations can spring up....




              These hydrothermal springs come up thru cracks in the ice and sometimes can form pools of liquid water - very, very deep pools.



              As regards a magnetosphere - I can think of no reason a water world should not have a magnetosphere. Salt water is a fine conductor of electricity and just as the moving metal of our world generates a magnetosphere to shield us from the solar wind, so too the salt water of your world's interior.



              As regards those deep pools - it is a cold, dry, hardscrabble desert topside. Not so underneath. Fueled by the deep heat of the core, the life of the subsurface water world is rich and varied, and the fishing can be very good once you can get through. But if you hook something that does not put up a fight, cut your line fast and get everyone clear of the edge. Whatever it is might be coming up to have a look.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                1












                1








                1





                $begingroup$

                Yes. Water for a core, mantle and crust.



                cold desert



                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert




                Polar deserts are a particular class of cold desert. The air is very
                cold and carries little moisture so little precipitation occurs and
                what does fall, usually snow, is carried along in the often strong
                wind and may form blizzards, drifts and dunes similar to those caused
                by dust and sand in other desert regions.




                Your water world is dry on top because it is cold. Below the packed snow is ice, and more ice, and very eventually you will get down to liquid water. From OP




                there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and
                reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where
                civilizations can spring up....




                These hydrothermal springs come up thru cracks in the ice and sometimes can form pools of liquid water - very, very deep pools.



                As regards a magnetosphere - I can think of no reason a water world should not have a magnetosphere. Salt water is a fine conductor of electricity and just as the moving metal of our world generates a magnetosphere to shield us from the solar wind, so too the salt water of your world's interior.



                As regards those deep pools - it is a cold, dry, hardscrabble desert topside. Not so underneath. Fueled by the deep heat of the core, the life of the subsurface water world is rich and varied, and the fishing can be very good once you can get through. But if you hook something that does not put up a fight, cut your line fast and get everyone clear of the edge. Whatever it is might be coming up to have a look.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Yes. Water for a core, mantle and crust.



                cold desert



                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert




                Polar deserts are a particular class of cold desert. The air is very
                cold and carries little moisture so little precipitation occurs and
                what does fall, usually snow, is carried along in the often strong
                wind and may form blizzards, drifts and dunes similar to those caused
                by dust and sand in other desert regions.




                Your water world is dry on top because it is cold. Below the packed snow is ice, and more ice, and very eventually you will get down to liquid water. From OP




                there are a few places where this water seeps through the cracks and
                reaches the surface, where it creates fertile oases where
                civilizations can spring up....




                These hydrothermal springs come up thru cracks in the ice and sometimes can form pools of liquid water - very, very deep pools.



                As regards a magnetosphere - I can think of no reason a water world should not have a magnetosphere. Salt water is a fine conductor of electricity and just as the moving metal of our world generates a magnetosphere to shield us from the solar wind, so too the salt water of your world's interior.



                As regards those deep pools - it is a cold, dry, hardscrabble desert topside. Not so underneath. Fueled by the deep heat of the core, the life of the subsurface water world is rich and varied, and the fishing can be very good once you can get through. But if you hook something that does not put up a fight, cut your line fast and get everyone clear of the edge. Whatever it is might be coming up to have a look.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 1 hour ago









                WillkWillk

                104k25197440




                104k25197440























                    0












                    $begingroup$

                    It would take serious artistic license to exist, but...



                    I do not believe a planet could naturally evolve into this state. The problem isn't actually pressure. People assume that the further down you go, the more pressure there is. It's true to an extent, but the closer to the center you get the less you experience gravity (zero gravity at the center!). Pressure is something that makes sense when you're talking about the crust or rigid mantle. But if it applied to the liquid core, every crack in the mantle would result in massive eruptions — but they don't.



                    On the other hand, what you do get is heat. We don't really have proof of what's at the center of our planet, but a century of science has given us some really good guesses. We guess that there's a solid core. It's spinning at a different speed compared to the crust. Everything in the middle is subject to tremendous friction. Result = super heated rock. We think.



                    From the perspective of "solid stuff slowly combines via gravity over bazillions of years until some fool stamps his feet and says, 'let's call it a planet,'" this model works very well — but it doesn't explain where water comes from and that's actually been something scientists have pondered for a long time.



                    So, let's pretend that your world started as a honking lot of water orbiting a newly forming star and it starts to gather via gravity...



                    Why not? It's your world. From this perspective your world has a very, very low average density. There may still be a solid core of stuff (almost everything sinks through water, which is a better than average argument against this, unless there's a honking lot of water) but the middle isn't molten rock, it's super heated water.



                    And when the crust breaks, what you get is steam.



                    The crust is similar to a Roman arch — it's all spun out such that the bedrock is very, very flat and uniform. There would be no mountains — no plate tectonics to speak of — hot water, unlike magma, doesn't have the mass to push the surface around, which means earthquakes are caused by the heating/cooling cycle of the sun and occur most often at what we would call the tropics of cancer and capricorn (latitudes of highest thermal gradient between the poles and the equator).



                    This has the potential of meaning a lot of aquifers, but I'm having trouble keeping the land a desert. Water + sunlight = life. It would have to be a closer-to-the-sun planet such that the heat would burn off the water and the life. The consequence (thanks to the humidity) would be a lot of clouds, storms, and the night-side would get cold.



                    At least that's what I think.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Sorry, mate... this is not a very good answer. The interior of the Earth is under immense pressure. Whether or not one "experiences gravity" is utterly meaningless to the question of pressure. Pressure is the result of the weight of thousands of kilometres of rock bearing down from above. At the boundary between the outer and inner cores, pressure is roughly 360 gigapascals. Furthermore, friction is not the cause of internal heating. At all. Rather, it is the result of the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the core.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      1 hour ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      @ArkensteinXII Sorry, mate. Weight is a function of gravity. No gravity, no weight. When you're at the center of the planet, all the mass is "above" you and nothing is bearing down on you. Where did you get that number for the pressure at the boundary? The deepest hole we've ever drilled is only 7.5 miles and that's only half-way through the crust. Do you have any actual science to back up your complaint?
                      $endgroup$
                      – JBH
                      1 hour ago






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      The only point in the Earth that experiences zero gravity is the centre of gravity. Everywhere else, gravity is being exerted. As to where I got that figure, we should start with the fact that I am a qualified geoscientist. If that is insufficient, I will point out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and cites the following: David. R. Lide, ed. (2006–2007). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (87th ed.). pp. j14–13
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      54 mins ago












                    • $begingroup$
                      A link to a Physics.SE question that covers this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184032/…
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      48 mins ago






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Engineering PhD here. Arkenstein is correct. If the pressure at the core was lower than the pressure in upper layers, then that would create a net downward force which would compress the core until it had at least as much pressure as the upper layers. Roughly speaking, gravity tells you how fast pressure is increasing with depth - so as you approach the centre, pressure will plateau, but not drop.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Geoffrey Brent
                      15 mins ago
















                    0












                    $begingroup$

                    It would take serious artistic license to exist, but...



                    I do not believe a planet could naturally evolve into this state. The problem isn't actually pressure. People assume that the further down you go, the more pressure there is. It's true to an extent, but the closer to the center you get the less you experience gravity (zero gravity at the center!). Pressure is something that makes sense when you're talking about the crust or rigid mantle. But if it applied to the liquid core, every crack in the mantle would result in massive eruptions — but they don't.



                    On the other hand, what you do get is heat. We don't really have proof of what's at the center of our planet, but a century of science has given us some really good guesses. We guess that there's a solid core. It's spinning at a different speed compared to the crust. Everything in the middle is subject to tremendous friction. Result = super heated rock. We think.



                    From the perspective of "solid stuff slowly combines via gravity over bazillions of years until some fool stamps his feet and says, 'let's call it a planet,'" this model works very well — but it doesn't explain where water comes from and that's actually been something scientists have pondered for a long time.



                    So, let's pretend that your world started as a honking lot of water orbiting a newly forming star and it starts to gather via gravity...



                    Why not? It's your world. From this perspective your world has a very, very low average density. There may still be a solid core of stuff (almost everything sinks through water, which is a better than average argument against this, unless there's a honking lot of water) but the middle isn't molten rock, it's super heated water.



                    And when the crust breaks, what you get is steam.



                    The crust is similar to a Roman arch — it's all spun out such that the bedrock is very, very flat and uniform. There would be no mountains — no plate tectonics to speak of — hot water, unlike magma, doesn't have the mass to push the surface around, which means earthquakes are caused by the heating/cooling cycle of the sun and occur most often at what we would call the tropics of cancer and capricorn (latitudes of highest thermal gradient between the poles and the equator).



                    This has the potential of meaning a lot of aquifers, but I'm having trouble keeping the land a desert. Water + sunlight = life. It would have to be a closer-to-the-sun planet such that the heat would burn off the water and the life. The consequence (thanks to the humidity) would be a lot of clouds, storms, and the night-side would get cold.



                    At least that's what I think.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$









                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Sorry, mate... this is not a very good answer. The interior of the Earth is under immense pressure. Whether or not one "experiences gravity" is utterly meaningless to the question of pressure. Pressure is the result of the weight of thousands of kilometres of rock bearing down from above. At the boundary between the outer and inner cores, pressure is roughly 360 gigapascals. Furthermore, friction is not the cause of internal heating. At all. Rather, it is the result of the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the core.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      1 hour ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      @ArkensteinXII Sorry, mate. Weight is a function of gravity. No gravity, no weight. When you're at the center of the planet, all the mass is "above" you and nothing is bearing down on you. Where did you get that number for the pressure at the boundary? The deepest hole we've ever drilled is only 7.5 miles and that's only half-way through the crust. Do you have any actual science to back up your complaint?
                      $endgroup$
                      – JBH
                      1 hour ago






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      The only point in the Earth that experiences zero gravity is the centre of gravity. Everywhere else, gravity is being exerted. As to where I got that figure, we should start with the fact that I am a qualified geoscientist. If that is insufficient, I will point out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and cites the following: David. R. Lide, ed. (2006–2007). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (87th ed.). pp. j14–13
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      54 mins ago












                    • $begingroup$
                      A link to a Physics.SE question that covers this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184032/…
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      48 mins ago






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Engineering PhD here. Arkenstein is correct. If the pressure at the core was lower than the pressure in upper layers, then that would create a net downward force which would compress the core until it had at least as much pressure as the upper layers. Roughly speaking, gravity tells you how fast pressure is increasing with depth - so as you approach the centre, pressure will plateau, but not drop.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Geoffrey Brent
                      15 mins ago














                    0












                    0








                    0





                    $begingroup$

                    It would take serious artistic license to exist, but...



                    I do not believe a planet could naturally evolve into this state. The problem isn't actually pressure. People assume that the further down you go, the more pressure there is. It's true to an extent, but the closer to the center you get the less you experience gravity (zero gravity at the center!). Pressure is something that makes sense when you're talking about the crust or rigid mantle. But if it applied to the liquid core, every crack in the mantle would result in massive eruptions — but they don't.



                    On the other hand, what you do get is heat. We don't really have proof of what's at the center of our planet, but a century of science has given us some really good guesses. We guess that there's a solid core. It's spinning at a different speed compared to the crust. Everything in the middle is subject to tremendous friction. Result = super heated rock. We think.



                    From the perspective of "solid stuff slowly combines via gravity over bazillions of years until some fool stamps his feet and says, 'let's call it a planet,'" this model works very well — but it doesn't explain where water comes from and that's actually been something scientists have pondered for a long time.



                    So, let's pretend that your world started as a honking lot of water orbiting a newly forming star and it starts to gather via gravity...



                    Why not? It's your world. From this perspective your world has a very, very low average density. There may still be a solid core of stuff (almost everything sinks through water, which is a better than average argument against this, unless there's a honking lot of water) but the middle isn't molten rock, it's super heated water.



                    And when the crust breaks, what you get is steam.



                    The crust is similar to a Roman arch — it's all spun out such that the bedrock is very, very flat and uniform. There would be no mountains — no plate tectonics to speak of — hot water, unlike magma, doesn't have the mass to push the surface around, which means earthquakes are caused by the heating/cooling cycle of the sun and occur most often at what we would call the tropics of cancer and capricorn (latitudes of highest thermal gradient between the poles and the equator).



                    This has the potential of meaning a lot of aquifers, but I'm having trouble keeping the land a desert. Water + sunlight = life. It would have to be a closer-to-the-sun planet such that the heat would burn off the water and the life. The consequence (thanks to the humidity) would be a lot of clouds, storms, and the night-side would get cold.



                    At least that's what I think.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    It would take serious artistic license to exist, but...



                    I do not believe a planet could naturally evolve into this state. The problem isn't actually pressure. People assume that the further down you go, the more pressure there is. It's true to an extent, but the closer to the center you get the less you experience gravity (zero gravity at the center!). Pressure is something that makes sense when you're talking about the crust or rigid mantle. But if it applied to the liquid core, every crack in the mantle would result in massive eruptions — but they don't.



                    On the other hand, what you do get is heat. We don't really have proof of what's at the center of our planet, but a century of science has given us some really good guesses. We guess that there's a solid core. It's spinning at a different speed compared to the crust. Everything in the middle is subject to tremendous friction. Result = super heated rock. We think.



                    From the perspective of "solid stuff slowly combines via gravity over bazillions of years until some fool stamps his feet and says, 'let's call it a planet,'" this model works very well — but it doesn't explain where water comes from and that's actually been something scientists have pondered for a long time.



                    So, let's pretend that your world started as a honking lot of water orbiting a newly forming star and it starts to gather via gravity...



                    Why not? It's your world. From this perspective your world has a very, very low average density. There may still be a solid core of stuff (almost everything sinks through water, which is a better than average argument against this, unless there's a honking lot of water) but the middle isn't molten rock, it's super heated water.



                    And when the crust breaks, what you get is steam.



                    The crust is similar to a Roman arch — it's all spun out such that the bedrock is very, very flat and uniform. There would be no mountains — no plate tectonics to speak of — hot water, unlike magma, doesn't have the mass to push the surface around, which means earthquakes are caused by the heating/cooling cycle of the sun and occur most often at what we would call the tropics of cancer and capricorn (latitudes of highest thermal gradient between the poles and the equator).



                    This has the potential of meaning a lot of aquifers, but I'm having trouble keeping the land a desert. Water + sunlight = life. It would have to be a closer-to-the-sun planet such that the heat would burn off the water and the life. The consequence (thanks to the humidity) would be a lot of clouds, storms, and the night-side would get cold.



                    At least that's what I think.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 2 hours ago









                    JBHJBH

                    41.9k592202




                    41.9k592202








                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Sorry, mate... this is not a very good answer. The interior of the Earth is under immense pressure. Whether or not one "experiences gravity" is utterly meaningless to the question of pressure. Pressure is the result of the weight of thousands of kilometres of rock bearing down from above. At the boundary between the outer and inner cores, pressure is roughly 360 gigapascals. Furthermore, friction is not the cause of internal heating. At all. Rather, it is the result of the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the core.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      1 hour ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      @ArkensteinXII Sorry, mate. Weight is a function of gravity. No gravity, no weight. When you're at the center of the planet, all the mass is "above" you and nothing is bearing down on you. Where did you get that number for the pressure at the boundary? The deepest hole we've ever drilled is only 7.5 miles and that's only half-way through the crust. Do you have any actual science to back up your complaint?
                      $endgroup$
                      – JBH
                      1 hour ago






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      The only point in the Earth that experiences zero gravity is the centre of gravity. Everywhere else, gravity is being exerted. As to where I got that figure, we should start with the fact that I am a qualified geoscientist. If that is insufficient, I will point out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and cites the following: David. R. Lide, ed. (2006–2007). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (87th ed.). pp. j14–13
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      54 mins ago












                    • $begingroup$
                      A link to a Physics.SE question that covers this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184032/…
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      48 mins ago






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Engineering PhD here. Arkenstein is correct. If the pressure at the core was lower than the pressure in upper layers, then that would create a net downward force which would compress the core until it had at least as much pressure as the upper layers. Roughly speaking, gravity tells you how fast pressure is increasing with depth - so as you approach the centre, pressure will plateau, but not drop.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Geoffrey Brent
                      15 mins ago














                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Sorry, mate... this is not a very good answer. The interior of the Earth is under immense pressure. Whether or not one "experiences gravity" is utterly meaningless to the question of pressure. Pressure is the result of the weight of thousands of kilometres of rock bearing down from above. At the boundary between the outer and inner cores, pressure is roughly 360 gigapascals. Furthermore, friction is not the cause of internal heating. At all. Rather, it is the result of the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the core.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      1 hour ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      @ArkensteinXII Sorry, mate. Weight is a function of gravity. No gravity, no weight. When you're at the center of the planet, all the mass is "above" you and nothing is bearing down on you. Where did you get that number for the pressure at the boundary? The deepest hole we've ever drilled is only 7.5 miles and that's only half-way through the crust. Do you have any actual science to back up your complaint?
                      $endgroup$
                      – JBH
                      1 hour ago






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      The only point in the Earth that experiences zero gravity is the centre of gravity. Everywhere else, gravity is being exerted. As to where I got that figure, we should start with the fact that I am a qualified geoscientist. If that is insufficient, I will point out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and cites the following: David. R. Lide, ed. (2006–2007). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (87th ed.). pp. j14–13
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      54 mins ago












                    • $begingroup$
                      A link to a Physics.SE question that covers this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184032/…
                      $endgroup$
                      – Arkenstein XII
                      48 mins ago






                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      Engineering PhD here. Arkenstein is correct. If the pressure at the core was lower than the pressure in upper layers, then that would create a net downward force which would compress the core until it had at least as much pressure as the upper layers. Roughly speaking, gravity tells you how fast pressure is increasing with depth - so as you approach the centre, pressure will plateau, but not drop.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Geoffrey Brent
                      15 mins ago








                    1




                    1




                    $begingroup$
                    Sorry, mate... this is not a very good answer. The interior of the Earth is under immense pressure. Whether or not one "experiences gravity" is utterly meaningless to the question of pressure. Pressure is the result of the weight of thousands of kilometres of rock bearing down from above. At the boundary between the outer and inner cores, pressure is roughly 360 gigapascals. Furthermore, friction is not the cause of internal heating. At all. Rather, it is the result of the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the core.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Arkenstein XII
                    1 hour ago




                    $begingroup$
                    Sorry, mate... this is not a very good answer. The interior of the Earth is under immense pressure. Whether or not one "experiences gravity" is utterly meaningless to the question of pressure. Pressure is the result of the weight of thousands of kilometres of rock bearing down from above. At the boundary between the outer and inner cores, pressure is roughly 360 gigapascals. Furthermore, friction is not the cause of internal heating. At all. Rather, it is the result of the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the core.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Arkenstein XII
                    1 hour ago












                    $begingroup$
                    @ArkensteinXII Sorry, mate. Weight is a function of gravity. No gravity, no weight. When you're at the center of the planet, all the mass is "above" you and nothing is bearing down on you. Where did you get that number for the pressure at the boundary? The deepest hole we've ever drilled is only 7.5 miles and that's only half-way through the crust. Do you have any actual science to back up your complaint?
                    $endgroup$
                    – JBH
                    1 hour ago




                    $begingroup$
                    @ArkensteinXII Sorry, mate. Weight is a function of gravity. No gravity, no weight. When you're at the center of the planet, all the mass is "above" you and nothing is bearing down on you. Where did you get that number for the pressure at the boundary? The deepest hole we've ever drilled is only 7.5 miles and that's only half-way through the crust. Do you have any actual science to back up your complaint?
                    $endgroup$
                    – JBH
                    1 hour ago




                    1




                    1




                    $begingroup$
                    The only point in the Earth that experiences zero gravity is the centre of gravity. Everywhere else, gravity is being exerted. As to where I got that figure, we should start with the fact that I am a qualified geoscientist. If that is insufficient, I will point out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and cites the following: David. R. Lide, ed. (2006–2007). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (87th ed.). pp. j14–13
                    $endgroup$
                    – Arkenstein XII
                    54 mins ago






                    $begingroup$
                    The only point in the Earth that experiences zero gravity is the centre of gravity. Everywhere else, gravity is being exerted. As to where I got that figure, we should start with the fact that I am a qualified geoscientist. If that is insufficient, I will point out that Wikipedia agrees with me, and cites the following: David. R. Lide, ed. (2006–2007). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (87th ed.). pp. j14–13
                    $endgroup$
                    – Arkenstein XII
                    54 mins ago














                    $begingroup$
                    A link to a Physics.SE question that covers this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184032/…
                    $endgroup$
                    – Arkenstein XII
                    48 mins ago




                    $begingroup$
                    A link to a Physics.SE question that covers this: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/184032/…
                    $endgroup$
                    – Arkenstein XII
                    48 mins ago




                    1




                    1




                    $begingroup$
                    Engineering PhD here. Arkenstein is correct. If the pressure at the core was lower than the pressure in upper layers, then that would create a net downward force which would compress the core until it had at least as much pressure as the upper layers. Roughly speaking, gravity tells you how fast pressure is increasing with depth - so as you approach the centre, pressure will plateau, but not drop.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Geoffrey Brent
                    15 mins ago




                    $begingroup$
                    Engineering PhD here. Arkenstein is correct. If the pressure at the core was lower than the pressure in upper layers, then that would create a net downward force which would compress the core until it had at least as much pressure as the upper layers. Roughly speaking, gravity tells you how fast pressure is increasing with depth - so as you approach the centre, pressure will plateau, but not drop.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Geoffrey Brent
                    15 mins ago


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137186%2fcould-a-terrestrial-planet-have-water-for-a-core%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

                    Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

                    Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints