A Planetary Core and Surface Temperature Critique
All objects above absolute zero will radiate energy and all objects will absorb radiated energy.
If an object is exposed to two sources of energy (the sun and the interior of the planet) it will equalize with the stronger source, radiating any energy from the weaker source along with the excess energy being received from the primary source.
Since energy decreases with distance from its source we should be able to determine which source is the primary source of heat for the Earth’s surface from data.
If the interior energy of the Earth was heating the surface we would expect that the North and South Poles would be warmer than the equator since the diameter of the Earth is smallest there the at the equator and they are closer to the source of heat.
We would expect that the bottom of the oceans, where the crust is thinner than on land and the distance to the core is shorter, would be hotter than the surface of the ocean with convection causing the heat to decrease through shallower depths.
The hot spots on the Earth’s surface (Hawaii, Yellowstone, Iceland, and possibly Antarctica) should have similar surface temperatures since the magma domes bring the heat closer to the surface in these locations.
The surface temperature should not change with seasons since the tilt of a sphere does not alter the conduction of heat from the center to the surface.
If the surface is being heated by geothermal heat how do you explain permafrost where frozen soil is covered by soil that thaws?
The borehole data cited in the article is invalid since studies of deep mines show that the temperature in these mines varies independent of depth. They can become hotter or cooler with depth or they can even become hotter than cooler with additional depth.
If the sun were the source of heat for the surface of the Earth we would expect the equator to be hotter than the poles since it receives more energy from the sun.
We would expect the surface of the oceans to be warmer than the deeper water.
The weather and temperature of the hot spots would be a result of their position on the planet not there subsurface heat source.
Seasonal changes in surfaces temperatures would occur as the amount of solar energy striking the surface changed and the soil at the surface would thaw even if the soil underneath remained frozen.
It is clear from the evidence that the sun is the primary source of energy and is responsible for the temperature at the Earth’s surface.
The article also claims that the energy of a gas molecule in the atmosphere is the sum of its kinetic energy (1/2 MV^2) and its potential energy (HgM) due to gravity. This would mean that an oxygen molecule (mass 32) and a nitrogen molecule (mass 28) at the same altitude could have the same kinetic energy after a collision, with the nitrogen molecule having a greater velocity, but could not have the same total energy.
You cannot separate deuterium and tritium from liquid hydrogen using gravity and their different potential energy. Either the conservation of energy principle is violated by energy being created or kinetic energy is not being conserved.
The concept of potential energy is one of those non detectable excuses created to compensate for deficiency of the theory of gravity.
The use of average gravitational force to explain the high tide on the opposite side of the Earth from the moon is another truly ridiculous excuse. There are no averages in reality. It is a contrivance created to facilitate the treatment of large amounts of data and has nothing to do with reality.
The creation of dark matter and dark energy are additional non existent entities invented to justify the retention of failed theories and preserve the status of physics. With the discovery of binary asteroids what new magical talisman will be created to maintain the faith?
The current gravity theories should be discarded like the theory of phlogiston 
or aether. Gravity is a function of energy not mass. The mass only came about because Newton (pictured) needed a source for the force he created.
The primary source of the problem with the article is that Doug believes that since Einstein and Wikipedia both claim that temperature is equal to the mean kinetic energy of a medium being measured that this has to be true. The kinetic energy of a molecule is equal to half its mass times its velocity squared.
Thermometers are the instruments we use to measure temperature and like all instruments they have limitations on how they can be used to get accurate results.
A thermometer both receives kinetic energy from the source being measured and radiates energy to another medium. If a thermometer is completely submerged in the medium being measured it will be unable to radiate energy and give an accurate reading.
The instrument has a set surface size that is to be exposed to the medium being measured in order to absorb the kinetic energy from that medium. This energy then heats the measuring medium within the instrument causing it to expand.
This expansion increases the area of the measuring medium, outside the medium being measured, causing it to radiate more energy. When the radiated energy reaches equilibrium with the absorbed energy the temperature is established.
Imagine the surface measuring area of the thermometer as a flat surface being struck by hammers at a constant rate. The surface would absorb energy on one side and radiate it on the other.
If we doubled the mass of the hammers striking the surface we would double the energy being transferred to the surface and the temperature. If we reduced the mass of the hammers by 50% we would cut the kinetic energy by 50% and the measured temperature.
Instead of reducing the mass of the hammers by 50% half the hammers are removed. The kinetic energy being transferred to the surface is again reduced by 50 % even though the kinetic energy of the hammers does not change.
I know of no type of thermometer (mercury, bi-metallic, or electronic) that counts the molecules transferring energy to it and adjust its reading to compensate for the count.
The thermometer is calibrated using ice water and boiling water where the entire measuring surface is exposed to kinetic energy. In a gas, at sea level, only .1% of the area measuring the heat of the medium is exposed to the medium. When more energy is added to a gas it expands resulting in even fewer molecules striking the measuring surface.
The instrument is being used outside its calibration and a temperature reading of a gas is not an accurate representation of the kinetic energy of the molecules striking it, despite what Einstein and Wikipedia say.
If you use the universal gas law (PV=nkt where P is the pressure from gravity not atmospheric pressure) to determine the kinetic energy of molecules of gas molecules in both the atmosphere of Earth and Venus you find that the kinetic energy of gas molecules increase with altitude.
This shows that the sun is the source of heat heating the atmospheres which then in turn heats the surfaces of the planets and also radiates any rising emitted internal heat away from the planets.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.