center of the earth

Um, density is not pressure. Density is mass per unit volume, pressure is force per unit area. They cannot be compared directly.If you actually do the calculations, the pressure at the center of the Earth is far above the pressure at which graphite turns into diamond.

No. Garnet is denser than water. Yes ... of course, then we would see another interface between phases in the seismic data, and we don't see that. It would not be stable, being under a liquid that is more dense than it. It would be "rattling around", "banging into" the layer above the liquid. It would not stay at the center of the Earth.Also, we would see a very different pattern of transmission of P waves than we actually do see. Diamond sponge. Interesting. Whatever led you to hypothesize that?No, the water would not sponge into the diamond. I really doubt we've understimated you or cosmo.Random guesses without knowledge of most of the evidence, and ignoring the evidence that was already presented in this thread, are essentially guaranteed to have no correspondence to reality. HTH. HAND.

Oh, one more thing -- this is a discussion forum. Anyone who thinks they have something to say is welcome to jump in to any thread (although, if you don't really have anything to say, you're likely to get jumped on). And you are required to answer reasonable questions about and objections to your claims, by the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

Haven't learned anything from your suspension, I see. Wahat evidence do you have for this?As has been pointed out many times, with evidence, water down there will be at a temperature of thousands of degrees or it won't be liquid. A hot solid iron core, surrounded by a slightly less hot liquid iron core, surrounded by a slightly less hot solid but plastic mantle, surrounded by a relatively cool crust. Only Biblioidolatry, which is not relevant in this forum. All the evidence that God wrote in the rocks and throughout his creation gives us an old earth age; that's not relevant in this particular forum, but I'd be glad to discuss it in the appropriate forum if you start or revive a thread there. We'll think about that after someone has come up with evidence that they actually happened. The evidence we have to date is that tectonics and limestone formation are slow processes. I have no idea what you're gibbering about with the salt. I hope it's not the old "there's not enough salt in the oceans for an old Earth" canard. As was pointed out to you many times, all the canopy ideas founder on the amopunt of heat released into the atmosphere, whether in maintaining the canopy or in getting the water down to Earth. Or both. Nothing knocks down a canopy without killing everything. Energy is conserved. Nothing that I'm aware of. What evidence do you have that isn't adequately explained by mainstream science? The best explanation for the evidence we have is that there was never any worldwide flood. It is, as has been pointed out many times. There's liquid down there, and cool water isn't liquid at at that pressure.

Not off the top of my head, and only with difficulty in a restricted medium like this. I'd have to do some research. But I'll give it a try ... after you show good faith by presenting the evidence for your claims. I don't expect to have to follow through with that promise.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Well,we've posted plenty of evidence that shows that cool does not have a chance and does not bear any serious research, and you have ignored that evidence while not posting any other evidence.If the above is your reason for this thread, why are you still posting? That part of it is long over. You left out some very important evidence ... the thermodynamics of liquids. There's liquid down there. Thermodynamics requires any liquid down there to be hot. If it were cool it would be a solid.

No. We would see the boundaries. Pretty much. It has to have values for several properties that produce the right predictions for wave velocities. See below. Ah, that's because you haven't looked for or looked at any evidence, you are just making it up as you go along. The velocity of of P waves depends on the density, shear modulus, and bulk modulus of the material: (linked from Velocity of P and S-waves...)K is the bulk modulus, µ is the shear modulus, and r is the density. K and µ change under pressure, but not a heck of a lot; they mostly depend on the strength of the atomic bonds that hold the material together. µ is zero for all liquids. r changes under pressure for some materials, but not for others, and can change discontinuously with pressure if the materials structure changes.The velocity of S waves is: (from the same source as above)By studying waves from many sources arriving at many detection stations, we can figure out what the velocity of both types of waves is as a function of depth¹, without making any reference to temperature: (linked from the end of Earthquakes & their Uses {Seismology})(Notice the sudden changes where it changes from solid to liquid or vice-versa. We would see similar jumps at any sudden change in solid properties, such as a layer of gold changing to a layer of diamond).So, there you go. When you plug the properties of iron into those equations, they produce the observed wave velocities quite nicely (except we have to assume that about 10% of the core is nickel and other contaminants to match the density, which complicates the analysis some, but is justified by other evidence). All you have to do is to show that the properties of any material you want to propose produces the observed wave velocities when plugged into these equations.-----------------------¹In fact, these waves are used to make "CAT scans" of the Earth; googling "seismic tomography" will turn up some fascinating images, including convection in the mantle and subducting plates.{edited to fix second equation}This message has been edited by JonF, 01-30-2005 17:16 AM

As Charles pointed out, you have already:

quote:

---

All the evidence that is for the old model, now simply entered as evidence for the new, and proper model. The only exception being, old age asumptions such as metals, over billions of years settling down, etc. not applicable in the least! Bouncing seismic waves, and satelite fly by readings now simply to be read in their proper light. Why, are you suggesting something doesn't fit? Can't pass through a liquid, fine, no need to look the the old model. Simply a better fit of the evidence, no lack of any. The beauty is that it also fits with the bible.
  —msg 114

---

Look again. The "D" layer is between the outer core and the mantle ... and, indeed, the figure I posted shows a change in the trend of the P wave velocity, and perhaps a change in the trend of the S wave velocity (it's hard to tell at that scale), at exactly that point.Don't forget that you have to come up with the correct total mass and moment of inertia for the Earth, also.

Cosmo, I'm pretty convinced you aren't really interested in making a model; I bet you just want to be a gadfly without considering the possibility that your ideas are wrong. In case I'm wrong, look at GS 388 Lab 5: Density and Radial density distribution via the Adams-Williamson equation. That's lab material for EAS 388, Geophysics and Geotectonics. This course and lab covers exactly what you claim to be attempting to do. The handouts contain all the equations and data you will need. You don't have to accept all their reasoning why the density should vary in a particular way . Let us know when you've finished the calculations.{Changed subtitle by edit}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-01-2005 07:41 AM

Jeez, I love the Internet.Alan L. Jones has written two Computer Programs for visualizing all sorts of earthquake stuff, including internal wave propagation. One updates its database of earthquakes over the Internet and will notify you of earthquakes within minutes if you wish. The one that shows internal propagation doesn't have as up-to-date a database, but the earthquake that caused the recent tsunami has been added to the database. Who woulda thunk it.Both free.{changed subtitle in edit}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-01-2005 08:01 AM

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, there's liquid down there. Nothing close to surface temperature is going to be liquid down there. That's not a guess, it's a fact. Nope. When you have good evidence that iron in the Solar System is always associated with nickel, when you have meteorites the same age as the Earth that are made of iron with a little nickel, and when the properties of iron with a little nickel fit the known evidence, we conclude that the core is iron with a little nickel.You don't like it, propose a better fit to the evidence.

Oh, and I didn't mention ... they have a pre-set-up spreadsheet for the lab. If you ask politely I bet they'd send you a copy. Get you going right fast!Get back to us when the calculations are done.{changed subtitle in edit}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-01-2005 08:01 AM

Some comments:If you believe that the Earth was created as-is by an omnipotent being, it is certainly possible to create it with a cool crust, a hot top layer of the mantle, and a cool (nougat?) center. I don't know how much that center would have heated up by heat transfer from the hot layer in 6K-10K years, but perhaps it wouldn't have heated up much (perhaps God created it with no radioactive elements down there). So your points 1 and 4 are irrelevant to a YEC.I don't find point 2 particularly convincing; there is a correlation of increasing pressure with increasing temperature but I'm sure you know that correlation does not prove causation; it depends on the process by which the system came to be. Again, the Earth could have been created yesterday by the IPU with a cool center that's under tremendous pressure.IMHO point 3 is the killer, but you didn't go far enough; anything down there that's liquid under that pressure is hot. And there's no way that the liquid down there isn't pressurized. There's no material that could stick through the liquid to "prop up" the Earth above the liquid and be slim enough to be invisible to the seismic waves. The liquid down there is pressurized and hot, whatever it is.