center of the earth

quote:

---

... 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.

---

Ok How so? Say for example, if gold was a liquid at that pressure, why would it be hot-or water?

[quote]cosmo, you are formally asked to provide evidence to support your assertion that the core of the earth is liquid gold surrounding a diamond crystal.[quote] Excuse me? My assertion is only this. I'd like to check the evidence that the interior must be hot, and that a cooler scenario could not be possible. As I have already said, I simply picked some materials, for examples, so we could look at whether or not anything else could fit the bill. I have no assertions that it is a diamond, or gold or water.But we need something material, to use to test the concept. If I get to an assertion phase, I'll let you know. We're having a look at ways we can detet what's down there, and how we do it, and how much would be because of age assumptions, and whether all cooler scenarios can be ruled out. No I don't assert any certain materials, only propose a few to see if they can stand up or not to evidence.

quote:

---

To change something that is normally a solid into a liquid you have to raise it's temperature to its melting point

---

Fine. Sounds reasonable. I thought I had read something about how, pressure alone, if high enough, would have turned gold into liquid. Point noted

quote:

---

All the evidence that is for the old model, now simply entered as evidence for the new, and proper model

---

Yes, in my opinion, if we could fit the evidence we do have in a cooler model of the interior, it would be a better one, if it ends up fitting the evidence better. No we are not. of course there yet!

quote:

---

No. We would see the boundaries

---

I am wondering, just about that at the moment.
There is said to be a 'd' zone or area actually, between the outer core and inner-different in composition.
" "D" layer: depth of 2,700-2,890 kilometres
This layer is 200 to 300 kilometres thick. Although it is often identified as part of the lower mantle, seismic evidence suggests the D" layer might differ chemically from the lower mantle lying above it. Scientists think that the material either dissolved in the core, or was able to sink through the mantle but not into the core because of its density."
Page not found - Moorland Private School
So it seems there is a boundry for us here! Potentially.

quote:

---

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.

---

Thanks, sounds like it should be doable? By the way, the particular site, and diagram happened to leave out the potential boundary I just 'proposed'.
So, apparently we have some stuff (d) that is at the border of the inner and outer core. It can't penetrate the 'diamond', or core (whatever it is made of). Yet, as someone else pointed out, we need to come up with the right specific gravity (density balance). Using just a sample of diamond, and water, this does not match. Gold has very heavy specific gravity, about 19.3. We need to come up with around 5.5, I believe, and the diamond was only around, as I recall about 3.5 or 3.9. Now if we looked at the 19.3/3.9/and water, I think it was 1 -what would we average out to? Would it not be in the ballpark?
Anyhow thanks for the wave stuff, it's something to chew on.

quote:

---

would someone happen to have a reason, I need to modify my beautiful young earth model

---

People, except you, of course, have been trying to do that.

I think I had enough this thread. As a parting note, from your link you just gave---"Density changes with depth in the earth because of the effects of changes in (1) pressure,(2) temperature, (3) composition, and (4) crystalline structure.[/quote] We need temperature for a proper reading. All you have is guesses. When you are off, why, throw some nickel in there or whatever you want to fit. Very interesting that this arguement, if it turned out in any form, to be as good as the hot ones, eventually, would deal a mortal blow to evolutio at all levels!
I can see why you leave manners, and reason to protect your religion here. Bonjour

quote:

---

Deep mines and drilling indicate increasing temperature with depth. I think we've gone down about 6 miles.

​

In general, increasing pressure causes increasing temperature, and the pressure increases enormously with increasing depth within the earth.

​

Seismic analysis of earthquakes reveals that some layers of the inner earth are liquid, and rock and metal must be very hot to be a liquid.

​

Volcanos spew out magma from below the crust, and the magma is very hot.

---

Rock and metal would have to be hot to be a liquid. But how do we know it has to be hot? - (oh thanks for asking me to go, then disapearing cosie)
Did not someone say water would still be a liquid at outer core temperatures? Do we know that the water, or salt water, or water with antifreeze, or whatever that could exist at these pressures could not fit the p wave travel speed? (I'll try to be careful about claiming it is water or gold etc. the object of the excercise being mainly to see if a cool scenario must be ruled out)

quote:

---

Nothing close to surface temperature is going to be liquid down there. That's not a guess, it's a fact.

---

Assuming it was hot, yes, but can we prove it?

quote:

---

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.

---

That's a long story. But, it comes down, really to the big bang, in the end. This follows that, and that follows this, so we know this and that. But, all going back to some pretty heavy early speck, and pre speck theory.Can we stick to seismic waves, and tangible evidence? We already agreed the earth was dense, and under pressure, and has a liquid outer core. On another forum, some raised radiation as a possible proof of heat, but couldn't follow through. No one has yet shown travel times for waves wouldn't fit, with a cooler dense center. Someone else was concerned with heat transfer fom the surface making the core hot, even if it was flood time tectonic activity that heated it up there. (Again, couldn't follow up)

quote:

---

You don't like it, propose a better fit to the evidence

---

Maybe no one needs to, if we can be sure the outer core is hot. What would be the point?

quote:

---

. And given the time it takes a body the size of a planet to cool, a cool inner earth would indicate greater age, not lesser.

​

Another aspect to consider: if none of the traditional Creationist sources advocate a cool inner earth, then this is another clue for you and Cosmo that you're going down the wrong path.

---

Well a longer age for a cool earth would assume a hot one to begin with!
Now you say that 'none of the traditional Creationist sources advocate a cool inner earth'. So then, I should really respect their science, and follow something you too would agree with..these traditional christian men of science! Well, if you agree, I'll think about it! I just thought they might be off on some bits, as some evos apparently think!

quote:

---

I don't know how much that center would have heated up by heat transfer from the hot layer in 6K-10K years

---

Well, I'm right up here on the surface, and I'm Ok! Just think if I was several thousand kilometers away from the little slice of surficial heat! Now, (this isn't a proposal, so don't breathe fire at me if it turns out another way is better) Ok, the lower mantle, or there abouts starts to get pretty dense. Just to take a rough estimation, with earth's average density 5 (and change), we would expect I think the mantle to stsrt getting into say, 2.5, 3, 4, near 5 type of specific gravity. We do know I think the wave tend to speed up generally as it gets denser.So I took some of the stones, and gems and had a look at how they might fit. (remember olivne is down abou there somewhere, I believe we already know)
OK heres my preliminary results, and remember, these things are poor conducters, so some surficial heat would be up againt it, it it met these down there.
ruby 3.9 - 4.1---turquise--2.6-2.8, Agate 2.60,Emerald or Garnet -3.5-4.3 , Lapis Lazuli: 2.7-2.9 , amethyst (2.65), jacinth,(4.65 zircon ), topaz (one form of olivine called peridot. 3.22-3.45 )
chrysolite,(3.25), carnelian,(2.65), sardonyx,(2.65),emerald,(4.3)chalcedony,(4.3) , corundum 3.96-4.05. (some old names used in this source)
With many similar densities, no transition zone would show, I think for the waves between layers of this stuff. Make several layers, in the mantle area say a hundred miles deep each, and it could match the waves?

quote:

---

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.

---

What about the liquid itself? If we had 1500 miles of water as the outer core, under the pressure down there, where is is going to go? It couldn't get out. Not if it was under a boundry of something super strong? What about irridium? Or graphite, or, yes, even diamond? (gold, iron, tungston, platinum, etc)Which brings us back to the good old waves. About a 20 sec travel time through earth. Lets say (guess) 5 seconds to get through the outer core. One question I await an aswer for from a few seismologists I asked, is about the travel times. Do we know the precise times for all parts of the core, or outer core? Could it take a bit longer passing through a tougher transition zone, yet still average out to the overall core travel time of 4 seconds?
[PS moderators, could you please mail cosmo his password, he (I)is using simple's at the moment, on loan, thanks]

quote:

---

We have evidence that shows that the deeper you go the hotter it gets

---

Great. In a nutshell what is it. Mainly the seismic waves, really, is what is the big one here. But if you have something else, fine (except big bang conclusions)

quote:

---

Way back I posted a phase diagram for water. Why don't you show the calculations for the temperature and pressure that would allow water to exist as a liquid at the core and still fit the evidence that we have.

---

Didn't I do that? Well, basically it was the heat was up at the surface here, to an undetermined depth. I said 1-2 hundred Ks as an estimate.Then, it would be cool all the way to the core. Part of how this was arrived at, was your evidence! If water is the liquid?-and it can only be a liquid within a certain temperature range, then we would have to go with that range, unless we had another liquid that would work. But without water, it takes a lot of the fun away for me.

quote:

---

As it has been pointed out multiple times the evidence does not support a cool core

---

I disagree. Maybe I just am not educated enough to get where someone actually nailed it. Look at percys 4 points!
Now I don't have any idea what the temperature is in the earth, of course. So I can't say it is cool. Therefore I can't prove something I don't know. What I try to do here is see if we can prove it is hot. Then, all need for orher speckulation disappears.
Seems to me, if someone had a good case, like that the core was hot, that they should be able to present it. If they can't then I'll worry about considering whether some cooler model can be better matched to the evidence.
All I'm trying to do is see if we have evidence for the heat claimed so so widely. I do not (yet) claim it is cool!! If I played the devil's advocate here, and took the cool side, it was only for the sake of exploring how strong the evidence is, when we get right down to it.

quote:

---

At the exact center of the earth, the pull of gravity is balanced and you would be weightless. So you are correct on the idea of being able to balance a lighter object in the center of the planet. The problem is the instability, the slightest wobble and the balance would be lost

---

Well I have a few ideas on this, but this thread isn't the place for them. Now, I just want to satisfy the basic density and specific gravity requirements, and leave the fancy stuff. So, say the core is a cool dense solid, surrounded by liquid. Aside from the gyro, another topic in itself, why must it be hot?

quote:

---

So I guess you could have a cold iron core surrounded by the molten outer core, but I don't see any point to it, since the outer core would over time heat the inner core.

---

In other words, wheter it is gold, or whatever, long as it's solid, and matches the density.? With water as an outer core, and a few other tweaks, I still say, given the young earth age scenario, why hot? Now as far as the 'slightest wobble' goes, I think I read where the magnetic field is thought to help support the core, sort of. If you've seen a beech ball at the end of a hose blowing air, it is suspended in the air on top of the hose. Could, with magnetic field, and a pressure so great, and density difference in inner and outer core help give a little of a similar type effect?

quote:

---

I see some of the other posters have posted the density figures for inside the earth, those figures are from the travel speeds of the P waves through the earth

---

I spent some time on another forum, so can hardly remember the humble beginnings here, and where we were. Anyhow, there is a 'travel time' for the core, I think about 4 seconds. Overall, we know the density, and travel time. But that may allow some things that would still work very well, in a cooler model.

quote:

---

No, it wouldn't, the low density would show up very clearly, the high travel speeds of the P waves in the core show a much higher density. Gold would have to be very hot to be liquid

---

Yes, thanks. I have moved on quite a bit since that silly little thought!

quote:

---

The density is known by the P wave speed, that it is mostly iron is indicated by other clues like the magnetic field and the relative abundance of elements in the universe

---

Wow! I like that! The rest is a piece of cake, what is left on the thread is the waves. Here, you indicate it was density that is the clincher. Great. Same thing I arrived at on the other forum.

quote:

---

What on earth do you mean? You aren't making any sense, stop and think about it for a moment. If you are talking about the flood waters coming from inside the earth, and they are hot, in flooding the surface they would heat the surface. If you are talking about a sudden movement of the earth's plates, heat coming up suddenly wouldn't do it, you would have to slowly heat the surface from below so it could flow

---

I was thinking the friction from continents moving would have been the big thing. But, if it can be proved the erth center is hot, that would be a moot point, because water couldn't have been down there.

thanks