center of the earth

quote:

---

Hence, we can calculate the total mass of the earth from knowing how big the earth is, and observing much it influences other bodies such as the moon.

---

As I suspected! Thanks for the reply. I reserve the right to contest this concept further, but I can see it would bog down beyond reason here. So, lets move on now, as long as the density does not necisarily mean heat. If so, I need to mull it over a bit.
OK, so we have an wonderful, amazing, and dense earth here, more so than any other planet in the system. Indeed, we are special here, in that!
At it's heart, a diamond, I would like to propose, covered by a layer of water. We can build it up from here, obeying all laws as good citizens now. So, before moving on further, would someone happen to have a reason, I need to modify my beautiful young earth model here? (And in a fantastic bit of symmetry here, the diamond power center, about 1500 miles wide, turns out to be the same size as either the moon, or the supposed 1500 mile high golden city)
[thanks for helping move things on here]

Now THIS is trolling.Maybe the centre of the earth is made of plastic and Ron Wyatt is hiding out there waiting for the second coming?I really can't understand how someone can be exposed to some of the concepts that people have be good enough to outline on here and still want to sit in the dark - I just don't understand this type of behaviour at all. It makes me feel depressed about the state of the world.(but thanks for providing a textbook example of how wanting to believe something can overcome reason).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26 January 2005 05:54 AM

I strongly suspect Charles is right, but I'll risk feeding the troll a little bit more.This is the third time you've mentioned diamond at the centre of the earth (see Message 15 and Message 48) - but in the other two posts you specifically said diamond walls. What do diamond walls have to do with anything ? What possible reason is there for even suggesting them ?This time you've also pulled the figure of 1500 miles out of your ass and added mention of a diamond power centre (and mentioned the supposed 1500 mile high golden city - aka New Jerusalem from Revalations).I can see three possibilities here :

1. You're trolling
2. You're barking mad
3. You're working up to telling us New Jerusalem is waiting at the centre of the earth until after the Day of Judgement (which is obviously wrong as this site clearly states it is in outer space)

So which of the three is it ? Actually b and c are pretty much the same thing, so which of the two is it ?

---

Confused ? You will be...

IIRC Venus has similar physical characteristics to Earth, eg. size, average density (95.1% of earth's density). Should we be looking for a diamond core there too? Or does this deflate your imaginary scenario?

Becasue momentum is conserved, the laws of physiocs are the same here on the surface as a the Earth's core.No such forces exist here on the surface of the Earth.Therefore, no such forces exist at the Earth's core.QED. As has been pointed out many times in this thread:1. Density does not cause gravity.2. Mass is the only cause of gravity. Hey, he is wrong. Links to other loons don't prove much.

Density does not cause gravity.As far as the Earth's interior is concerned, mass causes gravity. 100%. Without exception. In theory and in millions of observations. Nothing else causes gravity from the interior of the Earth. Period. End of story. Ah, your poor reading and writing skills are showing again. You wrote "Sattelite given as evidence turns out actually the data is utterly dependant on secondary things, mainly waves!". The data does not at all depend on waves; the data is the data, obtained only from satellites as I said.The link is actaally in post 33; you can't even get that right.Note the plural of "methods". Seismic wave data and other data is used to put together a complete picture. Neither the data nor the interpretation depend "uterly" on seismic wave data.

There's no contradictions. It's a complex subject that is difficult to convey accurately on the low level of understanding that you are at. People tend to try to include the pathological cases, like what goes on in a black hole or in the nucleus of an atom, when we are only concerned with a non-pathological case such as waht goes on it the Earth. I do some of that myself. You can say that. You can also say that it may not be necessarily so that the sun will rise tomorrrow. You can say that it may not be necessarily so that you will fall if you jump off the edge of the Brooklyn Bridge. But we will (and you should) ask if it is reasonable, in light of our current and pretty extensive knowledge about the phenomena, whether it's reasonbable to consider the possibility of it really being not so. And the answers is no. Quoting a guy is pretty meaningless without an assessment of the evidence on which that quote is based (and an assessment of whether the quote is in context). Your quote was in context, but examination of the site reveals a major lack of evidence for his claims and major ignoring of relevant evidence which contradicts his claims and some major falsehoods. For example (somewhat OT but relevant to the question of the reliability of your source):

quote:

---

When examining the methods of long-term dating, I did discover that there is a cumulative, exponential error in geologic dating that relies on radioactive decay. Anything beyond the 5,000-year range of carbon dating may be drastically wrong, and the Earth may be much younger than ever conceived--by as much as a factor of 1,000:1. The 4.6 billion year age of the Earth, may be as little as 500 million, and mankind may have been present when dinosaurs walked the Earth, as actually shown etched in ancient Peruvian stone tablets. Also, recent fossil evidence in Texas is supporting this hypothesis--much to the objection of anthropologists--having found human footprints petrified in rock next to dinosaur tracks, as though the humans were hunting the dinosaurs. Originally thought a hoax, until they discovered the tracks continued under a large cliff, and when excavated, showed the same human/dinosaur prints.

---

I count five major errors of fact (not interpretation) in that short excerpt, requiring at least four separate threads to discuss adequately.(for those who don't want to trace the messages back, the link is AT THE EARTH’S CORE.)I gave a brief and incredibly oversimplified precis of why the laws of physics do apply at the Earth's core, and provided a link to more information. If you want a more technical link, try Symmetries, Groups, and Categories (and feel free to look into the qualifications and reliability of the author, John Baez, and the evidence which underlies waht he wrote).

The Earth is the densest planet, but not by much. The difference in density among the four innermost planets is not significant. The Planets.Adn, fo course, the Earth is far from being the largest or most massive planet. Not particulary special in lots of ways. No, not yet. However, your first post in moving on should be a list of the evidence that you will use to support your claims. You'll need a whole lot of really powerful evidence to overturn modern physics and geology and chemistry.This message has been edited by JonF, 01-26-2005 08:41 AM

Why on Earth should I believe you?

quote:

---

Venus has similar physical characteristics to Earth, eg. size, average density (95.1% of earth's density). Should we be looking for a diamond core there too?

---

I could take it or leave it there.
In this article, however, some planets are "likely" candidates, as well!

quote:

---

Under extremely high pressures and temperatures, methane gas transforms to diamond, hydrogen and other hydrocarbons.

​

This means the cores of Neptune and Uranus are most likely made of diamond.

---

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2001/06/11bendetti.html
!!!

quote:

---

This time you've also pulled the figure of 1500 miles out of your ass and added mention of a diamond power centre

---

http://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/cohen_stix.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/corecrystal.html
Here's the size in these links.
As far as do I think new Jerusalem in in earth. Absolutely not. But I can't get into that here.
Earlier on, when quick thinking a supporting hull for outer mantle, I thought of diamonds as the first hard thing that sprung to mind. That's the next area, if no one disqualifies the inner mantle/core proposal, we can move on.

quote:

---

So, before moving on further, would someone happen to have a reason, I need to modify my beautiful young earth model here?
No, not yet.

---

I'm liking that one.
Here's something else.

quote:

---

Researchers from ASEA Brown Boveri (ABB) in Sweden and DeBeers Industrial Diamonds in England have brought diamond-based electronics closer to realization by showing that it is possible to manufacture diamond pure enough to reliably conduct electricity. "

---

http://www.trnmag.com/...ond_electronics_on_deck_091802.html
Another property we look for here!
Thanks for all the answers, I guess if you spent years studying this stuff, it can be a test of patience trying to condense things to an understandable level. But I find, when people do take the time, a concept seems easy to understand even on a little thread, for some who may never have knew many of these things before.

Before we move on, perhaps you could answer some questions:1. What evidence led you to hypothesize that a large diamond is found in the center of the earth?2. What evidence led you to hypothesize that there are "hulls" or "watery chambers" in the earth?If we can work with your evidence perhaps we can move forward in a more logical fashion.

Oh God, please don't tell me this is leading to the hydroplate theory.

Foul heretic! It's a highly, extremely, excessively compressed cowpatty at the center, surrounded by exceptionally dense, but only lukewarm, horsepiss. I wish we didn't have freedom of speech in this country (well, we may not, anymore....) so that we could prevent these deviant, diamond-worshipping theories like yours from being heard by poor, innocent schoolchildren.Who do I call, with Ashcroft going home?