center of the earth

(geology forum)
I would like to explore briefly, whether or not our current theories yield the best picture. Magnetic field, gravity, density, seismic wave data results, and some of the basics having to do with how we understand what is right beneath our feet. How do we know it is hot there? Could Newton's assumptions that things get denser, etc., as we get down towards the center be say, only applicable so far down? Could the seismic waves be telling another story? This was too big to fit in an existing thread, where I brought it up, on Walt's ideas, so lets look at it here.

quote:

---

For example, from first principles (i.e no assumptions) we can calculate the average density of the planet

---

Interesting. Now that I think is just the eimple formula with the mass, and volume, say like "(5.97 x 1024)/(1.08 x 1021)= 5510kg/m3"(UCL Error Message - new Or how nearby planets are affected by us. "First, we know the overall density and mass of the Earth based on measurments of how the Earth perturbs the orbits of other planets and the moon. "http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/earths_core.html
So, depending how the earth was made, I think there could be more than one possibility. More exactly, if most of the dense stuff was put on the upper, or outer part of our sphere, and inside was areas of less density, then the part we see would not be average! And, instead of expecting more density, we get less in earth's center. How could it possibly be less, you ask? Well, what if it were with strong protective material, say like a wall, or hull of a chamber? So, regardless of what happened up on the surface, even if it were burned up, the ball itself would still be fine? So would not the concept of some average density assume uniformity, more or less? But if it was a created object, it could have some other design?

quote:

---

""We know from mines and drill holes that, near
the surface of the Earth, the temperature increases by about
1 degree Fahrenheit for every 60 feet in depth. If this
temperature increase continued to the center of the Earth,...." http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99256.htm

---

So when you say 'no assumptions' I have to turn my head a few degrees!

quote:

---

Shear waves cannot penetrate liquids (for example). We know (based on diamond anvil experiments) the material properties of matter at certain P-T conditions

---

Yes, at least if it's a liquid!

quote:

---

Have you ever wondered why Walt won't bring them up himself on a forum like this?

---

Yes. Nevertheless, in all the rubble there, I think there well may be a few real gems. A lot of people give him the benefit of the doubt, and would be forgiving even if a lot of his ideas were just wrong. He tried to give them some hope of having science and faith. Oh, about the heat involved, with his continents moving. Assuming a cool interior, and starting condition for the water, mainly just friction here, how close are we to say, the amount of heat we observe today? Maybe adding a little in for residual continental settling? (If this is too off topic, fine)

quote:

---

Simply put, if we know that the earth's average density is X, and we observe that the surface is less dense than X, then we know that parts other than the surface must be more dense than X.

---

OK. I gave it some thought, let's say this is right. Now, what is the next step to get it hot under the mantle? If we assume superior design in the earth, the material inside could be very dense, after all the architect is said to use pearls 25 stories high, Gold 1500 mi high, and walls made of thousands of miles of precious gems, in one of His other projects. We even have the blueprints and specs on that one. Anyhow, now for this project, what is it that gets us to the heat, from having some density down there? So far so good.

quote:

---

I posted a reply in another thread that answers some of your questions about the Hydroplate theory and the center of the earth.

---

Not much about the center of the earth. I think of the center of earth as different chambers, areas, or rooms. In the inner rooms, like the core, or mantle, we detect that waves are slowed down. I wonder if the chamber had a hull, or wall type of thing, say like a spaceship, when a seismic wave got down to it, would it not be slowed down as well? If a wave hit some liquid, say water, or some exotic liquid methane, or something, would not the wave behave similar to as if it was a liquid lava type stuff? Now we know earth has an effect on the moon, etc, by our gravity, and I think it leads us to assume that the cause of this is density, which we think causes the gravity. But apparently we don't fully understand gravity. (thanks razd). So I wonder if the earth is a well designed machine, that is now said to have this big 'crystal' gyro in the center, if something else could be affecting gravity here. No one has said that heat on the upper earth here could not have been caused by things like continental sliding friction, (and maybe comets, and some other things as well).
Maybe they will, so we could discount that. Also, if there was not the heat under there pre flood, would this not have had a big effect on the weather? And, things like a canopy, etc, are usually discounted on the basis of heat as well! So you can see why I am trying to get to the bottom of this!

quote:

---

This is an important point, as the only part of the earth which S waves do not propogate through is the outer core. This tells us that whatever the inside of the earth is made of, in most places it cannot be hot enough to melt

---

Does it really? We have some s waves not going through something, then, unless you are leaving out something here, we assume heat down there. Then we try to come up with something that if hot, that we know about would fit the bill. Is this about right? What is it that tells me it is hot there in the slightest? For example, lets just grab something here, say -diamond. Now if we has a wall of diamond, say, as a wall for the mantle, or outer core, how would waves react going through it? In other words no one has ever really done experiments with alloys under a normal temperature, or, say even a cold temperature scenario. Now I know there is a lot of heat around where we drill, and below that, but if I don't assume the same pattern for the inner earth. But I ask how one actually knows the temperature down there, what could you tell me? Surely a wave bouncing or wiggling, or slowing, can't do this, unless we add in some suppositions, or other factors. So far, I don't see much 'surfacing' here.

Pretty sure? Now we don't know it is chambers, it's just that as I look at a sliced up world picture, where the different parts are, it kinda reminds me of different 'floors', or chambers. Now this doesn't mean they are empty, but how can we be sure if there are spaces somewhere on a particular floor or not? If we do know there are not, as you think, fine, exactly how do we know?

quote:

---

and are consistent with (or even let folks calculate?) and increasing density as you go deeper.

---

What if just the hulls, or walls were incredibly dense, would we be able to tell if it was through and through? Or would we just realize we hit something dense and different? And if all else fails, and we fall back on Newtonian reasoning, please explain someone why it has to be that way? Is it because of how much gravity the earth is known to have only? Just a thought, you know, with this crazy crystal gyro down there, I'm just trying to see what's possible. Now if someone suggested it was water down there, involved in producing the 'current' for our magnetic field, and some came up in the flood...! Why, I'd need to be able to explain to the poor soul why that couldn't be. Otherwise he might do something wild like try to hint that that's why the field is weakening, some of the water is gone. Not that I have yet met such a one, but, hey, better to be forearmed!

quote:

---

Not necessary. We understand the physics of S-waves. They pass into solids (reflecting some) and don't pass into liquids. When S-waves are blocked, whatever blocked them is liquid.

---

Yes I was aware of that at the outset here. But why a hot liquid?

quote:

---

Perhaps because it's real tough to find anything that's liquid at room temperature and a zillion psi pressure?

---

OK. A couple quick questions come to mind then, just before moving on, so I can be sure there isn't the teensiest lingering doubt on this part of the issue. -1)If we had, say a submarine down in the ocean, but didn't see it from up here, we would suppose no man was down there. If we were told it was a new super sub, I don't know, titanium renforced hull or something, then it would make sense. If we looked down at the upper mantle 'floor' here, is there nothing in heaven or earth we know about that could fit the bill? Is there no casing (hull) so tough, it could withstand such pressure?
2) Could there be something, even if we don't know of such a material, we don't know about, you know ufo type strong material?
3)Is there any known or unknown material that would affect our little wave in such a way, as we might assume it had to be a liquid, when it could actually be something else?
4)Are we absolutely positive the pressure would be a 'zillion'?
5) Why precisely must it, if it must?
When we make a mistake in putting a puzzle together, and go back and have a second go, we tend to try and be sure we get it right.

quote:

---

you are faced with the problem of matching the mass and the moment of inertia with different density distributions. good luck. use a spreadsheet.

---

Well, I don't see it as my problem, not that you meant anything by that. My problem is bringing it down to a pretty simple and easily understood level.

quote:

---

for a uniform sphere the moment of inertia is:...

---

Now earth is the uniform sphere here, I gather. On this point I mught ask a question or two. Are we sure it is 'uniform'? Let's face it they don't know that much about the inner part. Unless uniform refers more just to a smooth rotation or something? I intend not to use the bible in this thread as a sole means to defend anything. But, there is a machine outlined there I just want to refer to for a moment. Eze 1 talks about the mobile throne of God, and about, wheels, within a wheel, some going one way, and I think it was the ones inside going another. If, I took something like this, stuck it in a sphere, would it be "uniform'? In earth I read about the core turning different, or faster than other parts.
""The really surprising thing is how fast the core is moving," Richards said. They estimate the core moves about 100,000 times
faster than the movements of the Earth's tectonic plates. " http://www.crystalinks.com/corecrystal.html And this is just something in the earth center they happen to be able to measure. What if say, something was revolving another way, but we havn't been able to detect it yet? Why I wondered was after reading this ""The gravity force has the same form as Coulomb's law for the forces between electric charges, i.e., it is an inverse square law force which depends upon the product of the two interacting sources. This led Einstein to start with the electromagnetic force and gravity as the first attempt to demonstrate the unification of the fundamental forces. It turns out that this was the wrong place to start, and that gravity will be the last of the forces to unify with the other three forces. Electroweak unification (unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces) was demonstrated in 1983, a result which could not be anticipated in the time of Einstein's search. It now appears that the common form of the gravity and electromagnetic forces arises from the fact that each of them involves an exchange particle of zero mass" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html#grav
So my concern would be if any of the 4 forces could be working that would change the end result?
Again .............."All interactions/forces in nature electromagnetism, weak, strong and gravity) are transmitted by particles called gauge bosons. For example electromagnetism is 'carried' by photons. This idea was carried on to explain mass. In 1966 Peter Higgs (University of Edinburgh) proposed that the universe was full of a field called a HIGGS FIELD. Disturbances in this field as particles move through it cause objects to have mass. From a a quantum point of view, we can only stir up the field in discrete units. The smallest possible disturbance is due to a HIGGS PARTICLE, or more precisely, a Higgs Boson. The field consists of countless Higgs Bosons that act like a kind of cosmic molasses that fills all of space. As objects move through space they have to 'wade' through these Higgs particles that 'cling' to them, causing a drag that shows up as mass. To sum up, Higgs Particles are believed to be responsible for mass of objects in the universe."What is a Higgs Particle?
So, the question, what about something like quantum phenomena, Higgs particles, zero mass, etc, could some of this be at work, that might either 'wiggle a wave' a little, or affect some density or mass, rotation, etc. assumption?
And, finally, if earth is a designed spacecraft, center of the universe type deal, would it really be so surprising? It's late, and I think I raised too many mind melting mantle maybes. The main thing was other forces, like parts of our sphere sort of inverse rotating, having a big effect here?

"Density is found by dividing the mass by the volume (? = m/V). A scientist named Henry Cavendish is known for calculating the mass (and then density) of the Earth. Cavendish assembled an apparatus that consisted of a suspended metal rod with two lead balls hanging from it. He placed masses of metal near these balls in order to measure the force of attraction between them. Correspondingly, he could then find the attraction on a mass the size of the Earth and
then determine its density. This famous procedure is known as the Cavendish Experiment."
"In order to find the volume of the Earth you need more information than just the volume of a sphere formula. This formula (4/3?r3) requires the radius of the Earth. The diameter of the Earth at the equator is 7926.68 miles (or 12756.75 km). Now, to find the radius, divide the diameter by 2 (because any radius is exactly half of its diameter). The mass of the Earth is found to be 6 sextillion,.."
Density of the Earth - The Physics Factbook
So, are they not simply looking how big earth is, via the radius, etc, to come up with "mass". Next, to clinch the deal, we use lead and metal, in a lab experiment, and extrapolate the results to earth.
What if they would have been better, in the lab, to use, say, a water baloon, and a titanium model of the uss enterprise? In other words, really, is this not an assumption 'a la big time'?
5 shoeboxes on a table, all tied shut. Some with dirt, some feathers, lead, etc. Without looking in, or knowing, what formula can I use just measuring the side of the boxes? Hey, I wonder id a sextillion is more than a zillion?!

quote:

---

Mass you get from the gravitational attraction it exerts on other bodies

---

Thank you! So, then the entire formula depends on our understanding of gravity. Without this, you could not determine if, or how dense the earth was. So, Newton sitting of earth's surface, and seeing how much of an effect we have on other planets, concluded that that gravitational effect was based on how dense the earth was. 'We must be heavy, we seem to have that effect'.
Razd mentioned "Our current theories on gravity do not explain the observed motions of large scale cosmic systems; the rotation of galaxies is to fast to match up to the calculated mass density distribution theoretical rotation.
This means that either the {combined observations of thousands of man-years and millions of telescopes etcetera} or the {model of the large scale cosmic system} or the {theory\theories of gravity} are wrong. "http://EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe} -->EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
Are not our 'current theories on gravity' largely based on how earth affects other planets? (with assumed density?)If this was off, could it not throw things as we get further out? Seems he allowed for at least a possibility it could be wrong?
Would not a black hole affect gravity? Could something in our earth (they don't have little black holes do they?) whether magnetism, radiation, or some force possibly duplicate the effect of what would happen if it were dense? Not that there are not things down there that are not very dense. Possibly more than we know. Say, even the liquid was water, that's pretty dense isn't it? And a crystal gyro of uncertain composition could be pretty dense as well. !

Mass, based on affects of planets by earth. Volume is easy, almost just need a ruler. So, if earth was, like the lead and metal in the experiment, as you say a "known mass", it would be correct. Mass, basically being what is inside the center of the earth.

quote:

---

we launch satellites these days, and track their orbits within inches. That, though you'll say "it's due to hidden chambers in the firmament", ..

---

I don't say it's because of chambers. That was just how I tried to say it sort of seemed to me. I can take it or leave that. If I superglued a metal beehive inside a globe on my desk, well balanced, it would be hard to tell just watching it spin. So you say tracking orbits tells us how dense something is? Fair enough, could you give a few words on say, how a planet would orbit if it weighed 6 sextillion lbs, as opposed to only 5, 3/4 sextillion lbs? Also, would the fact that the poles are somewhere other than where they used to be (I think?) have any effect?

quote:

---

No, it simply depends on our observations of gravity

---

Meaning no other forces, or factors could affect the observation of earth's affect on other planets. Only a precise density. [/quote]Why? If you can observe the volume of the Earth, which you can, and you can observe the mass of the Earth[/quote] Thats why I brought up the shoe boxes, how can we "observe" the matter inside, or mass?

quote:

---

You don't understand how looking at a pair of metal balls can tell you the mass of the Earth. That doesn't mean that they can't.

---

I guess if the earth is a lot like a metal ball, or a lump of lead, they could tell us something. But is it?

"because it is impossible to recognize whether a "dent" in the gravitational field has its origin in the interior of the Earth or on the surface. Only in conjunction with other methods, like seismology, can the causes be separated. " [!!!! back to the waves again!]
". In other places they drift apart and this is where material from the deep inside the Earth rises to the surface. The re-searchers are interested in what is hidden beneath these fault zones. " [so am I, maybe one day they will know.]
"It rides over a slightly wavy washboard. In the region of stronger gravitational force, it speeds up and climbs, whereas in a region of weaker gravitational force it slows down and drops. Following the path of the satellite exactly, the terrestrial gravitational field can be recon-structed from the orbital deviations. " [from your link]
So, a sattelite rides over a wavy washboard, so to speak. Then, we get a little variation we can map out. We can see dips and bulges in the field. Fine.

quote:

---

Sophisticated instrumentation can detect those effects and translate them into a map of density and mass distribution..

---

In other words then, a bump would tell us an area is more dense. We see a bulge on the surface, or rather, can detect one. Briefly, why is this? I wonder, because it hasn't hit me yet, as to how the bulge adds up to a required density inside earth. Is it, then, because this is the only thing that could attract?

Perhaps. Like a sunny day on a beach, warmth engulfs me.