center of the earth

Dear Cosmo;I posted a reply in another thread that answers some of your questions about the Hydroplate theory and the center of the earth. Here is a link to it.message 231 in "The predictions of Walt Brown" thread.http://EvC Forum: The predictions of Walt Brown -->EvC Forum: The predictions of Walt BrownSincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Cosmo/Richard Michael Pasichnyk;Am I correct in my assumption that I am addressing Richard Michael Pasichnyk, the author of "The Vital Vastness -- Volume One: Our Living Earth"? If you are the author, could you please say so, it makes a great difference whether I am discussing your theories with the author or them or just a reader of them. Now on to the earth's core.Even Walt Brown accepts the main stream science view point of the temperature profile of the earth, the reason he does is simple, it has been proven many times over. There is no 'wiggle room' on this one. The earth is cold on the outside and hot on the inside. The temperature increase with depth follows a simple linear progression, or in other words, the deeper you go the hotter it gets. The geothermal gradient averages about 30 C per kilometre. In the world's deepest mines, reaching more than 4 kilometres (2.5 miles) below the surface, if not for chilled ventilation air, the temperatures would be lethal. Think of hot springs and geysers, all heated by the earth's hot interior.I would guess that you have no problem with high temperatures fairly near the earth's surface, you probably believe that at some point deeper down the temperature begins to drop and that the deeper part of the earth is actually cool. (I know of one YEC who claims the earth has an ice core.) The problem is that even with the evidence we see at the earth's surface, we see heat coming from great depths. Volcanos are out pourings of melted rock from deep inside the earth. By the minerals and crystals found in lava and rock, it can be determined how deep the lava was when the crystals formed. Some minerals form different crystal forms at different pressures and temperatures, which act as sort of a record of the temperatures and pressures the lava has under gone. Using diamond anvils and impact experiments where extreme pressures are created in the laboratory, these crystals and minerals have been formed and tested. So the pressures and temperatures that create these things have been directly measured. Some of these minerals have distinguishing properties, and can be detected in seismic surveys of the earth's interior, which in turn reveals the temperature at those depths. By using these results, temperature profile of the earth is known in general terms all the way through. It has even been possible to survey subducted plates that are melting as they descend back into the hot earth. The temperature of the hot liquid outer core is known, these are basic facts that even Walt Brown accepts and builds this theories around these basic points.As for 'hollow rooms' near the center of the earth, there is no element or alloy that could withstand even a tenth of the pressure even if it was cold inside the earth. Plus an air filled cavity would decouple or block the transmission of pressure waves and as a result would appear very prominently on seismic surveys of the earth's interior. P waves in rock is like sound waves in water. when you go swimming and put your head underwater, you can hear very well the sounds in the water. But you can't hear the sounds from above the water very well at all, because they are not being transmitted well from the air to the water. If you were to take a bucket and put it over your head so as to trap an air pocket and go under water, the formerly loud underwater sounds would be barely audible. Deep under ground chambers would be like that bucket of air, the P waves couldn't pass through the pocket. The documented passage of P waves through the earth's center is proof that such pockets do not exist.In reading some of your other posts, I see you are theorizing that the earth's core is actually a diamond. First off, since we can not see, touch or directly check the earth's core, we have a 'black box' that we test indirectly. Now if your 'diamond core' tests the same as the theorized main stream iron core theory, what is the point of your theory? It requires a direct act of God for it's creation, is unstable and doesn't make any sense as to why it was done or what is the advantage of it. The iron core theory doesn't require a miraculous cause, it is stable, and makes common scientific sense. The diamond theory flawed in it's very conception, for while diamonds are the hardest mineral, it is nowhere near the densest with Diamond having a density of only 3.5, iridium has a density of 22.7. So putting a diamond at the center of the earth is like trying to hold a big block of Styrofoam on the bottom of a swimming pool. Diamond's low density will cause it to bob upwards towards the surface of the eath, and it's place would be taken by denser materials like that imaginary gold covering you were talking about. My guess is somebody noticed the density problem and tried to compensate for it by 'weighing down' the light diamond with a heavy gold casing. This will not work at all since it depends on mechanical factors to work, the gold has to be fastened to the diamond to hold it down. The problem is the size of the core is so big that mechanical strength of the gold would be in comparison, nothing. It is a scale thing, on a small scale gold is weak as it is, but think of a tall building made of gold, it would be unable to support it's own weight. The gold would flow like putty under the stress, and the stress of a building is nothing compared trying to hold onto a buoyant core.Now I don't know for sure if you are the author or not, but I will say that the author's claims of biblical support for this theories is a figment of his imagination. Trying reading whatever verses he cites yourself and see if it makes any kind of reasonable sense, step back and look at the context and see if you can reasonable say that yes that is what the writer was trying to say. If you are the author, I would be happy to discuss your biblical interpretations.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Cosmo; Please humiliate me, I like to be shown my errors, I find it very educational and make it a habit to learn from my mistakes which is much wiser than the alternative. You should know that while in this format you can't base your argument on the Bible, you are certainly free to discuss it. I would like to hear your scriptural arguments, even if no one else does. Now the city you are referring to must be New Jerusalem which at Revelation 21:18 it states "and the city was pure gold like clear glass." Now how does this relate to the earth's core? New Jerusalem is not a literal city or structure, it is Jesus Christ's heavenly kingdom government. Sometimes it is described as a jeweled golden city, sometimes as a beautiful bride, read the following verses carefully.(Revelation 21:1-4) "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.""What most people don't understand about these verses is that they are talking about governments. The old heaven and earth that are destroyed is the old earthly society of mankind and the governments that rules over mankind like the heavens. The literal earth is not destroyed. (Ecclesiastes 1:4) "the earth is standing even to time indefinite." Next once the old governments are removed, they are replaced by a new government, New Jerusalem is a heavenly government that comes down from heaven by extending it's direct rulership to the earth. It is by means of this government in the hands of Jesus Christ that all the tears or problems of mankind are removed. That is why the verse ends with the "former things have passed away." the old heavens and earth, the old governments and the old human 'world' were the cause of the 'tears'. Notice also like I said, how New Jerusalem is described both as a city and as a bride, if it was a literal city, it would only be described as a city and would not be spoken of as marring Jesus Christ. (Revelation 19:7) "because the marriage of the Lamb has arrived and his wife has prepared herself." How would Jesus marry a literal golden city? If you look at Revelation 1:1 it plainly states "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs" New Jerusalem is a sign, a symbol, it is not a literal city. So however a symbolic sign is described, it has nothing to do with the literal make up of the earth's core. The depth varies of course, some material is from fairly shallow sources while others are from much deeper down. In some of the lava from deeper down are found crystals that can only form under great pressure, like diamonds for example. From laboratory experiments it is know what conditions are necessary for those things to form. Diamonds are from a depth of at least 150 kilometres (93 miles) and lava studies have shown that the upper mantle is mostly magnesium-iron silicates, largely olivine which is not stable under very high pressures, however; and is converted to a different phase of about 10 percent higher density at about 400 kilometres, and a seismic discontinuity exists at that depth which verifies the temperature/pressure profile at that depth. (Which is far to deep for it to have been caused by a 'hydroplate heating event.)
At a 1,000 kilometres (620 miles) down, the mantle is like soft wax as indicated by seismic results and the temperature for this is also known for these materials to be in this state at that pressure and thus the temperature is also known for this depth. (the make up is known since this material is found in eruptions from deep sources and has been measured in laboratories.)When a volcano erupts gases are given off including steam, CO2, and the noble gases, the reason these gases come out from inside the earth is because they were part of the comets that impacted the early earth and became part of it and were deeply buried as more comets, meteorites and cosmic dust fell on the growing planet. The depth from which these gases come could be as deep as the very core of the earth. Some of these gases are the products of radioactive decay, showing the earth is heated inside by radioactive reactions. The area that is the hottest and the most fluid showing the most activity is the outer core. Since most of the radioactive elements are very dense, the heavy metals, they tend to sink down deep into the earth which is why they are only trace elements in the earth's crust. So the outer core is enriched with these radioactive hot elements and the slow current flows probably acts as a natural fission nuclear reactor. The surface of the inner core could be coated with a dense and very hot (in both senses of the word) layer of very dense reactor fuel. This could be the flame under the kettle that drives the convection currents in the outer core. The ultra dense inner core prevents the heavy metals from sinking to the very center of the earth which if they were able to do so, they would go super critical and start a run away chain reaction, a nuclear explosion or a nuclear bomb. On smaller planets large enough to be hot enough for element separation to occur and yet small enough that they lack enough pressure for a solid core to form, such a internal nuclear reaction could occur and if large enough could even possibly blow the newly formed planet apart. Possibly this is what happen to some of the small planets that were once in what is now the asteroid belt. A wild idea to be sure, but I bring it up to show that our planet already has a very well designed core and doesn't need dressing up with diamonds or gold. The great heat of the dense lower portion of the outer core pressing on the inner core, would of course melt and consume the inner core if it was a big diamond. It wouldn't last, and one thing about our creator, he builds things to last.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Cosmo;I stand corrected on the topic of moderation here, the coffee house is a wide open area (anything goes), if you want to talk about the Bible there, start a thread and let me know, or my e-mail address is in my profile. I have already told you about the density problems, how a diamond core with a density of only 3.5 compared to outer core densities of about 10, would be unstable and would tend to bob upwards. Another problem is that seismic surveys of the earth don't see what you are theorizing.When sound waves, light waves and other waves past from one material to another with different densities, some of the waves are reflected and some are refracted. In denser materials waves travel at higher speeds, sound travels faster in water than it does in the air. When the waves hit the boundary layer between materials with different densities, some of the waves instead of changing speed, bounce off the boundary layer. This is why reflections exist, why the sea is the color of the sky, some of the light waves hitting the denser material are bouncing off the surface. Sound waves do the same thing, that is what causes echos, sound waves bouncing off denser surfaces. The tendency of sound waves to bounce off denser layers is used by submarines attempting to hide from active sonar detection, they will park beneath a thermal gradient because the temperature difference creates a change in the water density which will bounce some of the sonar sound waves and make the submarine harder to find. The same principle is used in using sonic surveys to detect ore bodies, an explosive charge is detonated and the refected sound waves are measured at a number of locations. The results are like a ultra sound picture of what is under ground, even small differences in density show up clearly. For that matter just think of how clear ultrasound pictures are of babies still in their mothers are, and they are picking up the slight density differences between water and flesh, and flesh and bone.Now the passage of P waves which are sub sonic sound waves, are faster in dense material and are also reflected and refracted by density boundary layers. If the earth had a diamond core surrounded by water, it would be a very low density area surrounded by the high density mantel. Which would create a very strong density boundary layer that would reflect and refract P waves very very noticeable, this is not seen at all, it doesn't exist.The second point is that the low density of Diamond and water, would result in slowing the P waves down as they passed through the core area. But that is not is what is seen, P waves actually travel faster in the core because it is denser. The book "Geophysics: The Earth's Interior" Jean-Claude De Bremecker, 1985, on page 296 under the heading "Temperatures in the Core" states, "The density of the core requires that it be mostly iron, but shock wave data require that some lighter elements be present, to reduce the density by about 10%. . . . All told, the temperature at the inner core boundary is probably between 3400 and 5700 K. Presumably, the temperature varies little in the inner core." So because of the density P wave travel speed, the density of the earth's core is known, and the temperature of the core is also known within some fairly wide parameters back in 1985. What you have been theorizing is just simply totally incompatible with the measurements that have been taken.As for your Hydroplate like theory, I will say that you sound like a young Walt Brown and your theory while still impossible is starting to sound better than his and could possibly address some of the problems his can not. But to say that a theory is better than Walt's, isn't saying much ether on the other hand. Now as you can hopefully see, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the earth has a very dense core. You could argue about the temperature of the core, but even if it is a lot cooler than what is currently thought, it would still be too hot for what you want anyway and it doesn't matter in the end, here let me show you why.Now I know what you want to do is to escape the heat problems of the Hydroplate theory by starting with a colder deeper water source for the flood waters. The problem is that even if you had a core just above freezing like a heavy iron sponge with a few percent of water in it, the water has to reach the surface, and to do that it has to pass through the hot outer core and mantel. Coming from so deep down and passing through so much hot material, would super heat the water anyway. So in the end you still end up with the same heat problem. But you are right in that the flood waters had to come from a cool source. I believe in a recent global flood and have written a book on it that solves all of the problems of the flood. The solution was only workable from an old earth perspective however, the earth is old and trying to say all the evidence of age was created by the flood doesn't work. Here is a link to my book. https://www1.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid... In my book I look at the evidence for a young earth in detail and show why it doesn't work. I have a whole chapter on the canopy theory and the problems with that. As the author, I think it would be a great book for you to read, even if you don't agree with me on the age of the earth, I think you would find it very informative. Then you could turn the tables on me and tell me what is wrong with my theory, there is even a thread on this board for doing just that.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Cosmo; 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. As the lighter core slipped off center, the heaver material surrounding it, would push it farther off center, which would in turn create more force pushing it off center. The fact that we have a moon and a sun that both pull on the earth and create tides, means it is impossible to have such a unnatural balance in the density of the earth's core. The tidal force would be more than enough to upset the balance required for such a light core to remain in the center.What would work much better for a cooler core is to accept the current makeup of the core and just say it was a bit cooler. Of course we know the temperature of the outer core since it is liquid under such high pressure, which is only possible at high temperatures. 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. Yes, it was mentioned in my last post, "The density of the core requires that it be mostly iron, but shock wave data require that some lighter elements be present, to reduce the density by about 10%. ." So the density of the core is 90% iron and 10% lighter materials. 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. That post with all the pictures is very good, look it over well, it will answer many questions, no point in my repeating what it has already said. 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 at those pressures, as you increase pressure, melting points rise. I think you maybe confusing plastic flow with liquidity. A liquid will flow and fill the bottom of a container, plastic flow is like toothpaste being squeezed out of the tube. 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. Taking all the clues together, we can say with a very high degree of certainty that the core is mostly iron. That is why the other posters get so exasperated, to them you are basically arguing that the earth is flat when all the evidence points to it being round. 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. That process would take millions of years to occur. Before taking off on these flights of fancy, check the evidence and do the math, that is how fact is sorted from fiction. Try and do some logical thinking and take a hard look at things, just because we want something to be a certain way, doesn't mean that it is. I have already traveled the road you are on, I know where the pitfalls and wrong turns are, I found my way and hope you can find yours.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson