center of the earth

Actually, it arose from a discussion of the hydroplate theory (The predictions of Walt Brown) and the problems of the superheated steam eruptions. IIRC cosmo's stated at least once in this thread that he's trying to justify ol' Waltie's opium dreams (although he wasn't as unkind in his characterization).

quote:

---

1. What evidence led you to hypothesize that a large diamond is found in the center of the earth?

---

Well, it's funny you should ask that. Here is how apparently, scientists made their deductions about some things, I try to follow their sample as close as I can!
" It probably also contains some iron, calcium, and aluminium. Scientists make these deductions by assuming the Earth has a similar abundance and proportion of cosmic elements as found in the Sun and primitive meteorites." Page not found - Moorland Private School
So, in effect, as I understand it, that would be because old age is assumed? In other words, over much time, we would have these materials. (correct me if that's wrong here). And, also, in assuming, rather than a created earth, we are results of some expansion, out of the region of the speck. (early big bang) And so why not have an average cosmic make up mix!?
All that to say, the evidence that led them to their conclusions seems thin.
Now I know this may be pushing it a little, but one more question to ask. Can I possibly put a band, or cover of gold all around our diamond gyro? Say, somewhere around the area between the inner mantle, and the "core", or diamond, without getting out of 'the possible'?

quote:

---

cosmo's stated at least once in this thread that he's trying to justify ol' Waltie

---

No, that's small potatoes. I would like to provide a cooler starting temperature , or even source for the water in his theory, true. Also, some implications for pre flood climate, and canopy concept, true. But the big picture, that I hope to see, is nothing less than the unifying theory. This is only part of it.

So, the thrust of your post is that you have no evidence. Not really. No matter what age the Earth and solar system are, there is some pretty good evidcence that one type of metorites represents the primal composition of the rocky part of the Solar System. The fact that they are close to the same age as the Earth, 4.55 billion years, is an important piece of evidence that they are related. {Sigh}. Same ol' creationist behavior. Ask for their evidence, and all you get is unfounded crticisms of mainstream theories. News flash - even if mainstream theories are wrong and/or someone's scientific procedures are wrong, that's not evidence for your theory. No, you're not following their example at all, it appears that you're not even trying. If you're actually trying, here's another news flash - you're failing miserably. They do have some evidence for their conclusions, which most people who understand it find convincing. You have no evidence for your speculations. Only if you have evidence for it, and for your "diamond gyro", and anything else you want to introduce.

what about the moons? some are more "significant" than some planets eh?

quote:

---

one type of metorites represents the primal composition of the rocky part of the Solar System. The fact that they are close to the same age as the Earth, 4.55 billion years, is an important piece of evidence that they are related

---

News flash - even if mainstream theories are wrong and/or someone's scientific procedures are wrong, that's not evidence for [their]theory. Age determination by a one sided method of assumptions, and selective evidence that comes up with bogus big bang billions of years is mere humor.
Whether I chose to take the evidence, actual meteors, and believe Walt, who says they shot up in a flood, to eventually come home, some other tale, or yours, don't get too parsimonious with your staked claim on monopoly of interpretation.
Now, what we have is a cool earth, with a diamond gyro, and water layer surrounding it. This much unchallenged here, so far, and admitted as possible, in the dense earth.
Then we have a few more layers, like outer core, upper and lower mantle. I have some ideas as to their probable make up, but for the sake of this short thread, they are not important. The densest parts are already covered. Now, one needs only look to the evidence as to readings of the waves, and whatever else we can do, and fit the bill, with known material.Then we get up close to the surface, where it is still very hot, and voila, the new earth model with a diamond heart, that isn't hellishly hot as was formerly imagined. Where, pre flood, even the surficial areas could be pretty cool, relatively. All this, mere thousands of years old.
Evidence? Easy. If we take the evidence we have and stop trying to pound a square peg into a round hole, with the old age hot stuff, we can fit the bill with ease. Like a beautiful symphony, in harmony with true science, and the bible. As far as 'chambers, we don't need them. If there is a 'prison' down there in the mantle, it could just as well be made of garnet, or quartz, or whatever, after all, spirits wouldn't follow rules of physics.

I think it's more like Velikovsky-lite. At least he doesn't have alien spaceships zooming up out of the hollow Earth from a hole in the Antarctic to buzz New York or something.

What is your evidence for this? How is the current model wrong? How is the current evidence explained by your model?

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

What is your evidence for this? How is the current model wrong? How is the current evidence explained by your model?

---

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.

New and proper, HAH! You're still omitting the giant, dense cowpatty that is at the center of your whole theory! Think of the poor schoolchildren!

What evidence is there for a diamond core? How does your water exist as a cool liquid when its subjected to the intense pressure of being so far under ground? Do you know what pressure is?
edited to add: What is insulating the water from the heat of the layers above it?I repeat: Why is the old model wrong? What new evidence sugests that the old model is wrong and that your model is right? Who cares if it fits with the Bible? It disagrees with the Norse accounts of creation and we all know that the Norse Gods are the true Gods unlike your pretender yaweh. You should pray to Odin lest he smites you. You're never going to get into Valhalla with this heretical view of the Earth.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 01-26-2005 23:44 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

How does your water exist as a cool liquid when its subjected to the intense pressure of being so far under ground?

---

This is why I ask if people can see why it can not be. When I put out some things that could stand pressure, no one said, it was not possible. For a liquid I chose water. Now if you say it must be hot, why is that? Does the very fact alone of being under pressre cause it to be hot? Just as the iron we have used as a core model, was adapted, or chose because it would better fit the bill of what must be , so we would do here. If water could not be it, after all, do let us know. We'll see if any other colder liquid might better fit. How hot would it get if it was water? Also, why is it you feel that the layer of material closer to the surface must be hot as well?
For example if the upper mantle in question were made of quartz, what is it that heats it up?

quote:

---

You're still omitting the giant, dense cowpatty that is at the center of your whole theory!

---

Was that the diamond, or alignment with the bible?

Here is a phase diagram of water. As you can see if you want your water to remain liquid it has to be at a pressure between ~10³Pa and ~10⁹Pa and a temperature of between ~260K and ~620K. What is the temperature and pressure of your cool liquid water? Where does it fit on this phase diagram? What evidence do you have that these are the conditions at the core? What are you now disagreeing that the upper layers are not hot? cause you posted this in post #111 Seems like you agree that the upper layers are hot. If you are agreeing that the upper layers are hot (and all the evidence that we have says they are) how then is your cool liquid water insulated from the heat of the upper layers?edited to add: This Should teach you everything you want to know about water.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 01-27-2005 01:52 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

What is the temperature and pressure of your cool liquid water?

---

I think you just answered that question? Fantastic, even colder than I suspected. Hey, if some of that did shoot up to the suface, I guess, besides a cooler earth to travel through, it has a MUCH colder starting point! I like it. But hey, if someone thinks they can rule it out, go ahaead, give it your best shot!
What evidence these are the conditions? Why, with colaberators like you putting your expertise to work like this, the evidence is starting to filter in already! (thanks)

quote:

---

What are you now disagreeing that the upper layers are not hot? cause you posted this

---

What I had in mind at the time was the area(s) on top of the mantle, or mesosphere. Yes, of course we know it's hot up here. If, as I also said, even, at some future time, for example the earth surface was burned away, even- the ball itself would be perfect, and it would simply be a matter of renewing the surface, for a new earth.