center of the earth

I believe you are referring to the fact that adiabiatic (that is, without heat transfer) compression does heat up the material being compressed? It is possible to have essentially isothermal (that is, at constant temperature) compression if the compression is slow enough that the system can transfer heat fast enough to a suitable cold reservoir. In the real world, there's no such thing as completely adiabatic or completely isothermal, but many things are pretty close to one of the two extremes. Of course, a noticable amount of the Earth's internal heat was generated by such compresssion. But a lot of it is generated by radioactive decay, and there are some other sources.{Added by edit: the reason that the liquid in the core is hot is not necessarily because it was compressed to get there; the source of the heat doesn't really matter. There just aren't any liquids that have the right properties and are liquid under that pressure at anything near Earth surface tempreatures. If there's anything down there that is somewhere near Earth surface temperature, it's solid.}In cosmo's world, the Earth was created as is; no compression was required to get it into its present form, therefore no heat was generated by compression.This message has been edited by JonF, 01-28-2005 09:22 AM

Edited: stuffThis message has been edited by Jacen, 01-28-2005 09:28 AM

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.

Method of exercising a cat

Most importantly, it's DENSE liquid! It must necessarily be dense because there's rock floating on it! I really, really don't think that anyone can come up with a material strong enough to make a 3000-mile diameter geodesic dome that will hold a couple thousand miles of olivine up out of the cool water below it.Water can't get dense enough, no matter the pressure. Silicate minerals can't get dense enough. Iron can.

Not dense enough. Diamond doesn't compress as much as other materials under pressure; that's one reason why it is used as the anvils in ultra-high-pressure cells in laboratories.

So you think that cosmo has been backing his assertions with evidence?If so, I would have thought that you would have pointed out the posts where he supplied the evidence and then showed how it supported his ideas. Perhaps you can help move the thread forward while we wait for the suspension to expire by finding those particular posts and showing how cosmo's arguments were developed.In fact if you can show how I was wrong we'll get cosmo back sooner.I certainly missed them and it seems that those who have been actively engaged missed them too.It may just be a mis communication and cosmo and you need to try a rewording of the points made. However, cosmo was given a warning or two and didn't attempt to change the nature of his posts (heck he couldn't even figure out how to paragraph them).He'll be able to sort it out in a few hours if you can't find the evidence he supplied.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-28-2005 10:55 AM

Hi Cosmo,I'm sorry that you received this brief suspension. The suspension will quickly be over and then you'll be back among us. As I said to you in another thread, EvC Forum is intended to explore the claim that Creationism deserves equal status as science with evolution. Most of the forums here are science forums, and this forum, [forum=-7], is definitely one of them. Discussions here should be based upon evidence and scientific principles.Furthermore, in making the case for specific Creationist views to be accepted as science, appeals to God and/or the Bible, as you do here, can only hurt your case: As I said once before, you can argue from perspectives like this in the [forum=-11], [forum=-1] and [forum=-6] forums, but not in the science forums.Hope to see you back soon!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think if you read my Message 187 you'll understand that it is not our intention to alienate those that approach the debate from a faith-based perspective. But some forums are intended to host science-based discussions, while other forums are more suitable for a faith-based approach. You and cosmo and all other Creationists are free to explore the implications of this perspective in those forums. But in the science forums, appeals to God and the Bible are not appropriate.You may think this biased and unfair, but the debate is framed by the efforts of Creationists to have their views accepted as truly scientific, and many of the forums here are intended to explore the ramifications. As you can imagine, no Creationist making the case for Creationism as science would ever go before a school board and say, "I know the earth's core is cool because God would never have made a hot core." Making such an argument would work against their fundamental position that Creationism is science.But Cosmo is making precisely that mistake by making faith-based arguments in a setting where only science-based arguments are appropriate, and it's also a violation of the Forum Guidelines. In a way, the temporary suspension is saving him from himself, because though what he was doing was hurting the cause of Creationism, I'm sure that wasn't his intent. The suspension is for a persistent guidelines violation, but this will also give Cosmo an opportunity to rethink his approach.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

A comment about being suspended or banned: I'm currently banned at Terry's TalkOrigins site over at MSN and have been for several years. He didn't like my aggressive discussion style, and so he banned me. But there's no hard feelings. Terry is welcome here, and I'd be glad to participate at his site again were he to let me back in.I'm also banned at one other site, probably now defunct. Back in early 1997 someone started up a Creationism discussion board at Yahoo. I joined and was the only other member. Me and the board's owner discussed things for a week or two, then he banned me. That left just him. Weird, huh! --Percy

I get banned every other month, it seems, at the blog of an aquaintance of mine from college. (Probably revenge for that time I whupped his ass at Trivial Pursuit.) Then he updates his blog software, apparently loses his ban list, and I'm back. In fact I'm probably long overdue for a temp suspension here at EvC, if only for all you other people to catch up.

I'm proud to say that I got banned at the christianity.com message boards.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

exactly. they always look at what you're pointing with (in this case the laser light) and not at the object pointed to, which could be another toy.

quote:

---

I really, really don't think that anyone can come up with a material strong enough to make a 3000-mile diameter geodesic dome that will hold a couple thousand miles of olivine up out of the cool water below it

---

I wonder if compessed water could hold up a layer of something like garnet? What about helium, or something lighter? On the other hand, if theres a diamond under the water as big as the moon, what would we expect? Maybe the water to sponge into the diamond? I took a look at this, and, wonder of wonders, it seems at the pressure Cos puts the diamond, is also right around where graphite would turn into diamond. So now a d leval that could not be better designed, if we tried affronts us. Wonder of wonders, also one of the best dang conductors you could ever hope for! Perhaps you betterhave some caution, you may have underestimated what you are dealing with here?

I don't know where you got this from seeing as cosmo never provided any calculations or even a guesstimate as to the physical conditions of his proposed system.

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

I don't know where you got this from seeing as cosmo never provided any calculations or even a guesstimate as to the physical conditions of his proposed system.

---

Who asked you, or who care what you think?
It's very simple. Earth has a certain density. Graphite has a certain pressure where it turns to diamond. It happens that they are about the same. What has this got to do with cosmo?
Do you think no one else has a brain?