center of the earth

Well seeing as this is a conversation that I'm involved in and this is an open forum, I don't need anyone to ask me to comment. The Earth has a density, graphite has a certain pressure (along with other conditions) where it forms a diamond crystal. However you are wrong to say Because density and pressure are not the same. Density is a measurement of mass/volume while pressure is a measurement of force/area. Re-read your post #193. See where you reference cosmo Do you see that you're the one who brought up a pressure attributed to Cosmo that he's never actually produced?

---

*not an actual doctor

Um, density is not pressure. Density is mass per unit volume, pressure is force per unit area. They cannot be compared directly.If you actually do the calculations, the pressure at the center of the Earth is far above the pressure at which graphite turns into diamond.

No. Garnet is denser than water. Yes ... of course, then we would see another interface between phases in the seismic data, and we don't see that. It would not be stable, being under a liquid that is more dense than it. It would be "rattling around", "banging into" the layer above the liquid. It would not stay at the center of the Earth.Also, we would see a very different pattern of transmission of P waves than we actually do see. Diamond sponge. Interesting. Whatever led you to hypothesize that?No, the water would not sponge into the diamond. I really doubt we've understimated you or cosmo.Random guesses without knowledge of most of the evidence, and ignoring the evidence that was already presented in this thread, are essentially guaranteed to have no correspondence to reality. HTH. HAND.

Oh, one more thing -- this is a discussion forum. Anyone who thinks they have something to say is welcome to jump in to any thread (although, if you don't really have anything to say, you're likely to get jumped on). And you are required to answer reasonable questions about and objections to your claims, by the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

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

The whole New Jerusalem thing is not appropriate here.If posters insist on going down that rabbit hole the thread will be temporarily closed.

quote:

---

The depth varies of course, some material is from fairly shallow sources while others are from much deeper down

---

Now I can see the premise you, and standard old models are coming from. Now I will try to explain the light I am viewing it in. Then, you might be able, (or not to) address more specifically a few things.
So then, say we have a huge diamond core, maybe with some of simple's graphite around it, and encased in a compressed oceans of water. Forget the rest of the mantle, etc for now. All a nice relatively cool temperature. The turning, perfectly pure diamond, acting as our gyro. I now have a flood needed, so the water, under great pressure, as in Walt's case, only now to get up to the surface it is thousands of kilometers. Pressure is much more, and the starting launchpad is cool. Being right along all this carbon from the diamond and graphite, the water is very rich in the stuff. Now it shoots up, as with the hydroplate theory, some into space, maybe a real lot, though, much more than Walt's amount. We could even have a modest canopy it would destory, if we want to get fancy.On it's way up also, perhaps we could pick up things like silicate, you know, we need a lot of salt. With the loss of interior earth volume, as some water comes up, results in a bit of colapse at the surface, it kinda sinks in a bit to fill the empty place left by the water that got out.
Sounds like a very major tectonic event for sure to me! Now, we have a trigger for coninental seperation. This, and some other things give us a lot of heat.
The magnetic field goes for a wild ride for a while, and a pattern of reduction of the field emerges. Worldwide flood waters, comlete with salt are provided. Also, if we want a whole mess of c02 for some limestone creation, life renewal, etc. -we got all we ever want.
Now, with potentially a lot more mass leaving the earth than walt could imagine, his meteor scenario is there. What kind of meteor would we expect coming home some day?
By some coincidence, just the kind we see now, that are offered up as evidence by the old age folks for great age! 'Oh, these meteors coming in from some exlplosion, pressure, silicate, water, and a lot of carbon!"The oldest of the stone meteorites are the carbonaceous meteorites. They contain silicates, carbon compounds (giving them their dark color), and a surprisingly large amount of water (about 22%)." !
Solar System FluffWhat fits the evidence best? What gives us a young earth age? What gives us a mechanism for tectonics in a hurry? What gives us limestone and salt in a hurry? What knocks a canopy down in a hurry?
What gives us some new and interesting pre flood climate factors to actually work with? What explains meteors better? What explains flood waters better?So you see why pointing at star composition, or meteors, or what we think is down there, from such obsevations (and assuming heat)-just don't cut it."Lower mantle: depth of 650-2,890 kilometres
The lower mantle is probably composed mainly of silicon, magnesium, and oxygen. 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 SchoolNow, we could tweak some things a bit here, but I'd like to see if any cold scenario is truly ruled out.As far as the religious stuff, why not post in the coffee house.

quote:

---

Also, we would see a very different pattern of transmission of P waves than we actually do see.

---

Well, that would make a difference. Can you tell us the pattern for each of these things?

Haven't learned anything from your suspension, I see. Wahat evidence do you have for this?As has been pointed out many times, with evidence, water down there will be at a temperature of thousands of degrees or it won't be liquid. A hot solid iron core, surrounded by a slightly less hot liquid iron core, surrounded by a slightly less hot solid but plastic mantle, surrounded by a relatively cool crust. Only Biblioidolatry, which is not relevant in this forum. All the evidence that God wrote in the rocks and throughout his creation gives us an old earth age; that's not relevant in this particular forum, but I'd be glad to discuss it in the appropriate forum if you start or revive a thread there. We'll think about that after someone has come up with evidence that they actually happened. The evidence we have to date is that tectonics and limestone formation are slow processes. I have no idea what you're gibbering about with the salt. I hope it's not the old "there's not enough salt in the oceans for an old Earth" canard. As was pointed out to you many times, all the canopy ideas founder on the amopunt of heat released into the atmosphere, whether in maintaining the canopy or in getting the water down to Earth. Or both. Nothing knocks down a canopy without killing everything. Energy is conserved. Nothing that I'm aware of. What evidence do you have that isn't adequately explained by mainstream science? The best explanation for the evidence we have is that there was never any worldwide flood. It is, as has been pointed out many times. There's liquid down there, and cool water isn't liquid at at that pressure.

Not off the top of my head, and only with difficulty in a restricted medium like this. I'd have to do some research. But I'll give it a try ... after you show good faith by presenting the evidence for your claims. I don't expect to have to follow through with that promise.

That is what you tell us. If you can't you will have to stop making things up. I'll give you today. If the pattern continues you will get 2 days off next time.The pattern for the evidence as gathered by geophysicists has been given to you. The iron innner and outer core, mantle and crust.Now it is your turn. From now on you start with evidence then come to some conclusions.

quote:

---

Not off the top of my head, and only with difficulty in a restricted medium like this. I'd have to do some research. But I'll give it a try ... after you show good faith by presenting the evidence for your claims.

---

Actually I don't have any claims! I simply asked for a fresh look at the real evidence that tells us it must be hot. I simply made an attempt to try to see if our evidence could fit some other materials in a cooler scenario.Of the sample materials I picked, I thought they had some interesting points to them, towards fitting the bill. How can I 'claim' it's such and such? Just tried to propose a few things, to test our knowledge, and see if cool has a chance, and would bear serious research, or not.Most things come right down to this p wave, and how it fits or not. When push comes to shove, we see you only think you can prove it. You are confident. Well, with every post I see from the hot side, I grow confident as well. For this I thank you.

"The pattern for the evidence as gathered by geophysicists has been given to you"
Absolutely! And a nice pattern it is to. Mostly speck ulative, but definitely a very real pattern! Those parts based on actual evidence, are interesting. The stuff suggesting a hot interior is interesting as well. Very interesting. Don't worry, if your p wave is demonstrated as ruling out all other materials, then it'll wave away the diamond too.

You've claimed several times that the current model of the earth is wrong and you've never shown any evidence to support these claims.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 01-30-2005 02:02 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

Stay on topic. You don't believe creation, and creationists don't believe every aspect of your model. If you can't contibute something meaningful, you may face suspension. Trollish behavior is suspected.