center of the earth

quote:

---

and subsequent analsis tells us the internal structure of the earth. In particular it tells is that there is an outer core of liquid.

---

Yes, of course, agreed.

quote:

---

Elements in a gravitational field sort themselves by density, with the most dense at the bottom of the gravitational field.

---

Now this one is a good general rule. But I could see some exception if the earth was a creation, as long as the overall density balance was right. In other words, the liquid, unless ned is right, (which I'll respond to after this post)-could fit into the evidence even if cooler. All we really know is that it is a liquid, not that it is a certain density??

quote:

---

So your guess about gold at the core is a good one because gold is a very dense element. But the problem is that gold is a very rare element.

---

Not a problem for creationists, of course. Only for the big bang type scenarios!

quote:

---

I could find nowhere on the net where components other the nickel and iron in the core were mentioned

---

Yes, not your garden variety concept, questioning if it must be hot!

quote:

---

How do we know the interior of the earth is denser than the outer layers?

---

Right. Got that one quite a while ago, that must have been early in the discussion, where I quetioned everything, until shown we had good pfoof. Agreed, it is dense, to average out to the standard 5.5 or so overall, denser in center, less so near surface.

quote:

---

If you accept the above temperature and density estimates for the outer core, and if you understand the phase information presented by others for water

---

I'm just going to get to that one in the next post. If I remember, though, early on in this thread the one who brought up the phase diagram of water to begin with accepted it could exist down there.

quote:

---

Also, water is not dense enough to form a layer below rock

---

Two points here, one is Walt Brown's idea thet rock would be watertight even I think he said, 5-10 kilometers (or miles) down. He only had his escaping after some catastrophic event. Second, I did post yesterday, about how some gems and stones (like olivine) could reduce heat transfer, and possibly, form a better water barrier than mere rock?

Well, you're right. Seems like the evidence is against water as a liquid in the outer core. Good points. I was going to look at how our expectations for the pressure at the outer core might be different with the less dense water covering so much. Or additives in water mix could change it enough to match the phase diagram.
But we will leave water as our cool liquid, as a result of the evidence! thanks. (Unless someone raises some 'ressurecting' fact we missed, so we could use it after all)
Instead, we move on to another concept for a cooler center (possibly much much cooler!) fluid. One that may better fit a flood scenario. So my question is this. Could a material in fluid state, be at the outer core pressures, and, if released up to surface, interact with something (oxygen, etc) to result in water! In the example, the hydrogen, (or whatever) down in the outer core comes to the surface much colder, I think, (from my first reading), mixes with the atmosphere (& canopy?) of the pre flood earth which may have been somewhat different, in volume, and content. The result-water water!
So at this stage all we need is to see what liquid could fit the phase diagram. As it happens, apparently one of the key components of water seems to be able to stand the pressure!! And, as an added bonus, it seems a more interesting fit, as a component of a gyro system!!!!!!!! Check Here
"It is generally assumed1-3 that solid hydrogen will transform into a metallic alkali-like crystal at sufficiently high pressure. However, some theoretical models4, 5 have also suggested that compressed hydrogen may form an unusual two-component (protons and electrons) metallic fluid at low temperature, or possibly even a zero-temperature liquid ground state. The existence of these new states of matter is conditional on the presence of a maximum in the melting temperature versus pressure curve (the 'melt line'). Previous measurements6-8 of the hydrogen melt line up to pressures of 44 GPa have led to controversial conclusions regarding the existence of this maximum. Here we report ab initio calculations that establish the melt line up to 200 GPa. We predict that subtle changes in the intermolecular interactions lead to a decline of the melt line above 90 GPa. The implication is that as solid molecular hydrogen is compressed, it transforms into a low-temperature quantum fluid before becoming a monatomic crystal. The emerging low-temperature phase diagram of hydrogen and its isotopes bears analogies with the familiar phases of 3He and 4He (the only known zero-temperature liquids), but the long-range Coulomb interactions and the large component mass ratio present in hydrogen would result in dramatically different properties."edited by AdminJar to shorten link.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-07-2005 08:43 AM

quote:

---

And when it comes to surface and combines with oxygen to give Noah his Flood....lessee, how hot is an oxygen/hydrogen flame again

---

The process of elimination is a wonderful thing!Anyhow, In the article I linked, I thought it had hydrogen as being now recognized to go up to pressures of 200 gpa? Also, I thought it said something about, "near zero temperature? (-273o Celcius)
Now the way we can make water, is outlined here, unless I am missing something. Electrolysis." In other words, a molecule of water is made up of two atoms of hydrogen, and one atom of oxygen. If you use energy, and pass electricity through water, you can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. And you can run this reaction backwards, and combine hydrogen and oxygen to give you water and energy. (In fact, the word, "hydrogen", means "maker of water" in the original Greek language.)
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/4wd/hydrogen.htmThe source material is dissolved in an appropriate solvent, or melted, so that constituent ions are available in the solution. An electrical potential is applied across a pair of conductors immersed in the liquid. The negatively charged conductor is called the cathode, and the positively charged conductor is called the anode. Each conductor attracts the ions of the opposite charge. Therefore, positively charged ions (cations) move towards the cathode while negatively charged ions (anions) move to the anode. The energy required to separate the ions, and increase their concentration at the electrodes, is provided by an electrical power supply that maintains the potential difference across the electrodes. At the electrodes, electrons are absorbed or released by the ions, forming concentrations of the desired element or compound. For example, when water is electrolyzed, hydrogen will form at the cathode, and oxygen at the anode. This was first discovered by William Nicholson, an English chemist, in 1800.Electrolysis does not depend on heat in any way. Although heat may be produced, electrolysis is not subject to thermodynamic limits on efficiency. Its efficiency can be quite close to 100%.
Electrolysis - Wikipedia(use tungston in lab, hydrogen changes to diamond!)
{Note: Whole bunch of non-functioning links removed by AdminJar}Now with earth's elecric gyro right where the hydrogen would come from, we have the needed power!? So, instead of fire--water.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-07-2005 15:04 AM

{Note: Duplicate post to above; contents removed by AdminJar}This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-07-2005 15:07 AM

That one didn't last long!

Mercury is very dense. So, putting aside flood musings of where the water came from, there is a liquid, or combination of cooler liquids that could match density for the outer core. So, what in the waves, tell us it must be hot?

Looks like I'm plumb running out of possibilities here that would fit the evidence! Only last straw I can think of might be. Could any other substance fool the waves into thinking it was a liquid, by keeping s waves out? Or, how about a combination of liquids, that would make for a cooler temperature. Even if the density may be off, as long as the overall package averages out?

I think I need some looking up now, I'm getting a sore neck looking down. --the hot side wins the day here! thanks

quote:

---

Congratulations on a willingness to admit that the current view is correct; that is rather rare

---

Thanks. But actually I am not admitting the current view is correct! I still like the concept of a cool center. It's just no use argueing, until, and unless I can come up with a liquid that would be cool at that density. All the rest, (surface heat), (core that's solid, matching the overall expected density, with cool materials)- (basic concept a created earth could have different materials) and a few things like that - are still interesting.I have seen most of what science can throw up as a defense, and learned in the process. Now I see the problem, in essence. I hope I helped shed some light on this area, having a look around, and seeing what we do know, and don't.
So thanks for the quick education!

quote:

---

. Various models are proposed, the evidence is used to batter at them, the one(s) remaining standing are the current champions.

---

Do I detect a little note of glee you managed to be still standing after the whole first round? I didn't need to win this round, just see your best punches!
Also I couldn't hit too hard with 4 refs trying to declare a tko for evo, and not allowing G o d, because He has no Phd! And a lurking crowd with the thumbs down, and the noses up!
But thanks for the memories.

quote:

---

Once you cite God on the side of Creationism, you automatically contradict the claim that Creationism is science

---

Once you cite ommision of God you contradict the claim that science is true science.

quote:

---

Imagine going before one of the state school boards of education that have been in the news recently, such as Ohio and Kansas, and claiming that geophysicists are wrong about the earth's interior because God needed a reservoir of water from which to produce the flood

---

That's funny. If I went before the board, I would be ready to meet the evidence as well as the godless variety can do! Sidebar. I was interested to find out that, despite expected increased density at the outer core, the waves act just the opposite! As if it was less dense, they slow down. ( Attempted explanation, it's more elastic, I believe) I also am exploring some water-hydrogen combinations that seem to be a possible liquid mix at the density there. Better close the thread quick, so Ned can at least feel he survived round 1!

quote:

---

Your fellow Creationists would immediately disown you, because they've been working hard to show that Creationism stands independent of God and evangelical Christianity

---

Maybe it does. Is it any wonder, then you been slappin them around a bit in some things?
Claims of any creator, be it some mysterious force that provided the big bang with material for all the universe, or some god, or God all still leave us existing here and now. No one can prove their creator in this world. All we can do is see how the evidence best is explained.