Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8960 total)
146 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Diomedes, DrJones*, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD (6 members, 140 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,751 Year: 1,499/23,288 Month: 1,499/1,851 Week: 139/484 Day: 62/77 Hour: 4/23


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   center of the earth
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 310 (179764)
01-22-2005 7:01 PM


(geology forum)
I would like to explore briefly, whether or not our current theories yield the best picture. Magnetic field, gravity, density, seismic wave data results, and some of the basics having to do with how we understand what is right beneath our feet. How do we know it is hot there? Could Newton's assumptions that things get denser, etc., as we get down towards the center be say, only applicable so far down? Could the seismic waves be telling another story? This was too big to fit in an existing thread, where I brought it up, on Walt's ideas, so lets look at it here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2005 9:11 PM simple has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Joe Meert, posted 01-22-2005 9:30 PM simple has responded

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 690 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 310 (179794)
01-22-2005 8:58 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8893
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 3 of 310 (179796)
01-22-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
01-22-2005 7:01 PM


Best Picture
I would like to explore briefly, whether or not our current theories yield the best picture.

As far as I know it is the only real "picture" that we have that explains the data we have.

Could the seismic waves be telling another story?

What other story? Please show the calculations that produce "another story".

Actually we already know that you and Walt have no clue what you are talking about. You are not going to produce any coherent sensible other story.

When you've done your homework please drop back and give us the results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 7:01 PM simple has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Lammy, posted 01-22-2005 9:25 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Lammy
Member
Posts: 3616
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 4 of 310 (179798)
01-22-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
01-22-2005 9:11 PM


Re: Best Picture
Now, be patient, Ned. At least give him a chance to present his, um, theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2005 9:11 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4068 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 5 of 310 (179799)
01-22-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by simple
01-22-2005 7:01 PM


Hmm
There are some really simple physics involved here. For example, from first principles (i.e no assumptions) we can calculate the average density of the planet. We can also collect samples of the upper part of the earth and realize that there is a density deficit based on the average density of the upper part of the earth. The conclusion is quite simple that there must be denser material below the crust and upper mantle. We also know (from first principles) how certain waves behave. Shear waves cannot penetrate liquids (for example). We know (based on diamond anvil experiments) the material properties of matter at certain P-T conditions. In short, if you want to claim some kind of special earth structure, the onus is on you to provide experimental evidence in support of that structure. Mere conjecture is no good. I've mentioned this elsewhere, Walt competely eschews the scientific literature. He will not submit his ideas (despite an invitation to do so) to science. He does not present his idea at major scientific meetings. All he does is peddle his nonsense (IMO) to those pre-disposed to think that their salvation hinges on the validity of the Noachian flood. There is no real polite way to say this, but Walt needs to put up or shut up. If he has good scientific ideas and if his hypotheses have merit, then he should not hesitate to bring them to the forefront. If he is right, he will never get the credit he deserves because he has never put his ideas on the line. In fact, you've been more bold with proclaiming his ideas than Walt ever has. I give you credit for bringing them up on this forum. Have you ever wondered why Walt won't bring them up himself on a forum like this? Have you ever wondered why he does not submit his ideas for publication? Have you ever wondered why we've never seen him present his ideas at an AGU or GSA meeting?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 7:01 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 11:02 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 6 of 310 (179814)
01-22-2005 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joe Meert
01-22-2005 9:30 PM


spaceship earth
quote:
For example, from first principles (i.e no assumptions) we can calculate the average density of the planet

Interesting. Now that I think is just the eimple formula with the mass, and volume, say like "(5.97 x 1024)/(1.08 x 1021)= 5510kg/m3"(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Mathematics/geomath/rev/aandv/eg1.html Or how nearby planets are affected by us. "First, we know the overall density and mass of the Earth based on measurments of how the Earth perturbs the orbits of other planets and the moon. "http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/earths_core.html
So, depending how the earth was made, I think there could be more than one possibility. More exactly, if most of the dense stuff was put on the upper, or outer part of our sphere, and inside was areas of less density, then the part we see would not be average! And, instead of expecting more density, we get less in earth's center. How could it possibly be less, you ask? Well, what if it were with strong protective material, say like a wall, or hull of a chamber? So, regardless of what happened up on the surface, even if it were burned up, the ball itself would still be fine? So would not the concept of some average density assume uniformity, more or less? But if it was a created object, it could have some other design?
quote:
""We know from mines and drill holes that, near
the surface of the Earth, the temperature increases by about
1 degree Fahrenheit for every 60 feet in depth. If this
temperature increase continued to the center of the Earth,...." http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99256.htm

So when you say 'no assumptions' I have to turn my head a few degrees!
quote:
Shear waves cannot penetrate liquids (for example). We know (based on diamond anvil experiments) the material properties of matter at certain P-T conditions
Yes, at least if it's a liquid!
quote:
Have you ever wondered why Walt won't bring them up himself on a forum like this?
Yes. Nevertheless, in all the rubble there, I think there well may be a few real gems. A lot of people give him the benefit of the doubt, and would be forgiving even if a lot of his ideas were just wrong. He tried to give them some hope of having science and faith. Oh, about the heat involved, with his continents moving. Assuming a cool interior, and starting condition for the water, mainly just friction here, how close are we to say, the amount of heat we observe today? Maybe adding a little in for residual continental settling? (If this is too off topic, fine)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joe Meert, posted 01-22-2005 9:30 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 11:34 PM simple has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 310 (179816)
01-22-2005 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by simple
01-22-2005 11:02 PM


More exactly, if most of the dense stuff was put on the upper, or outer part of our sphere, and inside was areas of less density, then the part we see would not be average! And, instead of expecting more density, we get less in earth's center.

I think you missed the part where he already rebutted this. Simply put, if we know that the earth's average density is X, and we observe that the surface is less dense than X, then we know that parts other than the surface must be more dense than X. It's simple mathematics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 11:02 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 2:34 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 8 of 310 (179845)
01-23-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
01-22-2005 11:34 PM


density down there
quote:
Simply put, if we know that the earth's average density is X, and we observe that the surface is less dense than X, then we know that parts other than the surface must be more dense than X.
OK. I gave it some thought, let's say this is right. Now, what is the next step to get it hot under the mantle? If we assume superior design in the earth, the material inside could be very dense, after all the architect is said to use pearls 25 stories high, Gold 1500 mi high, and walls made of thousands of miles of precious gems, in one of His other projects. We even have the blueprints and specs on that one. Anyhow, now for this project, what is it that gets us to the heat, from having some density down there? So far so good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 01-22-2005 11:34 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by wmscott, posted 01-23-2005 7:39 AM simple has responded

wmscott
Member (Idle past 4635 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 9 of 310 (179863)
01-23-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by simple
01-23-2005 2:34 AM


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.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=142&m=231#231 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=142&m=231#231">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=142&m=231#231

Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 2:34 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:53 PM wmscott has responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 10 of 310 (179973)
01-23-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by wmscott
01-23-2005 7:39 AM


getting to the bottom of it
quote:
I posted a reply in another thread that answers some of your questions about the Hydroplate theory and the center of the earth.

Not much about the center of the earth. I think of the center of earth as different chambers, areas, or rooms. In the inner rooms, like the core, or mantle, we detect that waves are slowed down. I wonder if the chamber had a hull, or wall type of thing, say like a spaceship, when a seismic wave got down to it, would it not be slowed down as well? If a wave hit some liquid, say water, or some exotic liquid methane, or something, would not the wave behave similar to as if it was a liquid lava type stuff? Now we know earth has an effect on the moon, etc, by our gravity, and I think it leads us to assume that the cause of this is density, which we think causes the gravity. But apparently we don't fully understand gravity. (thanks razd). So I wonder if the earth is a well designed machine, that is now said to have this big 'crystal' gyro in the center, if something else could be affecting gravity here. No one has said that heat on the upper earth here could not have been caused by things like continental sliding friction, (and maybe comets, and some other things as well).
Maybe they will, so we could discount that. Also, if there was not the heat under there pre flood, would this not have had a big effect on the weather? And, things like a canopy, etc, are usually discounted on the basis of heat as well! So you can see why I am trying to get to the bottom of this!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by wmscott, posted 01-23-2005 7:39 AM wmscott has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 3:55 PM simple has not yet responded
 Message 13 by gengar, posted 01-23-2005 7:36 PM simple has responded
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2005 8:01 PM simple has responded
 Message 139 by wmscott, posted 01-27-2005 4:59 PM simple has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2515 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 11 of 310 (179974)
01-23-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by simple
01-23-2005 3:53 PM


Re: getting to the bottom of it
I like lurking on this discussion but......

could people use paragraphs!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:53 PM simple has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Joe Meert, posted 01-23-2005 5:27 PM CK has not yet responded

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4068 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 12 of 310 (179990)
01-23-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by CK
01-23-2005 3:55 PM


Re: getting to the bottom of it
That would take too much time.

I like science.

I will root for the Patriots this evening.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by CK, posted 01-23-2005 3:55 PM CK has not yet responded

gengar
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 310 (180013)
01-23-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by simple
01-23-2005 3:53 PM


Re: getting to the bottom of it
Hi Cosmo

You raise some interesting points. How do we know what we know about the temperature structure of the earth? The main source of our information is from studying the propogation of seismic waves generated by earthquakes through the centre of the earth. This site seems to give a good introduction to the basics. To quote:

An earthquake occurs when rocks in a fault zone suddenly slip past each other, releasing stress that has built up over time. The slippage releases seismic energy, which is dissipated through two kinds of waves, P-waves and S-waves. The distinction between these two waves is easy to picture with a stretched-out slinky. If you push on one end of a slinky, a compression wave passes through the slinky parallel to its length. If instead you move one end of the slinky up and down rapidly, a “ripple” wave moves through the slinky. The compression waves are P-waves, while the ripple waves are S-waves. While both kinds of waves refract, or bend, when they cross a boundary into a different material, these two types of waves behave differently depending on the composition of the material they are passing through. One of the biggest differences is that S-waves cannot travel through liquids while P-waves can.

This is an important point, as the only part of the earth which S waves do not propogate through is the outer core. This tells us that whatever the inside of the earth is made of, in most places it cannot be hot enough to melt. We think much of the mantle is made of a rock known as peridotite, so we can use laboratory studies to plate upper limits on its temperature. At the core/mantle boundary (CMB), there's actually quite a narrow temperature range at which you can have solid peridotite and molten iron, so we can estimate the temperature of this boundary quite precisely (3000 C I seem to recall).

The other thing that seismic waves can tell us about is where there is an abrupt change in physical properties such as P and S wave propogation speed. When seismic waves meet these boundaries, some energy is reflected back towards the surface. These boundaries can be chemical and physical in nature. The principal two we see in the mantle are at 410 km at 660 km depth; laboratory studies of peridotite shows that as pressure increases it undergoes a number of 'phase transitions' - basically the crystalline structure alters to become more compact. The change in density changes the wave propogation speed. It is thought that the 410km and 660km discontinuities correspond to two of these phase transitions, which allows us to use the lab experiments to fix the mantle temperature at these points - about 1500 C at 440 km and 1900 C at 660 km.

so, in summary, temperature at:

440 km 1500 C
660 km 1900 C
CMB 3000 C

So I'm afraid there's no evidence of cooling beneath the crust (although the temperature gradient does decrease substantially - if it didn't the mantle would be hot enough to melt). There is also no evidence of any liquid bodies either, except the outer core.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:53 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 8:51 PM gengar has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5428
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 14 of 310 (180024)
01-23-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by simple
01-23-2005 3:53 PM


Re: getting to the bottom of it
I don't really know any details, but I'm pretty sure that a detailed study of Earth's gravity - surface as well as satellite tracking - excludes any chambers within the Earth's core, and are consistent with (or even let folks calculate?) and increasing density as you go deeper.

Besides, how would that ol' Debbil get those folks down there to Hell's chambers with no tunnels?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:53 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 9:11 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 15 of 310 (180036)
01-23-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by gengar
01-23-2005 7:36 PM


wiggling wave
quote:
This is an important point, as the only part of the earth which S waves do not propogate through is the outer core. This tells us that whatever the inside of the earth is made of, in most places it cannot be hot enough to melt

Does it really? We have some s waves not going through something, then, unless you are leaving out something here, we assume heat down there. Then we try to come up with something that if hot, that we know about would fit the bill. Is this about right? What is it that tells me it is hot there in the slightest? For example, lets just grab something here, say -diamond. Now if we has a wall of diamond, say, as a wall for the mantle, or outer core, how would waves react going through it? In other words no one has ever really done experiments with alloys under a normal temperature, or, say even a cold temperature scenario. Now I know there is a lot of heat around where we drill, and below that, but if I don't assume the same pattern for the inner earth. But I ask how one actually knows the temperature down there, what could you tell me? Surely a wave bouncing or wiggling, or slowing, can't do this, unless we add in some suppositions, or other factors. So far, I don't see much 'surfacing' here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gengar, posted 01-23-2005 7:36 PM gengar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 01-23-2005 8:55 PM simple has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020