center of the earth

But we can throw any whacko theory and not support it with evidence? or actually answer any of the questions put to us? That's ok as long as it is connected to the centre of the earth.I therefore submit my idea that the centre of the earth is a giant sponge cake.

So people who never gave a hoot about the little wise sentences, (so thought by their writers anyhow), or how to set one up are dense or trolling. Thus saith Razd. Ok opinion noted.

I've followed this thread and occasionally contributed but it's been hard work. Perhaps you can clarify something for me by answering a couple of questions :

1. Do you have actually have a theory about the structure of the Earth ?
   ​
2. If the answer to question 1 is 'yes' why don't you just present it "as is" and let us examine it ?

It seems to me you are attempting to move forward one step at a time (gold/quartz walled chambers, a 1500 mile diamaond at the core, water or some other liquid around the diamond or whatever your current version is) and get us to say to each idea "it's not impossible". I suspect you are building up to having a whole string of "it's not impossible" things at which point you reveal some overall model of the structure of the earth.If I'm right then why not just cut to the chase ?You may have noticed already that people are asking for evidence of the ideas you're putting forward - you aren't going to get away with just "it's not impossible".

---

Confused ? You will be...

no, dense for looking at the arrow and not where it is pointing, for not knowing that "siggy" is slang for signature.ever tried to get a cat to look where you are pointing?but then we are dealing with the concept of density and distribution of mass and the computations needed to make both the mass and the rotational enertia work out ... ever do that calc? with your diamond core?take it as you want, this thread amuses me.

I think, having moved on from dealing with the whole density thing, for the sake of not getting bogged down, we had to drop a few things.
It was a different model, that would have different rules. Now, we are dealing only with physics, with no room (chambers) to construct things with any possible spiritual mix, forces or such.
I think we have gotten it wrong with the old age and heat interior scenario. I have an idea of some materials that would be a match to the evidence, I hope as much as anything for the heat side.
How it got here is another debate. For the sake, again of moving along I'll tell you soon, roughly what I am checking out, and hoping for imput on, if some are privy to knowledge that is relevant.
I'm not looking at rocks and dirt, but diamond, quartz, and precious stones or crystals, and possibly some gold.
Which of these would fit the waves, and be able to stand pressure, and any other criteria? I think, because people have assumed that there was no design, we have overlooked some very wonderful liklihoods for the make up of spaceship earth's interior!
We even have our own shields, and deflector! Sounds too good to be true, I know, but let's see what would make it so, or not so.
Meaningless speck of dust in a happenstance universe? Hell no.

---

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away.

Ah! So that's what that arrow was, I didn't see much meaning to it. Anyhow now I have one too.
Now, what is it about the crystal earth that doesn't match your rotational obsevations?
That's the good thing about this forum. If you want to run a model through some fire, to see if it can stand up, it better be good. Lots of people here who can shoot something down pretty quick, if it can be shot.
What, me worry?

Why not just tell us now ? By not doing this you're looking more and more like a troll.

---

Confused ? You will be...

So you're not going to answer any of the questions that I put forward in post #143 and you're just going to continue to dodge them.

---

*not an actual doctor

"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? "
I never promised a complete recreation of earth in this thread! I put out a challenge to see if the evidence could fit a cooler interior. I tried to come up with something that could witstand density, and give some power for the core that wasn't as hot as the sun. I wondered aloud here as well if the material could be gems and gold. Sorry, if you thought I promised more.
Simply a fresh look at the evidence, without a presuposition of great heat. Could anyone help out a bit here, and present us with what challenges, of naming that material for the mantle are? We know it has to be dense, of course. We know the seismic waves tell us it is different from the crust, of course. I hate to even put out a 'what if', I need to test things a bit, before entering them as an official guess. I need it to fit the evidence, so it could take a little time.
If you want a little target practice in the meantime, there's always the diamond, and liquid.

More? You haven't delievered anything at all yet. You have made wild-eyed unsupported statements. They have no evidence or reasoning bhehind them. I might as well say the earth is moved by pink winged fairies and expect to be treated seriously.You will stop this now. If not the next thing will be a 24 hour suspension of posting priviledges. You haven't actually looked at or tied any of your fantasies to any evidence yet.That is what you are expected to do from now on.

What reason do you have for rejecting the view that the earth is hot in the centre ? Maybe you answered that somewhere in the preceding 150+ posts but I don't remember it.Without a plausible answer to that question there is no point in continuing.P.S. Watch out for Billy goats

---

Confused ? You will be...

quote:

---

Yes some other planets are theorized to have diamond cores. Do you understand the difference between these planets and Earth? Do you understand how these differences might allow a diamond core in those planets and disallow one here?

---

Do you understand the difference? I understand the reason they theorize a diamond a little bit, from the article I had posted. "Neptune and Uranus are composed largely of methane gas.Under extremely high pressures and temperatures, methane gas transforms to diamond, hydrogen and other hydrocarbons.
This means the cores of Neptune and Uranus are most likely made of diamond.[/quote] Do you think I think the same reasons apply here? The point was that planets are 'said' to have diamonds as a core, not that I believe them.
Here, as a creationist, we have things the way they were made, not the way someone theorizes that they made themselves over time. Do you comprehend the difference?
Under this reference, as long as it fits the evidence, since it was made, its fine. If you want to get into how it was made, and when, exactly, then we can't just discuss what we see, but what was not seen. Here, we are mainly concerned with hot or cold inside the earth, and what evidence supports.

For the many-th time, please go to Style Guide for EvC and follow the guides.If you can't absorb anything, at least follow the following instruction.

quote:

---

A readable post is broken up into paragraphs. Each paragraph is a chunk of text about 3 to 10 lines long, and separated from the next paragraph by a blank line. A browser will fit text naturally to the width of a reader's page, as long as you let the browser decide where to break the lines.

​

This means that all the words and the sentences in a paragraph should be separated by spaces, not by pressing the "Enter" key. As you enter text into the little box provided, it will automatically fit what you enter to the width of the box. You should just keep typing each paragraph as one long continuous line of text, and let the browser "wrap" that line up to fit the available width.

​

To see the difference,
consider this paragraph.
Here I have pressed the "Enter" key at natural breaking points in the text,
but the result looks quite ugly.
Compare with the next paragraph,
where each line is broken at just the right distance to fit on the page.

​

To see the difference, consider this paragraph. Here I have not pressed the "Enter" key at all, and the result looks very professional. Compare with the previous paragraph, where each line is a different length.

​

Press the "Enter" key twice to get a blank line between your paragraphs. A continuous block of text, with no white space to help the eye break it into manageable chunks, is much harder for someone to read and follow.

---

---

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

And, to remind you again, from now on that is what you will do.This is a science thread. You will start with evidence, explain why it applies and use logic to arrive at conclusions from that evidence. Then, and only then, you may ask others to review what you have presented and suggest areas of weakness.Again, if you do not do this, you will have a suspension.

Well everything was created by Odin, Vili, and Ve from the corpse of the giant Ymir. They created the earth to look exactly as it does now, with evidence suggesting that there is not a diamond core so I don't see what difference you're talking about. Could you explain this better please. What reference? The evidence does not support a diamond core. Unless you would like to provide some evidence that does support a diamond core this theory of yours is as valid as the idea that there's a giant cowpatty at the core. The evidence also suggests that its hot at the core, do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

---

*not an actual doctor