Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 103/85 Day: 8/2 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 241 of 310 (181967)
01-30-2005 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by JonF
01-30-2005 7:58 PM


Re: cool suspects.
I think I had enough this thread. As a parting note, from your link you just gave---"Density changes with depth in the earth because of the effects of changes in (1) pressure,(2) temperature, (3) composition, and (4) crystalline structure.[/quote] We need temperature for a proper reading. All you have is guesses. When you are off, why, throw some nickel in there or whatever you want to fit. Very interesting that this arguement, if it turned out in any form, to be as good as the hot ones, eventually, would deal a mortal blow to evolutio at all levels!
I can see why you leave manners, and reason to protect your religion here. Bonjour

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by JonF, posted 01-30-2005 7:58 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 01-31-2005 9:43 AM simple has replied
 Message 243 by JonF, posted 01-31-2005 1:37 PM simple has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 242 of 310 (182026)
01-31-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by simple
01-30-2005 11:30 PM


Re: cool suspects.
simple writes:
We need temperature for a proper reading. All you have is guesses.
The evidence for a hot inner earth has already been cited in this thread. The geologists here can do a better job recalling this evidence, but the evidence I can remember is:
  1. Deep mines and drilling indicate increasing temperature with depth. I think we've gone down about 6 miles.
  2. In general, increasing pressure causes increasing temperature, and the pressure increases enormously with increasing depth within the earth.
  3. Seismic analysis of earthquakes reveals that some layers of the inner earth are liquid, and rock and metal must be very hot to be a liquid.
  4. Volcanos spew out magma from below the crust, and the magma is very hot.
Very interesting that this arguement, if it turned out in any form, to be as good as the hot ones, eventually, would deal a mortal blow to evolutio at all levels!
The evidence for a hot inner earth and the evidence for evolution do not depend upon one another, though they are consistent with each other. And given the time it takes a body the size of a planet to cool, a cool inner earth would indicate greater age, not lesser.
Another aspect to consider: if none of the traditional Creationist sources advocate a cool inner earth, then this is another clue for you and Cosmo that you're going down the wrong path.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by simple, posted 01-30-2005 11:30 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by JonF, posted 01-31-2005 2:32 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 250 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 3:15 AM Percy has replied
 Message 252 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 3:41 AM Percy has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 243 of 310 (182075)
01-31-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by simple
01-30-2005 11:30 PM


Re: cool suspects.
We need temperature for a proper reading. All you have is guesses
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, there's liquid down there. Nothing close to surface temperature is going to be liquid down there. That's not a guess, it's a fact.
When you are off, why, throw some nickel in there or whatever you want to fit.
Nope. When you have good evidence that iron in the Solar System is always associated with nickel, when you have meteorites the same age as the Earth that are made of iron with a little nickel, and when the properties of iron with a little nickel fit the known evidence, we conclude that the core is iron with a little nickel.
You don't like it, propose a better fit to the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by simple, posted 01-30-2005 11:30 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 3:35 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 244 of 310 (182076)
01-31-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by JonF
01-30-2005 7:48 PM


{Geology lab and calculations information}
Oh, and I didn't mention ... they have a pre-set-up spreadsheet for the lab. If you ask politely I bet they'd send you a copy. Get you going right fast!
Get back to us when the calculations are done.
{changed subtitle in edit}
This message has been edited by JonF, 02-01-2005 08:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by JonF, posted 01-30-2005 7:48 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 245 of 310 (182082)
01-31-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
01-31-2005 9:43 AM


Re: cool suspects.
  1. Deep mines and drilling indicate increasing temperature with depth. I think we've gone down about 6 miles.
  2. In general, increasing pressure causes increasing temperature, and the pressure increases enormously with increasing depth within the earth.
  3. Seismic analysis of earthquakes reveals that some layers of the inner earth are liquid, and rock and metal must be very hot to be a liquid.
  4. Volcanos spew out magma from below the crust, and the magma is very hot.
Some comments:
If you believe that the Earth was created as-is by an omnipotent being, it is certainly possible to create it with a cool crust, a hot top layer of the mantle, and a cool (nougat?) center. I don't know how much that center would have heated up by heat transfer from the hot layer in 6K-10K years, but perhaps it wouldn't have heated up much (perhaps God created it with no radioactive elements down there). So your points 1 and 4 are irrelevant to a YEC.
I don't find point 2 particularly convincing; there is a correlation of increasing pressure with increasing temperature but I'm sure you know that correlation does not prove causation; it depends on the process by which the system came to be. Again, the Earth could have been created yesterday by the IPU with a cool center that's under tremendous pressure.
IMHO point 3 is the killer, but you didn't go far enough; anything down there that's liquid under that pressure is hot. And there's no way that the liquid down there isn't pressurized. There's no material that could stick through the liquid to "prop up" the Earth above the liquid and be slim enough to be invisible to the seismic waves. The liquid down there is pressurized and hot, whatever it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 01-31-2005 9:43 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 4:20 AM JonF has replied

wmscott
Member (Idle past 6327 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 246 of 310 (182116)
01-31-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by simple
01-30-2005 4:01 PM


Before taking off on flights of fancy, check the evidence and do the math,
Dear Cosmo;
If I take a crystal ball full of air, and hold it under water, it can't surface, regardless of density. Once we lock something in earth's center, long as it could withstand the pressure, and earth's overall density deficit was balanced elsewhere? Could you suggest something that might fair a little better for a cooler core?
At the exact center of the earth, the pull of gravity is balanced and you would be weightless. So you are correct on the idea of being able to balance a lighter object in the center of the planet. The problem is the instability, the slightest wobble and the balance would be lost. As the lighter core slipped off center, the heaver material surrounding it, would push it farther off center, which would in turn create more force pushing it off center. The fact that we have a moon and a sun that both pull on the earth and create tides, means it is impossible to have such a unnatural balance in the density of the earth's core. The tidal force would be more than enough to upset the balance required for such a light core to remain in the center.
What would work much better for a cooler core is to accept the current makeup of the core and just say it was a bit cooler. Of course we know the temperature of the outer core since it is liquid under such high pressure, which is only possible at high temperatures. So I guess you could have a cold iron core surrounded by the molten outer core, but I don't see any point to it, since the outer core would over time heat the inner core.
They see a liquid, and a solid core. Do you have information on some aspect of seismic waves that tell us precisely what density range, or something we need to look for there?
Yes, it was mentioned in my last post, "The density of the core requires that it be mostly iron, but shock wave data require that some lighter elements be present, to reduce the density by about 10%. ." So the density of the core is 90% iron and 10% lighter materials. I see some of the other posters have posted the density figures for inside the earth, those figures are from the travel speeds of the P waves through the earth. That post with all the pictures is very good, look it over well, it will answer many questions, no point in my repeating what it has already said.
Could superpressurized water, with a phase zone of gold, or graphite, as it got closer to the 'diamond', fool the waves, at least our reading of them? Also, would gold be liquid at that pressure, of the outer core?
No, it wouldn't, the low density would show up very clearly, the high travel speeds of the P waves in the core show a much higher density. Gold would have to be very hot to be liquid at those pressures, as you increase pressure, melting points rise. I think you maybe confusing plastic flow with liquidity. A liquid will flow and fill the bottom of a container, plastic flow is like toothpaste being squeezed out of the tube.
why do we say the density require it to be iron? Can the waves require, heat assumptions aside, the core to be dense as iron. Are you suggesting something in the waves narrows down the density aspect to the same as iron for sure?
The density is known by the P wave speed, that it is mostly iron is indicated by other clues like the magnetic field and the relative abundance of elements in the universe. Taking all the clues together, we can say with a very high degree of certainty that the core is mostly iron. That is why the other posters get so exasperated, to them you are basically arguing that the earth is flat when all the evidence points to it being round.
Ahh, this is the beaty of having the catastropic tectonic event at flood time, it gives us the heat we need up here. In any scenario where anything came up from the center of the earth at floodtime-we don't have a hot surface yet!!!!!
What on earth do you mean? You aren't making any sense, stop and think about it for a moment. If you are talking about the flood waters coming from inside the earth, and they are hot, in flooding the surface they would heat the surface. If you are talking about a sudden movement of the earth's plates, heat coming up suddenly wouldn't do it, you would have to slowly heat the surface from below so it could flow. That process would take millions of years to occur. Before taking off on these flights of fancy, check the evidence and do the math, that is how fact is sorted from fiction. Try and do some logical thinking and take a hard look at things, just because we want something to be a certain way, doesn't mean that it is. I have already traveled the road you are on, I know where the pitfalls and wrong turns are, I found my way and hope you can find yours.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by simple, posted 01-30-2005 4:01 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 5:25 AM wmscott has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 247 of 310 (182232)
02-01-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by JonF
01-30-2005 7:48 PM


{geology lab and calculations information}
could you change the subtitile to {geology lab and calculations information}?
and it would be interesting to contact them and see the spreadsheet.
thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by JonF, posted 01-30-2005 7:48 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by JonF, posted 02-01-2005 8:02 AM RAZD has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 247 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 248 of 310 (182238)
02-01-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by RAZD
02-01-2005 7:28 AM


Re: {geology lab and calculations information}
Done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2005 7:28 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2005 7:05 PM JonF has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 249 of 310 (182419)
02-01-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by JonF
02-01-2005 8:02 AM


Re: {geology lab and calculations information}
thanks -- that'll make it easier to find on
EvC Forum: A general discussion of debate (goals) Message List

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by JonF, posted 02-01-2005 8:02 AM JonF has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 310 (183403)
02-06-2005 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
01-31-2005 9:43 AM


Re: cool suspects.
quote:
Deep mines and drilling indicate increasing temperature with depth. I think we've gone down about 6 miles.
In general, increasing pressure causes increasing temperature, and the pressure increases enormously with increasing depth within the earth.
Seismic analysis of earthquakes reveals that some layers of the inner earth are liquid, and rock and metal must be very hot to be a liquid.
Volcanos spew out magma from below the crust, and the magma is very hot.
Rock and metal would have to be hot to be a liquid. But how do we know it has to be hot? - (oh thanks for asking me to go, then disapearing cosie)
Did not someone say water would still be a liquid at outer core temperatures? Do we know that the water, or salt water, or water with antifreeze, or whatever that could exist at these pressures could not fit the p wave travel speed? (I'll try to be careful about claiming it is water or gold etc. the object of the excercise being mainly to see if a cool scenario must be ruled out)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 01-31-2005 9:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2005 3:53 AM simple has replied
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 02-06-2005 3:45 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 310 (183405)
02-06-2005 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by JonF
01-31-2005 1:37 PM


Re: cool suspects.
quote:
Nothing close to surface temperature is going to be liquid down there. That's not a guess, it's a fact.
Assuming it was hot, yes, but can we prove it?
quote:
When you have good evidence that iron in the Solar System is always associated with nickel, when you have meteorites the same age as the Earth that are made of iron with a little nickel, and when the properties of iron with a little nickel fit the known evidence, we conclude that the core is iron with a little nickel.
That's a long story. But, it comes down, really to the big bang, in the end. This follows that, and that follows this, so we know this and that. But, all going back to some pretty heavy early speck, and pre speck theory.
Can we stick to seismic waves, and tangible evidence? We already agreed the earth was dense, and under pressure, and has a liquid outer core. On another forum, some raised radiation as a possible proof of heat, but couldn't follow through. No one has yet shown travel times for waves wouldn't fit, with a cooler dense center. Someone else was concerned with heat transfer fom the surface making the core hot, even if it was flood time tectonic activity that heated it up there. (Again, couldn't follow up)
quote:
You don't like it, propose a better fit to the evidence
Maybe no one needs to, if we can be sure the outer core is hot. What would be the point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by JonF, posted 01-31-2005 1:37 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by JonF, posted 02-06-2005 8:49 AM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 310 (183407)
02-06-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
01-31-2005 9:43 AM


Re: cool suspects.
quote:
. And given the time it takes a body the size of a planet to cool, a cool inner earth would indicate greater age, not lesser.
Another aspect to consider: if none of the traditional Creationist sources advocate a cool inner earth, then this is another clue for you and Cosmo that you're going down the wrong path.
Well a longer age for a cool earth would assume a hot one to begin with!
Now you say that 'none of the traditional Creationist sources advocate a cool inner earth'. So then, I should really respect their science, and follow something you too would agree with..these traditional christian men of science! Well, if you agree, I'll think about it! I just thought they might be off on some bits, as some evos apparently think!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 01-31-2005 9:43 AM Percy has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 253 of 310 (183411)
02-06-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by simple
02-06-2005 3:15 AM


Re: cool suspects.
Rock and metal would have to be hot to be a liquid. But how do we know it has to be hot? - (oh thanks for asking me to go, then disapearing cosie)
We have evidence that shows that the deeper you go the hotter it gets. Do have any evidence to the contrary? If so please present it instead of just posting bullshit.
Did not someone say water would still be a liquid at outer core temperatures?
Way back I posted a phase diagram for water. Why don't you show the calculations for the temperature and pressure that would allow water to exist as a liquid at the core and still fit the evidence that we have.
the object of the excercise being mainly to see if a cool scenario must be ruled out
As it has been pointed out multiple times the evidence does not support a cool core. Please show some evidence that does support a cool core. You've been warned by the admins to provide evidence for your ideas, you should get on that before you're banned.
This message has been edited by DrJones*, 02-06-2005 03:54 AM

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 3:15 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 4:30 AM DrJones* has replied
 Message 256 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 4:48 AM DrJones* has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 310 (183420)
02-06-2005 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by JonF
01-31-2005 2:32 PM


Re: cool suspects.
quote:
I don't know how much that center would have heated up by heat transfer from the hot layer in 6K-10K years
Well, I'm right up here on the surface, and I'm Ok! Just think if I was several thousand kilometers away from the little slice of surficial heat! Now, (this isn't a proposal, so don't breathe fire at me if it turns out another way is better) Ok, the lower mantle, or there abouts starts to get pretty dense. Just to take a rough estimation, with earth's average density 5 (and change), we would expect I think the mantle to stsrt getting into say, 2.5, 3, 4, near 5 type of specific gravity. We do know I think the wave tend to speed up generally as it gets denser.
So I took some of the stones, and gems and had a look at how they might fit. (remember olivne is down abou there somewhere, I believe we already know)
OK heres my preliminary results, and remember, these things are poor conducters, so some surficial heat would be up againt it, it it met these down there.
ruby 3.9 - 4.1---turquise--2.6-2.8, Agate 2.60,Emerald or Garnet -3.5-4.3 , Lapis Lazuli: 2.7-2.9 , amethyst (2.65), jacinth,(4.65 zircon ), topaz (one form of olivine called peridot. 3.22-3.45 )
chrysolite,(3.25), carnelian,(2.65), sardonyx,(2.65),emerald,(4.3)chalcedony,(4.3) , corundum 3.96-4.05. (some old names used in this source)
With many similar densities, no transition zone would show, I think for the waves between layers of this stuff. Make several layers, in the mantle area say a hundred miles deep each, and it could match the waves?
quote:
There's no material that could stick through the liquid to "prop up" the Earth above the liquid and be slim enough to be invisible to the seismic waves. The liquid down there is pressurized and hot, whatever it is.
What about the liquid itself? If we had 1500 miles of water as the outer core, under the pressure down there, where is is going to go? It couldn't get out. Not if it was under a boundry of something super strong? What about irridium? Or graphite, or, yes, even diamond? (gold, iron, tungston, platinum, etc)
Which brings us back to the good old waves. About a 20 sec travel time through earth. Lets say (guess) 5 seconds to get through the outer core. One question I await an aswer for from a few seismologists I asked, is about the travel times. Do we know the precise times for all parts of the core, or outer core? Could it take a bit longer passing through a tougher transition zone, yet still average out to the overall core travel time of 4 seconds?
[PS moderators, could you please mail cosmo his password, he (I)is using simple's at the moment, on loan, thanks]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by JonF, posted 01-31-2005 2:32 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by JonF, posted 02-06-2005 9:08 AM simple has not replied
 Message 267 by Admin, posted 02-06-2005 5:06 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 310 (183425)
02-06-2005 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by DrJones*
02-06-2005 3:53 AM


Re: cool suspects.
quote:
We have evidence that shows that the deeper you go the hotter it gets
Great. In a nutshell what is it. Mainly the seismic waves, really, is what is the big one here. But if you have something else, fine (except big bang conclusions)
quote:
Way back I posted a phase diagram for water. Why don't you show the calculations for the temperature and pressure that would allow water to exist as a liquid at the core and still fit the evidence that we have.
Didn't I do that? Well, basically it was the heat was up at the surface here, to an undetermined depth. I said 1-2 hundred Ks as an estimate.Then, it would be cool all the way to the core. Part of how this was arrived at, was your evidence! If water is the liquid?-and it can only be a liquid within a certain temperature range, then we would have to go with that range, unless we had another liquid that would work. But without water, it takes a lot of the fun away for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2005 3:53 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by JonF, posted 02-06-2005 9:32 AM simple has not replied
 Message 262 by Coragyps, posted 02-06-2005 12:04 PM simple has not replied
 Message 268 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2005 8:20 PM simple has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024