Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,597 Year: 4,854/9,624 Month: 202/427 Week: 12/103 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 271 of 310 (183627)
02-07-2005 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by DrJones*
02-06-2005 8:20 PM


Re: cool suspects.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2005 8:20 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Coragyps, posted 02-07-2005 9:22 AM simple has replied
 Message 274 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 10:21 AM simple has replied
 Message 281 by DrJones*, posted 02-07-2005 2:07 PM simple has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 272 of 310 (183656)
02-07-2005 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by simple
02-06-2005 10:00 PM


Re: cool suspects.
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.
You remember wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 10:00 PM simple has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 273 of 310 (183668)
02-07-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by simple
02-07-2005 1:38 AM


Re: cool suspects.
Hmmmm... yeah, hydrogen! It can get clear up to densities as great as 0.6 gram/cc, {Nature 416, 613 - 617 (11 April 2002)} aggravating still further the density problems you had with water. And when it comes to surface and combines with oxygen to give Noah his Flood....lessee, how hot is an oxygen/hydrogen flame again? 3000 Celsius?
Why not use pressurized angel urine as your liquid outer core, Simple? You can just assign it any properties you want - it can always stay cool, no matter the surroundings, and can turn into seawater when it depressurizes! It can have any (variable!!!) density you need! Supply would be no problem - the angels can just drink Keystone Light to manufacture more!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by simple, posted 02-07-2005 1:38 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by simple, posted 02-07-2005 3:56 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 285 by simple, posted 02-07-2005 3:56 PM Coragyps has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 274 of 310 (183678)
02-07-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by simple
02-07-2005 1:38 AM


Before taking off on flights of fancy, check the evidence and do the math
Take note of the subtitle above ...
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!
Yes! Combining things with oxygen is called "burning", and it releases lots of heat. It also removes oxygen from the air ... to get enough water to cause a significant portion of a global flood you would reduce the oxygen content of the atmosphere to the point that all oxygen-breathing life would die. Burn 'em then suffocate 'em! You're just a fount of ideas on how to kill everything!
Instead, we move on to another concept for a cooler center (possibly much much cooler!) fluid
You really shouldn't make assumptions like that; one man's "cooler" is another man's "hot enough to flay the flesh from Noah's bones". See below.
The result-water water!
And a fireball that sterilizes the entire Earth!! Yippee!
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!!!!!!!!
And, even better yet, a hydrogen fireball is incredibly hot and would spread quickly throughout the atmosphere!!!!!!!!! Get 'em all!!!!!!
Ever see the movie of the Hindenberg disaster? A hydrogen fireball is really something to see ... So, now you want a firestorm covering the entire earth! Did Noah have Nomex suits with built-in air supplies? Of course, he suffocates when his air supply runs out, so it's six of one death, half a dozen of another.
Your link to the first paragraph of the Nature article doesn't work. It should be here. However, the entire paper is available on the Web at A quantum fluid of metallic hydrogen suggested by first-principles calculations (probably the PDF link at the bottom is the most convenient).
quote:
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.
This is a result that may or may not be true. Time will tell. But ...
I have taken the liberty of reproducing Figure 2 from that paper, with two additions; the magenta "Pressure at the top of the outer core" line and the yellow "Earth surface temperature" line. The red curved line is the solid-liquid transition line. Below the red line is solid hydrogen. Above the red line is "ordinary" liquid hydrogen (which can't be the core liquid because is not dense enough, not by a long shot), and above the green dashed line is this theoretical new non-molecular liquid hydrogen. The line separating liquid from gaseous hydrogen is not shown.
Melt curve of hydrogen predicted from first principles MD. The filled circles are experimental data from Refs. 6 and 7 and references therein, and the open squares are measurements from Ref. 8. Triangles indicate two-phase simulations where solidification (up) or melting (down) have been observed, and bracketed melting temperatures (Tm) are represented by open circles. As the phase boundary is approached, the period of coexistence increases and eventually the outcome becomes dependent on the choice of simulation parameters. This degree of arbitrariness is reflected in the error bars of Tm, which also include the standard deviation of the temperatures collected during the MD simulations. All experimental and theoretical points are given equal weight and fitted with a Kechin melt equation18 (solid line in the figure): Tm = 14.025 (1 + P/a)b exp(−cP) K, where P is in units of GPa, a = 0.030355, b = 0.59991, and c = 0.0072997. The open diamond marks the liquid-liquid transition from molecular to non-molecular fluid at 200 GPa {emphasis added - JonF}, and the estimated slope of this phase boundary is given by the dashed line. The error bar on the diamond symbol indicates the hysteresis effects during the simulation of the liquid-liquid transition.
It's immediately obvious that the coldest that ordinary liquid hydrogen can be at the outside of the Erth's core is where the magenta dotted line intersects the red line, about 800K (just under 1,000°F or 800°C). Gosh all hemlock, Buffalo Bob, that sure is some cold liquid, ain't it! But this new, theoretical non-molecular liquid hydrogen would have to be much hotter to be the core liquid! Extrapolating hte green line to an intersectino with the yellow line, it would be around 1,300K (1,880°F or 1,030°C).
Second, I bet the density doesn't fit ... to make it a viable hypothesis you need to know the density. Regular liquid hydrogen is 0.07 grams per cc, 150 times too low to be the core liquid. And I'll bety that the density doesn't increas by a factor of 150 in this possible pase transition! Until we have some reason to believe that the density of this theoretical liquid fits the data (around 10 grams per cc), it's not a viable hypothesis. But I doubt you like this hypothesis now, anyway, 'cause as usual it kills everything.
Summary: 1,880°F liquid hydrogen erupts from the Earth (killing just about everything in its vicinity), cools slightly by boiling into gaseous hydrogen, ignites into a fireball that kills all life that survived the original eruption, and removes most of the oxygen from the atmosphere so any oxygen breathers that somehow survived the fireball die of suffocation. You sure you like that scenario?
{fixed arror: "10 grams per cc" was "109 grams per cc"}
This message has been edited by JonF, 02-07-2005 10:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by simple, posted 02-07-2005 1:38 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Coragyps, posted 02-07-2005 10:28 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 282 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 2:19 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 288 by simple, posted 02-07-2005 4:17 PM JonF has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 275 of 310 (183682)
02-07-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by JonF
02-07-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Before taking off on flights of fancy, check the evidence and do the math
You sure you like that scenario?
It makes plenty of water! Isn't that good enough for you scoffers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 10:21 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by simple, posted 02-07-2005 4:31 PM Coragyps has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 276 of 310 (183685)
02-07-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by simple
02-06-2005 10:00 PM


Re: cool suspects.
simple writes:
But I could see some exception if the earth was a creation...
This is a science thread. You have no evidence that the earth was created by divine fiat. The only evidence we have is that the earth was created as the result of natural forces and processes.
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!
The formation of the earth has nothing to do with the Big Bang. Gold is a rare element in the solar system as measured by the composition of meteorites, while iron and nickel is plentiful. Hence, these elements, being very dense, are assumed to predominate in the core, and it is consistent with our calculations based upon measurements and observations of conditions inside the earth. Like all scientific theories, this view is tentative, but unlike your proposals it is supported by evidence.
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.
You've said this several times, and as others have pointed out, this is incorrect. You've somehow picked up a misimpression. The phase diagram of water indicates that water in liquid form could not possibly exist at 9000oF at the inner core.
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?
There's no evidence that the inner core is water. The seismic information is all wrong for water, and it's inconsistent with other data. There is no need to postulate an impermeable layer of rock to keep in the water that we have no evidence for, and no evidence for the impermeable layer anyway.
Almost all the interior of the earth is inaccessible to direct observation, and so there is much that we don't know. But science proceeds by making measurements and observations. The speculations you're advancing are not supported by any evidence. Many of these speculations can be ruled out from current evidence, but many cannot. But in the world of science the lack of evidence means the views are speculation only, and religiously motivated speculation at that.
In a simplistic way, science means having real world reasons for what you believe. If you want to believe the earth is young and the flood was real that is your privilege, but it isn't science. If you want your view to eventually predominate and become the accepted view, then you must replace your speculations with evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 10:00 PM simple has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 558 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 277 of 310 (183700)
02-07-2005 11:42 AM


I've been watching this thread since the beginning. 1 question. Is this thread going to somewhere?

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 12:00 PM coffee_addict has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 278 of 310 (183705)
02-07-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by coffee_addict
02-07-2005 11:42 AM


Is this thread going to somewhere?
Probably nowhere other than the 300 post limit. But I've learned a few things, so it's not a total waste.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by coffee_addict, posted 02-07-2005 11:42 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by coffee_addict, posted 02-07-2005 12:29 PM JonF has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 558 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 279 of 310 (183708)
02-07-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by JonF
02-07-2005 12:00 PM


JonF writes:
But I've learned a few things, so it's not a total waste.
What, how hard-headed some people can be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 12:00 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 280 of 310 (183716)
02-07-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by simple
02-06-2005 10:00 PM


Re: cool suspects.
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.
No I didn't. Go back to message #119 of this thread and read it. I stated the range of temperature and pressure water would have to be at to be a liquid.

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by simple, posted 02-06-2005 10:00 PM simple has not replied

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


Message 281 of 310 (183720)
02-07-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by simple
02-07-2005 1:38 AM


Re: cool suspects.
Again I'm a little late to the party and others have replied with good solid posts. But I'll echo Coragyps and JonF:

Hydrogen + Oxygen = Fire
Fire Bad!!!

Read JonF's post #274 for a further demolishing of your absurd ideas.

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by simple, posted 02-07-2005 1:38 AM simple has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 282 of 310 (183723)
02-07-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by JonF
02-07-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Before taking off on flights of fancy, check the evidence and do the math
Taking my own advice (I was pretty sure, but it's worth checking):
to get enough water to cause a significant portion of a global flood you would reduce the oxygen content of the atmosphere to the point that all oxygen-breathing life would die.
Let's run some numbers. Waltie-poo says that approximately half the water in the Earth's oceans today came from the fountains of the deep. That's 158,500,000 cubic miles (Where is Earth's water located?), or 2.33309*1019 cubic feet, or 1.49318*1021 pounds, or 2.38908*1022 ounces, or 6.77305*1023 grams. Since water is H2O and the molecular weight of H is 1 and the molecular weight of O is 16 (close enough for this calculation), 16/18 of this weight is oxygen, or 6.02049*1023 grams of O in half the world's oceans.
The Eart's atmosphere contains about 5.1*1021 grams (Earth's atmosphere), of which about 21% or about 1.1*1021 grams is oxygen.
6.02049*1023/1.1*1021 = 0.06.
To get the water Waltie wants by combining hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen would use up all the oxygen in the atmosphere almost 20 times over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 10:21 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 02-07-2005 3:36 PM JonF has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 283 of 310 (183749)
02-07-2005 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by JonF
02-07-2005 2:19 PM


Re: Before taking off on flights of fancy, check the evidence and do the math
I'm going to go off in a sort of rhetorical direction. This isn't addressed to you, but the work you did on the hydrogen proposal brings this issue to mind.
What's the point of these exercises if we're going to allow evidence-free flights of fancy? If when a violation of known physical laws is encountered the WB advocates can simply invoke a miracle, then we're not doing science anymore. The WB advocates seem to be sort of roughly following a rule of "violate as few known physical laws as possible, and violate them in as minimal a way as possible."
But the mind just boggles at the number of fictions piled upon fictions. Not only is there no evidence for God, there's not even any evidence for the way he works his miracles. Does he really care how many physical laws he violates when he performs a miracle? There's no evidence about this in any way. Does he care whether he violates a physical law a lot or a little? There's no evidence about this, either.
But it gets worse. There's no evidence for a young earth, no evidence for a flood, no evidence for an aqueous inner core, no evidence for a cool core, but we're all patiently addressing all these absurdities, and then comes the most ridiculous proposal of all: it was hydrogen! When does it stop?
Those that have been here a while know that I prefer that EvC Forum not host what I call nonsense discussions. I see no problem with answering some interesting hypotheticals, and this thread has at some points been doing just that, but my perception of this thread now is of a couple high school kids with no conscience wasting a lot of people's time raising spurious issues that have no basis in any evidence, and who aren't really interested in considering the issues from a scientific perspective. And that's okay. But not here.
Unless this thread veers away from considering scenarios with no basis in fact, I'm going to let the 300 message barrier be the limit. With the Christmas software release the 300 message limit no longer has any technical reason for enforcement (more than 300 messages placed a strain on the old software), but the moderators find it a very convenient "taking stock of things" point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 2:19 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 3:59 PM Percy has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 310 (183759)
02-07-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Coragyps
02-07-2005 9:22 AM


Re: cool suspects.
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.htm
The 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Coragyps, posted 02-07-2005 9:22 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 02-07-2005 4:36 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 310 (183761)
02-07-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Coragyps
02-07-2005 9:22 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Coragyps, posted 02-07-2005 9:22 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by JonF, posted 02-07-2005 4:39 PM simple has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024