The predictions of Walt Brown

It seems there is something we missed. Perhaps a forum guideline needs to be added:87.3b "It is necessary to be able to read English, to apply this skill to the posts of others and your own and to be able to garner meaning from this reading even if it is not directly stated in the posts."You still don't know what the "compass" is all about!!!?????

You are thinking through what the consequences of a hypothosis would be. Then you come up with something to check out to see if the consequences are there. That is the right way to arrive at conclusions scientifically. Good job.In fact, there are many places where volcanic eruptions have occured and reoccured laying down one layer of lava over another. These record the motion of the poles and other changes in the field over time. This is a tiny part of the support for all of this.Then, sigh, you go back to, well, strange: I would have thought by now Tom that you would have tried to figure out what compass in the Bible actually means instead of making such totally off-the-wall hilarisous comments like the above.Now read this carefully:
It has NOTHING to do with magnetic fields or circuits or anything of the kind. Go back through the thread to where you originally brought up this particular cock-a-maymie idea and find the picture of God useing a "compass" that you were given. K? Until you have done that do not continue piling on examples of just how little you know.

Sorry? Then why did you do it? There are times when staying quiet is appropriate.

I do think it is fair to ask for a listing of the evidences for the internal temperature of the earth.I'm not a geologist so I gotta google around a little. I'll add what I can find.ABE
Here is a simplistic explanation.
http://www.madsci.org/.../archives/mar97/856964891.Es.r.htmlIt seems we can know about some of the properties of parts of the interior based on the seismic waves. This confirms that some parts are hot enough to be liquid.This it seems is carried over to the mantle and higher:
http://www.madsci.org/...chives/Jan2003/1043946475.Es.r.htmlPerhaps this will help (but I haven't read it yet)
404: Content Not Found | The Tech InteractiveThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2005 22:13 AM

The first thing you can do now is explain the nature of the propagation of seismic waves through the earth according to Walt's model.

Seismic waves behave in a particular way. They act, to some degree, like a ultrasound scan of the earth. This behaviour is a diagnostic in the same way the ultrasound is. It is a way of looking into the earth.The conclusions from this diagnostic tell a number of things about the internal structure and nature of the earth.If you do not agree with these conclusions then you need to start (or Walt does) from the measured seismic data and construct a model which accounts for that data AND produces a different picture of the inside of the earth.It has to take into account lab measurements of the properties of the materials too, of course.Until this is accomplished there is no reason to give the slightest credance to any rantings by anyone. Anyone can make things up. They don't count until they are somewhat soundly backed up.Saying something could be wrong isn't helpful. You have to suggest why it might be, where, by how much and explain why if it is wrong it works in a number of ways.That is the very stringent requirements that scientists hold their collegues to. Anything less than that isn't going to be paid any attention to and shouldn't be.

The current understanding is published and written up all over the place.Where is Walt's? I have read some of his stuff and it doesn't seem to explain anything. There don't seem to be any calculations at all.You used the word "liquid". What liquid? Once you have chosen the liquid what effect would that have on things like the magnetic field and density of the earth?