center of the earth

quote:

---

To change something that is normally a solid into a liquid you have to raise it's temperature to its melting point

---

Fine. Sounds reasonable. I thought I had read something about how, pressure alone, if high enough, would have turned gold into liquid. Point noted

quote:

---

Excuse me? My assertion is only this. I'd like to check the evidence that the interior must be hot, and that a cooler scenario could not be possible. As I have already said, I simply picked some materials, for examples, so we could look at whether or not anything else could fit the bill. I have no assertions that it is a diamond, or gold or water.

---

Really?

quote:

---

All the evidence that is for the old model, now simply entered as evidence for the new, and proper model. The only exception being, old age asumptions such as metals, over billions of years settling down, etc. not applicable in the least! Bouncing seismic waves, and satelite fly by readings now simply to be read in their proper light. Why, are you suggesting something doesn't fit? Can't pass through a liquid, fine, no need to look the the old model. Simply a better fit of the evidence, no lack of any. The beauty is that it also fits with the bible.
  —msg 114

---

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30 January 2005 17:01 AM

No. We would see the boundaries. Pretty much. It has to have values for several properties that produce the right predictions for wave velocities. See below. Ah, that's because you haven't looked for or looked at any evidence, you are just making it up as you go along. The velocity of of P waves depends on the density, shear modulus, and bulk modulus of the material: (linked from Velocity of P and S-waves...)K is the bulk modulus, µ is the shear modulus, and r is the density. K and µ change under pressure, but not a heck of a lot; they mostly depend on the strength of the atomic bonds that hold the material together. µ is zero for all liquids. r changes under pressure for some materials, but not for others, and can change discontinuously with pressure if the materials structure changes.The velocity of S waves is: (from the same source as above)By studying waves from many sources arriving at many detection stations, we can figure out what the velocity of both types of waves is as a function of depth¹, without making any reference to temperature: (linked from the end of Earthquakes & their Uses {Seismology})(Notice the sudden changes where it changes from solid to liquid or vice-versa. We would see similar jumps at any sudden change in solid properties, such as a layer of gold changing to a layer of diamond).So, there you go. When you plug the properties of iron into those equations, they produce the observed wave velocities quite nicely (except we have to assume that about 10% of the core is nickel and other contaminants to match the density, which complicates the analysis some, but is justified by other evidence). All you have to do is to show that the properties of any material you want to propose produces the observed wave velocities when plugged into these equations.-----------------------¹In fact, these waves are used to make "CAT scans" of the Earth; googling "seismic tomography" will turn up some fascinating images, including convection in the mantle and subducting plates.{edited to fix second equation}This message has been edited by JonF, 01-30-2005 17:16 AM

As Charles pointed out, you have already:

quote:

---

All the evidence that is for the old model, now simply entered as evidence for the new, and proper model. The only exception being, old age asumptions such as metals, over billions of years settling down, etc. not applicable in the least! Bouncing seismic waves, and satelite fly by readings now simply to be read in their proper light. Why, are you suggesting something doesn't fit? Can't pass through a liquid, fine, no need to look the the old model. Simply a better fit of the evidence, no lack of any. The beauty is that it also fits with the bible.
  —msg 114

---

quote:

---

All the evidence that is for the old model, now simply entered as evidence for the new, and proper model

---

Yes, in my opinion, if we could fit the evidence we do have in a cooler model of the interior, it would be a better one, if it ends up fitting the evidence better. No we are not. of course there yet!

How can you have a model if you don't make any assumption or supply any evidence?

quote:

---

OK, so we have an wonderful, amazing, and dense earth here, more so than any other planet in the system. Indeed, we are special here, in that!
At it's heart, a diamond, I would like to propose, covered by a layer of water. We can build it up from here, obeying all laws as good citizens now. So, before moving on further, would someone happen to have a reason, I need to modify my beautiful young earth model here?
  —msg 91

---

Can I suggest that when we get to the magic number of 300 posts that unless Cosmos can supply some rational reason for us to carry this mess forward (in the form of a decent OP? that we wrap it up?

quote:

---

No. We would see the boundaries

---

I am wondering, just about that at the moment.
There is said to be a 'd' zone or area actually, between the outer core and inner-different in composition.
" "D" layer: depth of 2,700-2,890 kilometres
This layer is 200 to 300 kilometres thick. Although it is often identified as part of the lower mantle, seismic evidence suggests the D" layer might differ chemically from the lower mantle lying above it. Scientists think that the material either dissolved in the core, or was able to sink through the mantle but not into the core because of its density."
Page not found - Moorland Private School
So it seems there is a boundry for us here! Potentially.

quote:

---

All you have to do is to show that the properties of any material you want to propose produces the observed wave velocities when plugged into these equations.

---

Thanks, sounds like it should be doable? By the way, the particular site, and diagram happened to leave out the potential boundary I just 'proposed'.
So, apparently we have some stuff (d) that is at the border of the inner and outer core. It can't penetrate the 'diamond', or core (whatever it is made of). Yet, as someone else pointed out, we need to come up with the right specific gravity (density balance). Using just a sample of diamond, and water, this does not match. Gold has very heavy specific gravity, about 19.3. We need to come up with around 5.5, I believe, and the diamond was only around, as I recall about 3.5 or 3.9. Now if we looked at the 19.3/3.9/and water, I think it was 1 -what would we average out to? Would it not be in the ballpark?
Anyhow thanks for the wave stuff, it's something to chew on.

quote:

---

would someone happen to have a reason, I need to modify my beautiful young earth model

---

People, except you, of course, have been trying to do that.

I'm confused - you told ned that you had not proposed anything but were just putting things "out there"?Now you are saying people are helping you to refine a model?Which is it?I tend to lurk on scientific threads where my knowledge is limited. However no special expertise is needed to comment on your shifting and changing use of terminology and where you stand.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30 January 2005 18:30 AM

Look again. The "D" layer is between the outer core and the mantle ... and, indeed, the figure I posted shows a change in the trend of the P wave velocity, and perhaps a change in the trend of the S wave velocity (it's hard to tell at that scale), at exactly that point.Don't forget that you have to come up with the correct total mass and moment of inertia for the Earth, also.

Bridgman had,

quote:

---

"Concealed here is all the physics involved in the invariable direction of gyrocompass with respect to the stars, a phenomenon which has excited the wonder of generations of physicists and which has been loosly formulated in the "Mach Principle," accoring to which the inertial properties of local bodies are determined in some way by all the other masses in the universe, particularly the distant masses. It is however, not necessary to assume any esoteric iinfluence of the stars on terrestrial phenomenona. The stars appear to have a connection because they are so far away that they can have no connection. (The matter is discussed further in my note, "The Significance of the Mach Principle," Amer. Jour. of Phys. 29,32-36 [1961]"

---

Cosmo, this is your final notice.Stop right now and provide something in the way of valid evidence that will support your assertions. Your next post MUST include some valid scientific evidence that supports an earth with a diamond core surrounded by gold.No excuses.No other replies.No discussion.Provide the evidence.

---

Cosmo, I'm pretty convinced you aren't really interested in making a model; I bet you just want to be a gadfly without considering the possibility that your ideas are wrong. In case I'm wrong, look at GS 388 Lab 5: Density and Radial density distribution via the Adams-Williamson equation. That's lab material for EAS 388, Geophysics and Geotectonics. This course and lab covers exactly what you claim to be attempting to do. The handouts contain all the equations and data you will need. You don't have to accept all their reasoning why the density should vary in a particular way . Let us know when you've finished the calculations.{Changed subtitle by edit}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-01-2005 07:41 AM

Jeez, I love the Internet.Alan L. Jones has written two Computer Programs for visualizing all sorts of earthquake stuff, including internal wave propagation. One updates its database of earthquakes over the Internet and will notify you of earthquakes within minutes if you wish. The one that shows internal propagation doesn't have as up-to-date a database, but the earthquake that caused the recent tsunami has been added to the database. Who woulda thunk it.Both free.{changed subtitle in edit}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-01-2005 08:01 AM