Consider hydrogen for Earth's Core

[Cold-co]

Turtle:

The Asthenosphere is also considered to be partially melted, but it doesn't show a change in the ratio. I think you took the easy way out and just regurgitated the standard "theory." What material would cause the results I have observed?

[Turtle]

Turtle:

The Asthenosphere is also considered to be partially melted, but it doesn't show a change in the ratio. I think you took the easy way out and just regurgitated the standard "theory." What material would cause the results I have observed?

 

you asked for exactly what i gave. how rude of you to then rebuke me for it.

...In your studies have you run into any explanation for this lack of conformity?...

 

you have yet to regurgitate provide any scientifically supportable contradiction to the currently accepted models. as your objections to those models are obstensibly based in your calculations, and those calculations have been rigorously challenged as wrong in the other thread you got going, i suggest you got nothin'. nada. zilch. nul. zip. not even wrong* dude. :doh:

 

*An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively, theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

[Zythryn]

Turtle:

The Asthenosphere is also considered to be partially melted, but it doesn't show a change in the ratio. I think you took the easy way out and just regurgitated the standard "theory." What material would cause the results I have observed?

 

Cold-co, Turtle responded to your question. The standard models explaination does exactly what a 'cold core' model doesn't. It explains the observed results.

Have you calculated what affect other materials would have on the P and S waves? For example, if the core were solid, why would the S waves disappear completely?

[Cold-co]

Zythryn:

There is a solid material that acts like a liquid. It is the Face Centered Cubic phase of solid hydrogen. Planets and stars are made from the materials in molecular clouds. Hydrogen comprises 75% of a cloud's make up; helium comprises 23% and ice-coated dust makes up the remainder. So, I believe Earth condensed form a molecular cloud fragment and there is a hydrogen crystal in her core.

[Turtle]

Zythryn:

There is a solid material that acts like a liquid. It is the Face Centered Cubic phase of solid hydrogen. Planets and stars are made from the materials in molecular clouds. Hydrogen comprises 75% of a cloud's make up; helium comprises 23% and ice-coated dust makes up the remainder. So, I believe Earth condensed form a molecular cloud fragment and there is a hydrogen crystal in her core.

 

either you can prove that or you can't. if you can, then you must. if you can't, then you're dust. not only have you not proved it, the scientifically rigorous rebuttals of that idea in lo these many threads show it is false.

 

we have considered hydrogen as earth's core ad nauseum. earth does not have an hydrogen core.

 

as we all know from the prophets of yore, the earth sits on the back of an enormous turtle.

:shrug:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[Zythryn]

Cold-Co.

IF a face-centered-cubic-phased hydrogen crystal behaves as a liquid when P and S waves pass through it. You have yet to explain how to explain the simple disparity in the densities?

A hydrogen crystal becomes unstable above 1.5 grams/cubic cm. With an average density of 5.5 gm/cubic cm for the earth, and since the liquid core starts at a depth of around 2900km, that is a lot of density to make up for in the rest of the earth?

[Turtle]

Cold-Co.

IF a face-centered-cubic-phased hydrogen crystal behaves as a liquid when P and S waves pass through it. You have yet to explain how to explain the simple disparity in the densities?

A hydrogen crystal becomes unstable above 1.5 grams/cubic cm. With an average density of 5.5 gm/cubic cm for the earth, and since the liquid core starts at a depth of around 2900km, that is a lot of density to make up for in the rest of the earth?

 

that would fall under christianson's horizontal gravity which is thouroughly debunked in other threads.

[Cold-co]

To all:

I did not intrude on this thread. In fact I had been blackballed from it for offending your sensibilities. I was happy with that status, but Zythryn asked a question and I responded. If you are not willing to dig into the work of Dr. Isaac F. Silvera, April 1980. "The solid molecular hydrogens in the condensed phase: Fundamentals and static properties," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 52, No. 2, Part I. American Physical Society, Pages 392-495, then I have nothing more to add.

[Turtle]

... I have nothing more to add.

buh bye. ;)

i move that we close this thread as we did the other as there is nothing else to add.

;)

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[Zythryn]

To all:

I did not intrude on this thread. In fact I had been blackballed from it for offending your sensibilities. I was happy with that status, but Zythryn asked a question and I responded. If you are not willing to dig into the work of Dr. Isaac F. Silvera, April 1980. "The solid molecular hydrogens in the condensed phase: Fundamentals and static properties," Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 52, No. 2, Part I. American Physical Society, Pages 392-495, then I have nothing more to add.

 

And I appreciate your response.

However, do you have any resources that are available without expense?

Or will you send me the $35 so I can access the material?

 

And since you only responded in part, would you explain how you deal with the much lower density of the core if you do have a large hydrogen core?

[Cold-co]

Zythryn:

I recommend you access http://members.cox.net/nchristianson3/part0.ppt It is free and gives my idea for a cold-cored earth.

[Moontanman]

Would that idea be the one that has been debunked over and over on this forum?

[Zythryn]

Cold-co.

I'll make it simple:

 

'The core of the earth could be about 1.4 grams/cubic cm if:

A) The mass of the earth is incorrect (Please supply your mass)

:eek: The mantle of the earth is much higher than currently calculated (please supply your calculated density)

C) Other (please supply a concise explaination).

[Cold-co]

Moontanman and Zythryn:

I have rewritten the information on gravitational accelerations at the site I recommended that you access. If you would take the time to read what I have to say, you would find that the mass within the earth is redistributed in the cold-core model, but the overall mass remains the same. Hence gravity on earth's surface remains the same.

 

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this forum of austute scientists did not debunk the cold-core model only wore the subject into the ground with obtuseness.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman and Zythryn:

I have rewritten the information on gravitational accelerations at the site I recommended that you access. If you would take the time to read what I have to say, you would find that the mass within the earth is redistributed in the cold-core model, but the overall mass remains the same. Hence gravity on earth's surface remains the same.

 

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this forum of austute scientists did not debunk the cold-core model only wore the subject into the ground with obtuseness.

 

No cold-co, you are simply beating a dead horse, you have shown no mechanism that would allow the formation of a crystalized hydrogen core the size of the Earths core, you have not shown how coalescing planets can form with out liberating a huge amount of heat, you have not shown how much less dense hydrogen can possibly be under far more dense mantle material and you have had your ideas on gravitational acceleration debunked over and over in this thread. I have no idea why it's so important to you that the earth have a hydrogen core but the pressures at the core are not high enough to maintain hydrogen as a solid at room temps much less at the 10,000 degrees at the core of the earth. To crystallize hydrogen takes the pressure of a gas giant planets atmosphere. If an atmosphere of such immensity formed the earths core out of hydrogen the hydrogen would have spontaneously degenerated into a gas when the pressure was released. The burden proof is your problem, not ours. I would also like to point out that if your hypothesis was true then Mercury and Venus would also have hydrogen cores. Mercury in particular is far to dense and rotating far too slow to have the gravitational acceleration problems you've outlined. Venus also rotates far too slow, so the earth is special? Why?

[Cold-co]

Moontanman:

You are forcing my cold-core model to conform to the tenets of the hot-core model.

Earth certainly gave up large quantities of heat over the years for hydrogen to solidify. Just as the work with the diamond anvil devices has shown, to go to a colder denser phase the test sample must give up heat. Heat that in the cold-core model gets radiated to the vast heat sink of space. Its been a very slow process.

Now your comments on Mercury and Venus, do not make sense to me, because the geodesists have used Earth's flattening (bulging), which they say comes from her rate of rotation, to determine her moment of inertia. From what I have read Mercury and Venus are close to being perfectly round because they are trapped in a syncronous orbit around the Sun and only rotate once in their year. And, I've never heard of anyone determining their moments of inertia as the geodesist have done here.

If you use Newton's mass attraction equation, then every cubic centimeter of the element mercury must attract every adjacent cubic centimeter of mercury with a force of 1.24 x 1E-5 dyne. Every cc of water must attract an adjacent cc of water with a force of 6.67 x 10E-8dyne, and every cc of matter in an Earth of constant density must attract its neighbor with a force of 2.03 x 10E-6 dyne. That is what I'm driving at by calculating the force of horizontal acceleration and the effect it would have on the geodesist's flattening equation. Since what I've just explained about attracting their neighbors leads to a different view of forces that effect surface tension, I can justify my assertion that Earth is a pressure vessel because those attractions increase as you progress into the Earth..

[modest]

Cold-Co,

 

Please stop.

 

Your idea has been thoroughly debunked in the other thread to such an extent that the thread was closed. Your math was shown wrong (you literally multiplied, divided, added and subtracted numbers incorrectly). Your premise was shown faulty as you ignored mass and improperly accounted for vectors. And, your conclusions were shown faulty as your predictions of surface "horizontal gravity" translates into *nothing* that can be measured.

 

If you have nothing new to add then please stop making the same debunked claims.

 

~modest