Cold Core Model of Earth's Structure

[Cold-co]

Stereologist:

On the first page of this thread you will find CharlieO's post. Just follow my PowerPoint through to the end to get a picture of what a cold-core model of earth looks like. All the physical characteristics of materials used in my cold-core model have been verified in laboratory tests.

Pyrotex:

Structural failure of the core??? What I've calculated is gravitationally produced structural strength of the walls of a pressure vessel. A pressure vessel that confines a crystal of hydrogen. During a warming period on the surface of the earth the crystal expells heat to collapse to a denser phase. During an Ice Age the crystal absorbs heat and pressure builds. By my calculations pressure in the crystalline core can go up to 4 Kbar and the mantle will not structurally fail. You need to get a copy of Dr. Isaac F. Silvera's paper, April 1980, "The solid molecular hydrogens in the condensed phase: Fundamentals and static properties," Review of Modern Physics, to understand the physical characteristics of solid hydrogen.

Turtle:

Neither CharlieO nor I think rotation causes layering. Seismic wave data clearly shows the layers within the earth. We are not as dumb as you apparently think we are.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman:

CharlieO posted a site where my cold-core model is explained both verbally and graphically. I recommend you go back to his post and sit through my powerpoint on the subject. Therein you will see how a planetary body condenses from a 9 Kelvin molecular cloud composed of 75% hydrogen, 23% helium and 2% dirty ice coated dust. At 9 Kelvin all other materials are in a dry dust form save for hydrogen and helium.

 

No Coldco, your model cannot be a description of reality. Even at 9K hydrogen is not metallic, adding hydrogen and helium to get the pressures necessary would raise the temps though compression quite quickly. for a body of metallic hydrogen to form the size of the earths core you would need an atmosphere like that of Uranus at least. The only way possible to get an earth sized core of metallic hydrogen is by accumulating a Uranus sized body of hydrogen gas. There is no way at any temps such a core could form in an earth sized body. Not to mention you still haven't explained the mass and or gravitation pull of the earth.

[Moontanman]

Stereologist:

On the first page of this thread you will find CharlieO's post. Just follow my PowerPoint through to the end to get a picture of what a cold-core model of earth looks like. All the physical characteristics of materials used in my cold-core model have been verified in laboratory tests.

Pyrotex:

Structural failure of the core??? What I've calculated is gravitationally produced structural strength of the walls of a pressure vessel. A pressure vessel that confines a crystal of hydrogen. During a warming period on the surface of the earth the crystal expells heat to collapse to a denser phase. During an Ice Age the crystal absorbs heat and pressure builds. By my calculations pressure in the crystalline core can go up to 4 Kbar and the mantle will not structurally fail. You need to get a copy of Dr. Isaac F. Silvera's paper, April 1980, "The solid molecular hydrogens in the condensed phase: Fundamentals and static properties," Review of Modern Physics, to understand the physical characteristics of solid hydrogen.

Turtle:

Neither CharlieO nor I think rotation causes layering. Seismic wave data clearly shows the layers within the earth. We are not as dumb as you apparently think we are.

 

DUMB? DUMB YOU SAY? so far you have totally failed to show how a metallic hydrogen core of the proposed size could form or how it could stay that way at the pressures the surface of the core would experience. You have failed to show how the Earths mass and gravitational field is explained by your "model" you have failed to show why such a core wouldn't immediately degrade in to gaseous hydrogen or explain where the thousands of miles of hydrogen atmosphere that had to be there to make such a core went. so far you have treated all of us like were are idiot children who are just too slow to understand your lofty ideas. I resent it, you should explain these things or this thread should be moved to silly claims!

[Turtle]

Turtle:

Neither CharlieO nor I think rotation causes layering. Seismic wave data clearly shows the layers within the earth. We are not as dumb as you apparently think we are.

 

:D One thing about Hypog, we can consult the Oracle of the Archive.

 

[CharlieO=Red:Janus=Blue:Boldenation=:lol:]

http://hypography.com/forums/introductions/13576-assumptions-seem-to-become-dogma.html#post198923

I regret I was not clear about the illogical factors regarding the current theory of Earth's composition. The popular theory-assumption-guess appears more concerned with the formation and composition of proto-Earth, which would have been spinning at a relatively much higher rate than today. Even so, regardless of the rate at which proto-Earth might have been spinning, an atmosphere could still form from outgassing and would still remain at proto-Earth's surface; in as much as Earth's mass was able to retain it. [Only hydrogen cannot be retained by Earth's gravity.] So the comparison to the atmospheres of other planets, spinning faster or slower, have no relevance to this issue.

 

In answer to BUFFY: Centrifugal force is not an "Interesting Theory," it is a physical fact and temperature is relative, unless at zero degrees Kelvin. All materials not at zero degrees Kelvin will move in response to centrifugal force over time. Eventually, within any spinning mass, the lightest elements will be forced into a central region and heaviest elements will be forced into the outside layers of the mass; Gravity just keeps the mass together.

 

The popular theory [assumption, concept, guess, etc.] about Earth's composition appears to have been based solely on a static model. In this theory, it is assumed that Gravity somehow forced an enormously excessive amount [in comparison to known galactic proportions] of mainly iron to move inward [thru other, heavier elements which somehow elected not to move] and form proto-Earth's core. This is illogical to the core. [Pun.]

 

A dynamic model of proto-Earth must include centrifugal force as a major factor in its formation, a fact which seems to have been ignored in popular models and computations. Because Earth spins, with a bulge at its equator as evidence of this force overcoming Gravity, there is no doubt proto-Earth was spinning more rapidly in the past and probably disk shaped. Since Gravity could not possibly overcome Centrifugal force at higher spin rates then, heavier elements could not possibly move into the center of proto-Earth's spinning mass, molten or frozen, and iron would only be found in proto-Earth's surface layers; where it is found today in approximately the expected galactic proportions.

 

The physical evidence seems clear to me. Earth's core was and is today composed of lighter elements; now densely compressed by Gravity of course.

 

Of course, if proto-Earth did not spin and was as static as examples given today, there would be no pesky centrifugal force. Then, Gravity might have forced iron to move into proto-Earth's core, IF Earth was molten to the core and IF such an illogical excess of iron had existed and IF ALL other elements heavier than iron somehow elected to stay in the surface layers; where they can be found today.

 

So why not a Gold Core or Uranium Core?

 

Using the same theory-assumption-guess of Gravity forcing iron into Earth's core, gold, uranium and other elements heavier than iron would have also been forced into Earth's core and been alloyed with the iron. Then Earth's core would have a far greater density than it appears to have today. So the Gravity only model seems highly unlikely.

 

Currently, no one really knows the composition or temperature of Earth's interior. No one really knows if there are actually any radioactive elements there to heat the interior with their decay. Core drilling seems to indicate there may be little or no radioactive elements to be found at great depths, especially in oceanic areas. Earth's interior might in fact be very cold and the only perceived heat flow is originating within surface layers.

 

In summary, I still consider the popular theory of proto-Earth's formation and current composition to be more of an assumption, when the fact of centrifugal force is included. Fortunately, I'm willing to learn. Unfortunately, so much of what we KNOW may not be true and it's damn hard to realize it. May be even harder to admit when one is obviously wrong.

 

Regards, CharlieO

The problems with your claim are many.

 

Where is your evidence that that Earth was spinning so m/ch faster in its youth? (as in enough for the centrifugal effect to become the major factor.)

 

In order for the centrifugal effect to cause the separation of elements as you suggest (the cream separator effect), it would have to be stronger than the gravity holding the Earth together, in which case the Earth would have never formed in the first place.

 

The centrifugal effect acts outward from the axis of spin, not from a central point. The separation would happen like the rings of a tree rather than the layers of an onion. Thus you would see all the heavy elements at the equatorial regions of the crust and lighter elements as you approached the poles. We do not.

 

Our knowledge of the compostion of the Earth is based on much more evidence than you suppose.

 

There is how P and S waves travel through the Earth for example.

There is the fact that you need a large amount of ferris (iron) material spinning at the center of the Earth to generate its magnetic field. ETC.

 

I'm afraid that you just haven't thought out your idea far enough to find its own flaws.

[modest]

My question for this forum is, “Have I done something wrong mathematically?”

 

Moontainman:

You asked about pressures. Here is how I have calculated them. See attachments:

 

 

Looking at the table of data and the formulas given, I do think there might be a couple math issues. I'm not questioning if your method is good physics, but just working out the numbers.

 

The first would be the crust's mass which looks off by 2 orders of magnitude. The crust is the only mass where my numbers differ—the rest of the layers come out the same. As you say, mass is volume times density:

[math]M = V \times \rho = \left[ \frac{4}{3}\pi R^3 - \frac{4}{3}\pi r^3 \right] \times \rho[/math]

where R = 6.371 x 10⁸ cm, r = 6.366 x 10⁸ cm and [math]\rho[/math] = 3.8. This works out to:

[math]M = \left[ \frac{4}{3}3.14159 (6.371 \times 10^8)^3 - \frac{4}{3}3.14159 (6.366 \times 10^8)^3 \right] \times 3.8 = \mathbf{9.68 \times 10^{24} \ g}[/math]

In other words, you got .001 x 10²⁶ and I got 0.1 x 10²⁶.

 

I recon this is only a typo because the rest of the masses I get the same numbers as you and when you calculate the force for the crust layer you appear to use the correct mass.

 

The next issue is a small, but slightly confusing. The formula you give for center of gravity is CG =3/8*(R^4-r^4)/R^3-r^3, but the data in your table is twice that value. The formula you give for force is F = G*(Mh/2)^2/(2*D)^2, but there would be no need to multiply D by 2 as the force formula indicates if D is already doubled as it is in the table.

 

The last issue is significant.

 

The formula you give for Pressure is "Pressure = Force/Area x 10¹¹" and your data in the table appears to use this formula. I do not believe this is correct. Your force is in units of "dyne" which is g/cm•s² and your area is in units of cm². This means "pressure" will be in units of dyne per cm². In order to convert this to Mbar you should not divide by 10¹¹, but rather 10¹². There are 1,000,000,000,000 dyne/cm² in one Mbar. There is a pressure conversion calculator at this site:

 

Online Conversion - Pressure Conversion

 

I calculate all your pressures as being off by one order of magnitude (or one decimal point). For example, the largest "3rd Bond A" would not be 4.171 Mbar, but rather 0.4171 Mbar. Do you agree?

 

~modest

[Cold-co]

Modest:

You may have found an error. I know I had trouble with the conversions when I was doing them. However, reducing the value would make the lateral pressures smaller than the hydrostatic pressures. That just cannot be true.

 

Moontanman:

No Coldco, your model cannot be a description of reality. Even at 9K hydrogen is not

metallic, adding hydrogen and helium to get the pressures necessary would raise the temps

though compression quite quickly. for a body of metallic hydrogen to form the size of the

earths core you would need an atmosphere like that of Uranus at least. The only way

possible to get an earth sized core of metallic hydrogen is by accumulating a Uranus

sized body of hydrogen gas. There is no way at any temps such a core could form in an

earth sized body. Not to mention you still haven't explained the mass and or gravitation

pull of the earth.

 

In Newtons proof that all mass can be considered to be located at an orbs center, he showed that regardless of distribution of mass in the shells the gravitational attraction on the orbs surfice would be equal to considering all mass to be located at its center. Hence moving mass from the core to the mantle doesn't change the outcome.

 

I guess I will have to inform Dr. Silvera that his diamond anvil results must be thrown out because Moontanman says you cannot get rid if the heat generated by pressure through convection, conduction or radiation. Once the heat is gone, you cannot have pressure create more unless the pressure changes.

[Moontanman]

In Newtons proof that all mass can be considered to be located at an orbs center, he showed that regardless of distribution of mass in the shells the gravitational attraction on the orbs surfice would be equal to considering all mass to be located at its center. Hence moving mass from the core to the mantle doesn't change the outcome.

 

That has nothing what so ever to do with what I am saying, if you are going to try and address my arguments please do not change them to suit you.

 

I guess I will have to inform Dr. Silvera that his diamond anvil results must be thrown out because Moontanman says you cannot get rid if the heat generated by pressure through convection, conduction or radiation. Once the heat is gone, you cannot have pressure create more unless the pressure changes.

 

You can inform him of anything you please, that is not what I said and I don't give a rats *** about diamond anvils in labs. In the real world to make metallic hydrogen you have to have pressure, enough pressure to turn hydrogen into a metal. to do this you need thousands of miles of hydrogen gas because heavier elements will displace the hydrogen rather than compress it. You cannot cover hydrogen gas up with iron to press it into metallic hydrogen in the real world. In the real world iron goes to the center, hydrogen floats on top. Now what real world process can cause iron to float on top of hydrogen gas?

[modest]

Modest:

You may have found an error.

I agree, and I'll again stress the significance in case I failed to do so adequately before: you've misapplied your own method obtaining answers that are off by a factor of 10.

However, reducing the value would make the lateral pressures smaller than the hydrostatic pressures. That just cannot be true.

I agree, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. By definition, lateral stress cannot be less than hydrostatic (or "geostatic") pressure. Hydrostatic pressure means that pressure is equal on all sides. If you accept that earth's pressure is static (or "hydrostatic") then one wonders why you've decomposed lateral and vertical stresses in the first place. They must always be (more or less) equal.

 

Your assumptions, method, conclusions, and execution have thus far all appeared flawed. You might do well to revisit each.

 

~modest

[Cold-co]

You now have me with egg on my face, I should have been suspicious of my math from the get go because no one had calculated the gravitational attraction in that manner. Even though this leaves my mathematical skills in question, I stand by my initial post. The flattening equation is missing a component. If anyone is still interested I will gladly mail you a copy of my calculations concerning the horizontal force of gravity.

[CraigD]

It’s generally accepted that the pressure at the Earth’s mantel-core boundary is about [math]1.36 \times 10^{11} \,\mbox{Pa}[/math] (source), which per the experiments referenced in post #57 “problem with the ‘Earth has a hydrogen core’ hypothesis” of this thread’s parent is within the range at which metallic hydrogen is known to occur at reasonable temperatures. The difficulty with they “Earth has a hydrogen core” hypothesis is not that it’s physically impossible, but the calculated density of the core is too low to account for the mass of the Earth as observed by its surface gravity, or for the presence of material of ordinary density in its mantel and crust. Although there’s little to no direct measurement of the density of metallic hydrogen at a given pressure, it’s believed to vary fairly linearly from it’s liquid density at atmospheric pressure. Thus, for hydrogen to be at the density required for the Earth’s core – around [math]10^7 \,\mbox{kg/m}^3[/math] (source), the pressure would have to be being produced not just by gravity pulling the outer material toward it, but by some sort of exotic, strong container – a pressure vessel. At the pressure expected to exist at the Earth core, metallic hydrogen would be at about the density it’s believed to be in the greatest range of depths of Jupiter, near it’s mean density of [math]1.36 \times 10^6 \,\mbox{kg/m}^3[/math].

 

Jupiter and other gas giant planets, it’s worth noting, are believed to consist of a layer of primarily hydrogen gas, over a layer of primarily liquid hydrogen, over a thick layer of metallic hydrogen, possibly over a small core with density and composition similar to Earth or other small, rocky planets – possibly, because while there’s scientific consensus that such a core existed during their formation, there’s uncertainty if these cores still exist, or if they have been melted and carried by convection currents into metallic hydrogen layer.

 

As I noted in “problem with the ‘Earth has a hydrogen core’ hypothesis”, even if it can be show to be physically possible that Earth, or any other body, has a dense metallic hydrogen core, to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis, a scientifically possible explanation of how the body got that way must be included.

 

Other than artificial engineering – which would be an extraordinary theory requiring extraordinary evidence – I can’t imagine the Earth having a pressure vessel contained core.

 

Another problem with the hypothesis is the Earth’s small mass compared to gas giants like Jupiter, which result in it having too little gravitational attraction to sweep up and retain elements with low density in a protoplanetary environment (whatever was present before the planets existed, and from which they were presumably formed). Were the Earth able to do accrete much hydrogen, it should, like Jupiter, currently have a mostly hydrogen atmosphere, so even without resorting to fundamental (and mathematically taxing) mechanical models of how bodies accrete and retain materials of different densities (Jean’s escape, etc.), we can conclude that despite the presence of ample hydrogen in the protoplanetary environment, bodies of Earth’s mass are unable to accrete and retain them. The only possible way around this problem I can imagine is to assume that the protoplanetary environment contained large, dense masses of metallic hydrogen at effectively zero pressure, which we know from theory, experiment, and observation of present-day interplanetary space not to be the plausible.

 

In short, intriguing and radical as the as “Earth has a hydrogen core” hypothesis is, I’ve seen no adequate explanation of these several serious problems with it, so must remain a supporter of the mainstream model of a primarily iron cored Earth.

[Pyrotex]

Mr Christianson, hi there!

your package, containing a printout of your hydrogen core theory, and a CD, which I assume contains all your calculations, has arrived in good shape! Thank you.

 

Now, if you can just give me a day or three to take a look at it, I will get back to you.

 

Oh, by the way, I have been reading CraigD's posts for a couple of years, and have actually met him personally. I wish to assure you that his grasp of basic physics and math is quite sound.

[Cold-co]

CraigD:

In my original post I stipulated that the geodesist's calculation shows earth's moment of inertia dictates most of earth's mass be located in her core. I have no problem with their findings if they have included all components that restrict flattening in their equation. I believe there is another component that has been left out. When included the moment of inertia becomes equal the summation of the moments of inertia for the individual shells of a cold-core model whose shell densities are proportional to the speed of seismic waves passing through them. If my trigonometric calculations hold up, then we need to address the new monent of inertia. Peer review on something like this will not be friendly.

Pyrotex:

Thank you for taking the time to review my method of calculating the gravitational forces within the earth. I look forward to hearing from you.

[Cold-co]

Pyrotec:

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my calculations. I'm not getting any younger.

[modest]

Cold-co,

 

I moved your most-recent post to this thread from the thread "Is religion harmful to society?" where I surmise you mistakenly posted it.

 

~modest

[HydrogenBond]

Didn't NASA show that the core is rotating faster than the surface, getting one rotation ahead about every 120 years?

Putting a New Spin on Earth's Core

 

...

Moderation note: This post and replies to it were moved to first 3 posts of this thread were moved to a new thread, 20291, because they have little to do with this thread’s theme, speculation that the Earth’s core is not composed primarily or iron

[Cold-co]

Modest: Thank you for moving my post, but I'm trying to get Pyrotec's attention and his religion post is the last place he was seen. His analysis of my trigonometric calculations that show another gravitational force resides in earth's layers is essential for further discussion on this site.

HydrogenBond: By the handle you are using, I surmise you may be familiar with Harvard Professor, Isaac F. Silveria's work with hydrogen. I've used his summary of diamond anvil test results to come up with a cold-core model with a core of solid hydrogen, but I'm stumped by the geodesist's insistence that earth's moment of inertia must be small. Pyrotec was to review my calculations. If they stand up to his review then earth's mass can be moved to the mantle. A hydrogen core separated from the mantle by a bath of helium would be able to rotate independently from the primary mass of the mantle. Just as NASA suggests. If you would like to review my calculations, please contact me.

[Pyrotex]

Hi guys. I'm back.

ColdCo, thanks for sending me your disk with your numbers.

The printed text you included was basically the same as the first dozen or so posts you made here, so that didn't have any extra explanation.

 

I've been into your data on the disk, but it is soooooo hard to interpret. You didn't leave any notes, or assumptions, or even a clear starting point that I have found. Yet. I will keep looking. You seemed to think that looking at your calculations would clear everything up. I'm sorry, but so far, it just confuses me even more.

 

I may just have to resort to asking you over the phone (or a chat line) individual questions about why you did this or that.

 

I believe Craig explained the anomalous rotation correctly. The hot molten (mostly iron) core would have eventually rotated at the same rate as the surface of the Earth. Assuming that solid iron is more dense than its molten form, even under pressure, then as the core solidified, it would have contracted. This would have forced the core to spin a little faster, to conserve angular momentum. Given that the core is STILL going faster (though not by a lot), this would indicated that the friction between the solid and molten layers is not very large.

 

As to demonstrating, with trigonometry, that a residual horizontal force of gravity exists -- I cannot offer you much hope that your calculations will support that. Your use of the word "force" is not the same as the scientifically defined concept of "force". That's gonna hurt.