Cold Core Model of Earth's Structure

Cold-co · 06-13-2009

Pyrotex:
Yesterday I made a post in response to your query "Did you find that technique somewhere?
Because I've never seen that approach to calculating pressure inside the Earth?"
In my response I stated I am a cookbook engineer I've used my engineering handbook to derive the method I used. My method produces pressures that match in part the pressures reported in The Cambridge Encycolopedia of Earth Sciences. Note the pressures are for individual shell lips and highest pressure shows up in the lower mantle. Hence the pressures below the lower mantle in the core are in effect meaningless, because the lower mantle dictates the pressure that can be tolerated in the core before structural failure will occur. Lower mantle pressure matches the pressures used in diamond anvil devices to demonstrate the physical characteristics of hydrogen, helium and ice.

stereologist · 06-13-2009

Quote:

CharlieO posted a site

The link is what? Did not see the posting.

Pyrotex · 06-13-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cold-co

Pyrotex:
...My method produces pressures that match in part the pressures reported in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences. Note the pressures are for individual shell lips and highest pressure shows up in the lower mantle. Hence the pressures below the lower mantle in the core are in effect meaningless, because the lower mantle dictates the pressure that can be tolerated in the core before structural failure will occur. ...

Yes, I agree that the pressures you calculate for the shells below the mantle are meaningless. However, there is no such thing as "structural failure" of the core. There is no "structure" in the core to fail. the core is solid matter under tremendous pressure and temperature. Unless you apply pressures similar to those in neutron stars, the Earth's core cannot collapse or suffer any form of structural failure.

If your technique for calculating pressure is at all valid, then it must come within, oh say, plus or minus 20% of all pressures in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of ES. If your technique produces "meaningless values" then it would appear your technique is meaningless.

Turtle · 06-14-2009

According to the gang of C's, this business of shells is presupposed on layer sorting caused by Earth's rotation. (Note we have already seen that this is a physical impossibility.) Nonetheless, as Janus pointed out to Charlie a couple years ago in one of the other threads on this topic, if this were true, then Earth would have a cross-sectional profile like that of a tree's rings, not a cross-section of an onion.

Pyrotex · 06-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle

According to the gang of C's, this business of shells is presupposed on layer sorting caused by Earth's rotation. (Note we have already seen that this is a physical impossibility.) ...

Correct.
It's trivially easy to show that the Earth's gravity, at any depth, totally dominates the teensy outward centripetal force caused by Earth's rotation.

What CharlieO seems to be missing is the concept of "integration" -- as in Integral Calculus. It may be valid to calculate pressure caused by a shell of matter, as he has done. BUT, pressure is a scalar, not a vector, and it adds just like real numbers add. The pressure near the core would be the pressure caused by the innermost shell PLUS the pressure of the next outer shell PLUS the pressure of the shell just outside of that one PLUS ... PLUS the pressure caused by the final outside shell.

CharlieO? did you read that last paragraph? Pressure doesn't come from just ONE shell. It comes from that shell PLUS ALL the shells above that shell. Whether you have a hot core or a cold core--an iron core or a hydrogen core--the pressure as you go down towards the core will always increase. Maximum pressure will always be at the center of the planet. Structure or chemical makeup will not change this.

Any comments?

Cold-co · 06-14-2009

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 · 06-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cold-co

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 · 06-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 06-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cold-co

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.

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

[CharlieO=Red:Janus=Blue:Boldenation=

]
http://hypography.com/forums/introdu...tml#post198923

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckyO

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 · 06-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cold-co

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cold-co

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:

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

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

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

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 Core Model of Earth's Structure

Hypography?

Share the love!

Sponsors

Friends