posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 03:59 AM
I want to start by pointing out, that the only evidence for an iron-nickel core, is seismic information that suggest the core is solid. And
iron-nickel give similar seismic information, while other materia, will also give the same result. The iron-nickel compound, is kept to because it is
the only working magnetic dynamo, that men knew of when the idea was first thought of.
Since then, we know that plasma will give the seismic information, as well as give the same magnetic results
Now, in reality iron cannot be the source. The reason is, that all planets and stars, must have started to create in the beginning, while there was
nothing out there. Not materia whatsoever. What actually caused the collecting bubbles, is unknown ... but at some time, this gas-plasma collected,
that later became stars. Material, only gets created AFTER stars are created. And AFTER the first supernova. Therefore, IRON is not a possible
materia that could have made the cores of each planet.
In Hollow-Earth theory, it is also pointed out that the Earths core cannot be solid. Well, it can't ... not in our current model and information on
what gravity is. (Sidenote: I lean towards the fact, that Gravity is electro-static in nature, and has no relevande to the creationsists
GOD-particle). If gravity is mass-related, then at the center of the earth ... the gravitational pull is outward. The pull, is therefore away from
the core, at the very center ... IFF we rely on the current model, that we use. The densest area, would therefore be the outer "middle" layer of
the earth ... and would get less dense, as you reach the core, as the materia there, is less.
This, should be self evident.
Now, let's mention plasma ... because a "hollow" earth is not really a possibility, or rather unlikely. According to current "dogma", there is
four states of matter. Solid, Liquid, Gas and Plasma. Plasma, being what we see in fire and lightning. This is actually equivalent to the ancient
dogma of Earth, Water, Air and Fire. So, in our modern time, there are still "ancient" thinking minds, that haven't released their hold of ancient
dogmas, that are outdated by thousands of years.
Plasma is not a STATE of matter, it is a transition of matter. Matter cannot stay in this form, it will transform to gas ... so this is not a STATE
of matter. When you apply pressure to matter, it will change state. But plasma is in reality, the transition state of matter, from solid or liquid,
to gas. However, in space there are clouds of matter, that illuminate and are thought to be plasmas. However, they do not act as any plasma in our
known state, as any plasma that we create, must have a sustained energy source, to remain in this state (must have fuel to burn). But what we also
know, is that gas can also become ionized. And reach a state, that is similar to the burning of solids and liquids. Thus, it is tought, that there
is such a state of matter where it is totally ionized, and the electrons are freely roamable, and this state is called plasma state. However, it is
far from equivalent to fire.
It is commonly believed, that the core is some sort of plasma state ... but in general, it is an unknown. Because if there is such a point in the
earth, that it would hold iron trapped at the very core of earth. Then there must be a gravitational pull towards the center, that exceeds the
gravitational pull of mass.
Thus, whatever is at the core of the earth ... cannot be iron-nickel combination, as this would seap out towards the surface rather than towards the
center, giving support to a hollow earth, in a standard model.
But, since we do not believe in hollow earth, we'll have to come up with a different model. And the fact, that you have magnetic fields in every
planet, suggests that whatever is at the core, must therefore have been in an abundance when the universe was formed. Iron sure wasn't, and still
isn't. The fact, that planets like venus and mars rotate, but still have no real working dynamo. Suggests that the geodynamo cannot be true. You
have mercury with a strong magnetic field. You have venus with very little. Mars with very little. You have the gasplanetes, with strong magnetic
Another effect, that we should consider, and that is the "globe" shape of planets (and stars). There are two ways for such a form to actually be
1. An outward explotion in zero gravity
2. An inward implosion in zero gravity
There are no third forms for such a formation. Now, I ask all of you ... since we know our suns are an outward explotion in zero gravity. Do you
think planets are the same, or that they are inward implosions. And if so, what do you think is at the core that causes it?