The iron-nickel core is conceptually incorrect

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our modern time, there are still "ancient" thinking minds, that haven't released their hold of ancient dogmas, that are outdated by thousands of years.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 field.

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 created.

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?

Originally posted by bjarneorn

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).

This is where I stopped reading. God particle has nothing to do with creationists, or God even. Your belief it somehow does shows how little you know on the subject.

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.

This premise seems incorrect to me. If there was no material then the stars could not have formed as there was nothing for them to be formed from.

I think you are assuming that what currently lays in the center of the earth is the first thing to start forming the earth. The iron that is in the center of our planet sank to the center before the planet cooled so could have become part of the earth after its radius was larger than the current center of the planet.

the earth's core is both not hollow and it is not a plasma.

the evidence that it might be iron runs like this.

Back in time Kopernikus, Kepler and later Newton figured about the mechanics involved regarding the solar systems. Based on observations it became possible to calculate involved solar, planetery and moon masses.

This calculation is quite accurate and delivers a total mass number for planet earth.
Now people started to make calculations which material is around us, and figured about the specigic weights of almost everything we could put our hands on.
from air through water and soil down to about 15 km depth.
Lava was on the list too.
Then they created a model which sums up all these known weight's and estimated how much of it can be found at which level above the center and calculated that.

The result indicated, that there is a good portion of mass missing to explain the earth's orbit around the sun, but when they saw how much total mass is required it became obvious that it must be heavier than water.

Later seismic experiments showed that there is a sort of reflective layer deep down below, and putting all the mathematical models on the table again it became obvious that there must be an iron core deep down there.

Only with such a core the total weight sums up to explain our orbit around the sun.

i'm sorry but plasma or a hughe hollow sphere deep inside do not fit the picture. Except you start to ignore Newton mechanics.

reply to post by bjarneorn


This is where you premise is flat out wrong:

"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."

The current accepted stance is that there was an initial cycle of star birth, death, rebirth before any planets formed. You are right that at the very start there was no heavy elements like nickel. But stars and planets didnt come into existence simultaneously. There was an initial cycle of stars only.

Good link - news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

The current accepted stance is that there was an initial cycle of star birth, death, rebirth before any planets formed. You are right that at the very start there was no heavy elements like nickel. But stars and planets didnt come into existence simultaneously. There was an initial cycle of stars only.

It's very convenient, don't you think ... stars "collapse" to create an "explosion" from "nothing". But planets ... couldn't have. How about this, planets and stars create at the same out of the same material ... except that planets never collected enough material, to actually cause an inner collapse.

But let us assume you are right. Let us assume, the earth is accredited remnants of exploded stars.

I thus declare the following.

* In any perfect spherical form, the center of mass has zero density as the gravitational pull is equal in all directions.

And furthermore, I state that if the earth is a perfect spherical form "gravitationally", such a single point in the center can exit. However ..

* As of the non-spherical formation of atoms, such as Fe, there is no single point in any perfect spherical form, where there is equal pull in all directions.

What I'm stating, is that unless the element has actually collapsed upon itself. There can never be such a point.

Thus I move forward.

* Since in real life, where atoms have not collapsed upon themselves. There is a "hollow" point at the center of any mass, which increases in size with that mass.

That is, any structure of mass, where gravity is the pull. That because of the elements structure. And the structure of the atom, where the atom is more than just a single dot. The element will pressurise to the point, where there is always a hollow center, even if microscopic. And that this hollow center, will create distance to the other side of the sphere, opposite to where the elment resides. So that the gravity pull towards the surface, is greater than towards the center.

I therefore deny, that the center of the earth has the greatest density.

reply to post by bjarneorn


You start right off with some illogical assumptions. How exactly is a star composed of nothing?

also, the earth is not a perfect sphere nor is the sun.
www.sciencedaily.com...

the gravity field around earth is not uniform either.
en.wikipedia.org...

you also talk a lot about the physics at the atomic level. Dont you think that theres going to be a difference between bodies the size of stars and planets vs atomic structures?

A silicon quartz core inside a magma dynamo (unknown material).

Granite under pressure produces a voltage=Free energy and lightning.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by bjarneorn

 

You start right off with some illogical assumptions. How exactly is a star composed of nothing?

Well, like so many you start with your model, where material exist. But any model you create, that has to be a working model. Must start, where there is no material.

Material, being the hydrogen, helium matter that we are so customed to. Knowing theee are made of particles, even the hydrogen atom must be creeated before you can use it.

Any ideal system, that you think of, that doesn't include this first step. Is a non-workable solution. Unless you wanna use the "God particle" and say "God made matter", or the Universe.

Anyone who comes and states "matter" without supplying any hint to has how matter came to exist in the first place, is just out of bounds and has no working mdel of how stars came to exist.

Originally posted by AriesJedi
A silicon quartz core inside a magma dynamo (unknown material).

Granite under pressure produces a voltage=Free energy and lightning.

How do you explain the creation of this model of yours? where silicon is the core of planets ... how did it come to be silicon quartz, and how is the relation between planets and stars in this model?

reply to post by bjarneorn


There are a lot of steps between "nothing" and stars.

en.wikipedia.org...