Assumptions seem to become dogma

[CharlieO]

Being an old farm boy, I'm a great believer of what can be demonstrated to be a physical fact. In reading many of the forums, I'm amazed at all the assumptions which have become 'scientific' dogma.

 

For example: Does anyone truley believe a spinning earth would have a largely iron core?

 

Molten or frozen, when any mass spins the light elements will eventually be forced into the center and the heavy elements will end up on the outside, like iron and other heavy elements have in Earth's surface layers. Last time I looked, Earth was still spinning and probably spun faster in the past.

 

The 'Great Bombardment' is also just another assumption I find more science fiction than logical or even possible; albeit some later impacts are obvious.

 

Should be fun. CharlieO

[Buffy]

Interesting theory!

 

Out of all the science forums out there, what made you choose Hypography?

 

Have fun!

Buffy

[REASON]

Being an old farm boy, I'm a great believer of what can be demonstrated to be a physical fact. In reading many of the forums, I'm amazed at all the assumptions which have become 'scientific' dogma.

 

For example: Does anyone truley believe a spinning earth would have a largely iron core?

 

Molten or frozen, when any mass spins the light elements will eventually be forced into the center and the heavy elements will end up on the outside, like iron and other heavy elements have in Earth's surface layers. Last time I looked, Earth was still spinning and probably spun faster in the past.

 

The 'Great Bombardment' is also just another assumption I find more science fiction than logical or even possible; albeit some later impacts are obvious.

 

Should be fun. CharlieO

 

Hi CharlieO,

 

The fallacy in your assumption is that the outward force generated by a planet's rotation is greater than the force of gravity. Obviously it's not considering that the atmospheres of planetary bodies, even those that spin at higher rates, reside at the surface.

 

As for impacts, the Earth may not be the best planet to look for evidence of past bombardments due to the resurfacing processes that are constantly taking place such as plate techtonics, volcanism, weathering, erosion, oxidation, etc., that have erased a vast majority of the craters over tremendous amounts of time.

 

The planet Venus and Jupiter's moon Io also have resurfacing processes going on (primarily volcanism) that are so active that virtually no evidence of cratering remains. Evidence for ancient bombardments and impacts during the accretion process, and as the solar system was stabilizing, can be observed on the surfaces of rocky bodies that don't have these resurfacing processes happening such as Mercury, our Moon, Mars, asteroids, and most of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. These bodies are covered with craters that are ancient remnants of violent collisions. The Earth would have been subjected to these countless impacts as well.

 

In our modern age of scientific research and technology, many of the assumptions that were the foundation of the study of our solar system have been reinforced by increasing evidence. There is a vast amount of truly amazing information available relating to astronomy, planetary geology, and the development of the solar system if you're at all interested. I have been captivated by it since I was a child.

 

As evidence grows, dogma goes.

 

Welcome to Hypography. :)

[CharlieO]

In answer to REASON: 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

[Buffy]

You might want to open a thread in the Earth Sciences forum to discuss this, Charlie....

 

So, just to reask my question, out of all the science forums out there, what made you choose Hypography?

 

I gotta finda new place where the kids are hip, ;)

Buffy

[Janus]

In answer to REASON: 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.

[Symbology]

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.

Bingo

 

Ditto for everything else in the universe. The black holes sits in the center even though it is likely one of the fastest spinning things around.

 

Yes Centrifugal force is present. You can swish water around in a glass only because the strength of the glass is greater than the centrifugal force. Otherwise you would get soaked.

 

But, go take a peek at the cracks in your local streets. Do you think it is the strength of the earth's mantle that is holding in all that iron?

[CharlieO]

In response to BUFFY: Choosing the Hypography forum was done after surfing for a website in which assumptions were not totally rejected out of hand and writers with alternative assumptions are not insulted for 'thinking out of the box" so to speak. Having found several interesting posts in your website, especially one concerning Scientific Dogma and the difficulties of changing views of the same, I joined, initially with the aim of just reading some interesting posts.

 

Unfortunately, I couldn't resist offering my own assumption on Earth's core formation, which resulted in me being rejected as a graduate school candidate some 40 years ago. Seems popular views have yet to change, although more recent evidence is slowly coming into my favor; such as iron would be too dense at core pressures to be in Earth's core. Of course, the assuming scientists need to protect their investments in degrees and positions, so we are now being subjected to more assumptions as explanations for their initial assumptions.

 

In response to JANUS: You claim, "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.,"

 

This is the 'core' of the issue regarding the assumption of Earth having an iron core. [Pun, sorry, couldn't resist.] This "Fact" is also an incorrect assumption. In fact, you don't need any amount of ferric material in Earth's core to create a magnetic field. In fact, recent discoveries now appear to indicate the "Fact" of "ferris" material being in the core is only an assumption resulting from historical ignorance.

 

Allow me to point out some interesting facts and some history:

 

1. The initial assumption of Earth's core being of iron was based on the discovery of Earth having a magnetic field and ancient scientists only knew of iron as being the only element able to create a magnetic field. This is both incorrect and a fact many scientists have known for more than 50 years; Hydrogen can also be a magnetic metal as well as incredibly dense at core pressures, easily capable of generating Earth's magnetic field without any spinning being necessary. Then one might also include Rare Earths.

 

2. Earth having an iron core was at first only a logical, albeit ignorant guess, whether true or not. Then a misunderstood calculation by Sir Robert Boyle was used by some scientists to support their assumption that Earth's temperature increased with increasing depth to the degree that Earth's core was also molten. Actually, Boyle only calculated the rate at which temperature increased with increasing depth in Wales tin mines, as a means of settling a miner's pay scale dispute. He also concluded the temperature only increased with increasing depth due to the miner's heat energy input and the decreasing efficiency of air conditioning as depth increased. Unfortunately, his calculation of temperature increasing with depth was used by self-serving scientists to "prove" their assumption of Earth's core being molten. Of course, there was the question of how could Earth's core stay molten for billions of years.

 

3.Then, about 100 years ago, the discovery of radioactivity decay was assumed to be the heat creating factor in the mantle which keeps Earth's core molten and the answer as to how it stayed molten for billions of years. Unfortunately, radioactive elements are largely located in continental surface layers. A fact which seems to have been conveniently ignored by the hot iron core enthusiasts as well as the fact that natural openings and sealed, abandoned mines in Earth's continental layers, as much as one mile deep, get cooler with depth.

 

4. More recently, the assumption of increasing heat with increasing depth was complicated by the fact that hot iron can't generate a magnetic field so another assumption had to be made to support the earlier assumptions.

 

5. Therefore, a recent assumption was made that Earth's inner iron core was rotating within Earth's outer iron core and thus generating a magnetic field. However, the fact is non-magnetic iron spinning inside non-magnetic iron can't generate a magnetic field.

 

6. Currently, many self-serving scientists and their graduate students, who can't risk disputing obvious inconsistencies, are now producing experiments and calculations which "prove" the initial assumptions of Earth having a hot iron core and generating Earth's magnetic field by spinning inside its outer iron core are correct. Unfortunately, any number of calculations, however complex and/or supported by any number of experiments, which include just one assumed factor, will only produce results with no validity; except to unquestioning believers.

 

7. Finally, the mass of Earth's inner core spinning inside Earth's outer core, surrounded by mantle material at incredible pressures, is science fiction at best. I believe such an illogical series of assumptions supporting the initial assumption of there being an iron core inside Earth are totally unnecessary when a simple, highly possible and most likely core of magnetic, metallic hydrogen is considered as a viable alternative.

 

 

In response to SYMBOLOGY: Not sure how Back Holes relate to Earth's core, but you don't need to try to explain how an enormous excess of iron somehow passed thru other, heavier elements to somehow become Earth's relatively massive core, leaving behind a reasonable amount in Earth's continental layers, or why we don't also have a core of gold or uranium or heavier elements alloyed with this excess of iron IF Gravity were the dominate factor. Just try to consider hydrogen as an alternative core material and see what happens.

 

 

To ALL: If any want to expand their beliefs beyond the popular assumptions regarding Earth's core, there are books and articles by Neil B. Christainson and C. Warren Hunt and others which explain the probability of Earth having a hydrogen core in both greater detail and far better than I. My book on the subject was written too long ago to be anywhere near as useful today. I should also add, the possibility of Earth having a hydrogen core was mentioned long before the assumption of Earth having an iron core was even considered. It was only the ignorance of those who related Earth's magnetic field to only iron that created the assumption.

 

Regards, CharlieO

[freeztar]

Interesting stuff Charlie. What exactly is "metallic hydrogen"?

[CharlieO]

Hydrogen can exist as a gas, liquid or metal, the latter also being magnetic. I was part of a team researching hydrogen properties in the 1950s for Shell (Oil) Development when we were informed the Russians had created metallic hydrogen in their laboratories. The idea of hydrogen being involved with Earth's core was already known to be centuries older. With the Russians also discovering metallic hydrogen had a magnetic property, I began a book on the subject, copyrighted, but never found a publisher. Regards, Charlie

[REASON]

My understanding is that metallic hydrogen, formed under tremendous pressure, is currently theorized to make up the cores of Jupiter and Saturn, each of which have enormous magnetic fields. But the mass of these giants is huge. Would the mass of the Earth generate enough pressure to form metallic hydrogen at the core?

[Michaelangelica]

Being an old farm boy, I'm a great believer of what can be demonstrated to be a physical fact. In reading many of the forums, I'm amazed at all the assumptions which have become 'scientific' dogma.

 

For example: Does anyone truley believe a spinning earth would have a largely iron core?

 

Welcome to hypography:)

 

As you can see, it is not easy to get away with any assumptions here.

 

Often assumptions are made in the social sciences like economics, sociology or psychology in order to make models of reality to enable prediction.

 

I agree however sometimes these assumptions seem to assume the mantle of 'truth'.

 

It is always good to question any assumption or at least be aware that you are using one.

[freeztar]

Interesting. I searched wiki on the phrase and of course there is a wonderful article on it. I found this blurb to be interesting:

Many experiments are continuing in the production of metallic hydrogen in laboratory conditions at static compression and low temperature. Arthur Ruoff and Chandrabhas Narayana from Cornell University in 1998,[10] and later Paul Loubeyre and René LeToullec from Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique, France in 2002, have shown that at pressures close to those at the center of the Earth (3.2 to 3.4 million atmospheres or 324 to 345 GPa) and temperatures of 100 K–300 K, hydrogen is still not a true alkali metal, because of the non-zero band gap. The quest to see metallic hydrogen in laboratory at low temperature and static compression continues.

Metallic hydrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If H2 is not an true alkali metal at pressures and heat similar to the center of the Earth, can it still be magnetic?

And what is a "non-zero band gap"?

[Queso]

So you're saying when something is converted into metal it becomes magnetic?

 

how?

[CharlieO]

Metallic hydrogen had long been theorized before we learned at Shell Development that the Russians managed to produce small quantities, perhaps even before 1950. They reported it was a "silvery metal" and could exist at ambient temperatures and pressures, plus it had magnetic properties.

 

How they produced it then was not known. However, USA researchers have produced quantities of metallic hydrogen more recently. Therefore, it appears the tremendous pressures within other giant planets may not be required to produce metallic hydrogen.

 

I suspect should hydrogen be compressed slowly by the pressures found within Earth's core, its density should become equal to that required for the core and generate Earth's magnetic field as well. However, I don't believe this experiment has been done as yet, but it may be done soon.

 

Many years ago, experimenters at Carnegie Institute did apply near-core pressures to iron and reported the iron molecules became far too dense to be Earth's core. However, a critical firestorm from their peers erupted with the report and forced the experimenters to recant, at least for a moment. A good example of dogma believers refusing to honor the work of those who discover viable alternatives and/or the impossibility of popular assumptions.

 

The creation of metallic hydrogen was reported in an article which may have appeared in SCIENCE magazine and/or some other scientific publication. I believe it was early this year. Being a member of AAAS, weekly issues of SCIENCE come to me via email so I don't have a printed issue on hand to scan for you. Might be available thru Google.

 

Regards, Charlie

[InfiniteNow]

Many years ago, experimenters at Carnegie Institute did apply near-core pressures to iron and reported the iron molecules became far too dense to be Earth's core. However, a critical firestorm from their peers erupted with the report and forced the experimenters to recant, at least for a moment. A good example of dogma believers refusing to honor the work of those who discover viable alternatives and/or the impossibility of popular assumptions.

 

Charlie, you seem like a good guy. A bright fellow with a wealth of experience and history. You will do well on these fora if you support your ideas.

 

A word of caution. When you post something such as this:

 

Many years ago, experimenters at Carnegie Institute did apply near-core pressures to iron and reported the iron molecules became far too dense to be Earth's core. However, a critical firestorm from their peers erupted with the report and forced the experimenters to recant, at least for a moment. A good example of dogma believers refusing to honor the work of those who discover viable alternatives and/or the impossibility of popular assumptions.

 

 

... It is generally known as the "Galileo Gambit." In sum, since Galileo had ideas which were counter to those accepted at the time he shared them, and his ideas were initially rejected but later proven correct, many folks claim their ideas are correct and that they are right simply because their ideas have also been rejected.

 

For every one or two initially rejected ideas later proven correct, there are literally millions which remain false.

 

If the idea which interests you has merit, then please support that with data. It doesn't matter where you worked or who you worked with or who did what. Share the data which supports your concept, and remember to show us, don't tell us.

 

Science always listens, it just does so slowly sometimes. If the idea has merit, it will withstand the wait.

 

 

 

More on the Galileo Gambit below:

 

Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. "Orac Knows"): The Galileo Gambit

[Boerseun]

So centrifugal force should send the heaviest elements closer to the surface and the lighter elements downwards? The how come Sial is less dense in composition than Sima?

 

Also, easy test: Go stand at the equator. See if you fly off the surface.

Or take a bucket with a good mix of heavy and light stuff, and fill it with a fluid medium. Let's take water. Mix it good. Put the bucket down right on the equator, so that you have the best chance of proving your point. Let the mud settle. Take a close look.

 

I rest my case.

 

But, in all fairness, the planet's turning does have an effect. It's flattened the poles somewhat, so that the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. If what you propose is true, the Earth should be spinning at such a rate that the the Earth would not be only slightly not spherical, but not even remotely round at all. For the heavier elements to fly out, the Earth would have to spin at such a rate that the planet can't gravitationally cohese. The ball of stuff forming the Earth would form a torus that would keep growing until such a time you end up with a very difuse sphere of thinly-spread grit. This is obviously not the case.

 

So it seems not so much a case of assumptions becoming dogma, but the ignorance of basic and elementary facts pertaining to the topic at hand which slows the progression of science and understanding.