Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[stereologist]

Very interesting Pyrotex. I suspected that the segregation of elements was due to either some effect of denser elements moving towards the center of the rotating disc or the sun forcing lighter elements away. I think I was a little right in my guesses.

 

I think the 0.1% I had for iron was mass, not numbers of atoms.

[Moontanman]

I got the idea that CharlieO thought an already formed Earth acquired it's iron through meteor impacts. Instead as Pyro pointed out the Earth formed from debris that already had a high proportion of iron, not from impacts after the fact. I've seen many people who seemed think this, it's also important to understand the Earth Orpheus collision allowed the Earth to acquire a huge amount of iron while shedding a more than moon sized mass of lighter elements and water, leaving the Earth with a larger than average core for it's size and higher average density as compared to say Venus. In "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee they propose the Earth would have been a water world without this collision and the Earths large core contributes to not only it's Magnetic Field but to Continental Drift as well.

[CharlieO]

Turtle wrote: Anyway, we're just not going through all this again. The simple fact is that this earth-core-not-iron bit is all based in Fundamentalist Christian Creationism and at Hypog that doG don't hunt. Will the staff be so kind as to move this thread to Silly Claims where it belongs?

 

Turtle, I admitted I was puzzled about the belief of Earth's core being iron and the only two related theories I knew anything about seemed illogical to me, even absurd. Then I asked if anyone had a more plausible theory. Just a simple question, hardly a claim about anything or any need for anyone to go thru an earlier thread's subject. Seems to me you don't understand a simple question made in all sincerity or perhaps you don't know of any other theory and prefer to insult instead of inform. That's your problem. Please stop trying to switch the issue. That dog sure don't hunt and appears counter to the expressed intent of this website.

 

Pyrotex, Really impressed with your explanation. I always appreciate learning something new. Doing better than most at 76. You make a good teacher. Wish you had been my major professor instead of the dogmatic types who stated their geophysical beliefs as being set in stone; many of which have been overturned with more recent discoveries. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you expended and will give your words sincere thought. Still not exactly sure about what you proposed, but I can't thank you enough for the information and will try to understand it better over the next few days.

 

Hard to find time for same, due to being a 24/7 care-giver, with the only time I have to spare is when she is sleeping with the breathing machine and monitor.

 

Any other theories available?

 

Best Regards to those who responded in a positive and informative manner. CharlieO

[Turtle]

Turtle wrote: Anyway, we're just not going through all this again. The simple fact is that this earth-core-not-iron bit is all based in Fundamentalist Christian Creationism and at Hypog that doG don't hunt. Will the staff be so kind as to move this thread to Silly Claims where it belongs?

 

Turtle, I admitted I was puzzled about the belief of Earth's core being iron and the only two related theories I knew anything about seemed illogical to me, even absurd. Then I asked if anyone had a more plausible theory. Just a simple question, hardly a claim about anything or any need for anyone to go thru an earlier thread's subject. Seems to me you don't understand a simple question made in all sincerity or perhaps you don't know of any other theory and prefer to insult instead of inform. That's your problem. Please stop trying to switch the issue. That dog sure don't hunt and appears counter to the expressed intent of this website.

 

I call you for dissembling Chuck. Cat's outa da bag bro. :naughty:

 

To the rest of you Dear Readers, this topic is rooted in creationist bunkum and I'm sayin' so and sayin' so often as requires sayin'.

[Pyrotex]

I call you for dissembling Chuck. Cat's outa da bag bro. :cat: To the rest of you Dear Readers, this topic is rooted in creationist bunkum and I'm sayin' so and sayin' so often as requires sayin'.

Turtle is right.

Chuck is indeed dissembling and this topic is rooted in creationist bunkum.

 

CharlieO, you are not the first, or even the hundred and first, disciple of creationism who has come here and started asking "innocent" questions, wanting ONLY to find the answers, puzzled why the mainstream theory got that way when there are OTHER far more interesting explanations out there... etc, etc, etc. Oh, NO, YOU are not trying to preach anything, you're just "puzzled"... yeah... right. :hihi:

 

That's the dog that won't hunt. Dissembling, indeed.

[Pyrotex]

...I was puzzled about the belief of Earth's core being iron and the only two related theories I knew anything about seemed illogical to me, even absurd.

...Pyrotex, Really impressed with your explanation. I always appreciate learning something new. Doing better than most at 76. You make a good teacher.

...Any other theories available?...

CharlieO,

thanks for the complement. I enjoy teaching, especially to students who want to learn.

 

When one says that such-and-such a theory sounds absurd to one, one is generally obligated to explain WHY it sounds absurd. Give it a shot.

 

A "theory" is just an explanation for the observed facts. Theories are judged according to how well they explain the observed facts, and how many of the observed facts they explain.

 

As time goes on, and more facts are accumulated, and the laws of nature better understood, some theories fall by the wayside because they do a relatively poor job of explaining the facts. Other theories rise to the fore and become "mainstream" and "accepted" because they do the best job of explaining the facts. This process is called Science. And it works.

 

New facts are constantly being observed, measured and discovered. New facts cannot disagree with old facts. A fact is a fact, after all. If you and I measure different atomic masses for the same atom, then one of us (at least) has made a mistake. That's why facts are generally the product of many, many repeated observations and measurements made by different people in different parts of the world over time. This process is called Verification. And it works.

 

Explanations CAN disagree with each other. I might say that Saturn's rings are the phosphorescent glow of a circular river of Mongo Fairies. You might say that they are particles of dust and ice held in orbit by Saturn's gravity. Two explanations. Two theories. So, we send the Cassini spacecraft to Saturn and accumulate facts. All the facts agree with your explanation and disagree with mine. Therefore MY "theory" ceases to be a real theory at all -- because it fails to explain the facts.

 

It is not often that two different and incompatible theories co-exist for any length of time. This is so because usually one or the other is much better at explaining the facts. Occassionally, there are not enough facts, or by some chance, the two theories are almost equally good at explaining what facts there are. This was the case with the Big Bang Theory versus the Steady State Theory in the 1950's and 60's. It was a very exciting time. Eventually new facts were observed, especially the Background Microwave Radiation. The Big Bang theory could successfully explain this. Steady State could not. Bye-bye Steady State.

 

As for the core of the Earth, there are vast amounts of observations made in many fields -- geology, earthwave tomography, astronomy, physics, chemistry, spectrometry, particle physics and radiation detection, mathematical modeling, computer simulations, wave mechanics, quantum mechanics -- that ALL have provided FACTS that must be considered when formulating any particular theory.

 

There are SOME people who choose only the facts that support their pet theory, and ignore the rest. These people are not "doing" Science. They are "doing" Play-Pretend.

 

Currently, the only theory that explains what we know about the Earth's core, and how it got to be there, is the theory I outlined above, which leads to the conclusion that the core is principally composed of iron. And that this was made possible by at least TWO natural mechanisms that differentiated matter by mass in the early stages of the Solar System, causing iron to be concentrated and accumulated by a factor of thousands over its average percentage throughout the galaxy.

[HydrogenBond]

One naive assumption about the earth's make-up during formation has to do with heavier materials sinking and lighter materials floating. This is based on the assumption of inert materials without chemical interactivity.

 

For example, if we drop salt in water, it will sink due to the density differences. But as the salt dissolves, the heavier salt will be found on the top as well as the bottom of the glass. Hydrogen is very light and will float out to space in we assume inert. But when it reacts with oxygen, it becomes H2O. Now H stays put.

 

If you look at the assumed composition of the earth, Fe and O are the two primary atoms.

To get pure iron for the core, we would need a source of electrons or a reducing agent to avoid the O collecting any electrons from iron. The Fe and O is about 55% of the mass of the earth in roughly equal mass parts but not equal atoms counts. Oxygen takes electrons and doesn't give them up easily. Mg and Si make up about 28% of the weight with both oxidized. What type of materials would need to be generated that are deficient of elections so the iron remain pure iron and the oxygen able to satisfy its chemical potential for extra electrons for -1 or -2?

 

We can do this the other way. With pure iron in the core, there are not enough electrons on the earth for all the oxygen on the earth, unless we can point to a large external source of electron deficient materials that don't contain oxygen (if they contain O, they gave electron to this O and not the earth). If the oxygen atoms on earth are not full of extra electrons (-1 or -2), more oxygen would have to be in the form of O2, H2O and other covalently bonded molecules, where the oxygen can share electrons and lower the electron requirement. But composition data does not support this. So what we have assumed is the iron can remain with all its electrons at the same time O can remain starved for electrons, even when there are 2-3 times the number of O atoms to Fe atoms each wanting 1 or 2 extra electrons.

 

This adds up to an iron oxide core, unless one can show where all the electrons for the O of the earth came from, given the composition of the earth? One will have to end up with a large source of bare + charge, without electron accompaniment, since oxygen goes for -1 or -2.

[Pyrotex]

Take any number of any kind of atoms and molecules. Call it your Starting Matter. Have the total charge be neutral. In fact, have all the atoms and molecules start out neutral.

 

Now, create any kind of molecules you desire. And tear apart the old molecules as you wish. Mix and match. Smash and pound. Use pressure and heat. Although you have to get the heat by chemical reactions using your Starting Matter. Do all the chemistry you want.

 

And in the end, what you will have, is STILL electrically neutral.

You began with X protons and X electrons -- and no matter what you did, you will end up with X protons and X electrons. Still neutral.

 

So, why, pray tell, would you need an influx of electrons to release elemental iron from all of its (original) molecular forms????

[Moontanman]

HB, iron and nickle already occur in mostly pure form In meteors and asteroids. Oxygen already occurs attached to silicon, hydrogen, carbon, and many other elements that are more likely to react with oxygen than iron. Why would the Earths core be iron oxide?

[stereologist]

The existence of elemental deposits is of interest to mineral collectors, but also to early civilizations. Two iron deposits in the far north of North America gave rise to iron tools. One was a meteorite impact zone and the other a basalt with elemental iron inclusion. Here we have two examples of elemental iron sources utilized by ancient man that originated from distinct sources: outer space and the lower mantle.

 

Now we have a modern man named hydrogen bond that proposes a statistical mechanic model as evidence of a quantum effect. No wait a minute I got that wrong. We have a pile of horse pucky based on drugged thinking. Phew -- got it right on try 2. I feel better already.

[Turtle]

HB, iron and nickle already occur in mostly pure form In meteors and asteroids. Oxygen already occurs attached to silicon, hydrogen, carbon, and many other elements that are more likely to react with oxygen than iron. Why would the Earths core be iron oxide?

 

Well duhhhhh! Because the salty oceans over the iron core have been rusting if for 7,000 years man. You know, the left over oceans from the great flood of Noah...erhmmm...great flood of Gilgamesh... erhm...great flood God sent to punish flithy filthy sinners gettin' upity. Come on Moona Manna Tanna; get with the program here. :eek2: :cat: ;) :hihi:

 

No doubt I'm goin' straight to hell if & when God catches me, but 'til then, damn the steams and full torpedoes ahead.

[modest]

Turtle,

 

We don't demonize Lemaître's theory because he was a Catholic priest and his theory stunk of creationism (well, they did at the time, but we don't now). The pope was actually touting Lemaître's theory as proof that god made the cosmos and Lemaître had to tell him to shut up—that the big bang was science and had nothing at all to do with religion.

 

Now, I don't know if Charlie is religious or not nor what his motivation is for his ideas on a Hydrogen core. But, I do know that like Lemaître he has kept religion completely out of the conversation. He has only used science in his attempt to support his ideas and he has only expressed an interest in hearing scientific ideas in return. For that, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and discuss the science.

 

~modest

[stereologist]

The earth's core is clearly made out of beer. I refer of course to Anheiser 3:2 where it says, "Be unto bud as bud would do unto you". Sayeth the brewmeister, this weekends for you!

[Turtle]

Turtle,

 

We don't demonize Lemaître's theory because he was a Catholic priest and his theory stunk of creationism (well, they did at the time, but we don't now). The pope was actually touting Lemaître's theory as proof that god made the cosmos and Lemaître had to tell him to shut up—that the big bang was science and had nothing at all to do with religion.

 

Now, I don't know if Charlie is religious or not nor what his motivation is for his ideas on a Hydrogen core. But, I do know that like Lemaître he has kept religion completely out of the conversation. He has only used science in his attempt to support his ideas and he has only expressed an interest in hearing scientific ideas in return. For that, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and discuss the science.

 

~modest

 

I'm disinclined to let Charlie off the hook as he mentioned a creationist book touting this hydrogen core business in the 8th post of his intro 2 years ago and has beaten this dead horse to a pulp ever since. Perhpas someone recommended Neil B. Christainson's Two Hundred Years Astray: The Epistle To The Creationists book to Charlie because he's Christian and he, being a simple farm boy in his own words, simply latched on & took it for a ride like it was another Bible. :shrug: The source of all this hydrogen core and hydroplate and other such pseudo-scientific rubbish about Earth geology is the bass-ackwards attempt to come up with pseudo-scientific babble to match a view of Genesis. That's it, plain & simple. (That's a Fundamentalist Christian view of Genesis by the by, as you won't find any Jews or Muslims in here pushin' this agenda. )

 

I appreciate the explanations here by Modest, & Pyro et al; it's good stuff. I also know these creationists not only invade our forum with great regularity, but pursue in the US a vigorous effort to get this crap in our public schools. Not on my watch folks; not on my watch. :)

 

So, either Chuckles is deceived or deceiving or both, but I'll leave it to him to speak to that.

[modest]

I'm disinclined to let Charlie off the hook as he mentioned a creationist book touting this hydrogen core business in the 8th post of his intro 2 years ago and has beaten this dead horse to a pulp ever since. Perhpas someone recommended Neil B. Christainson's Two Hundred Years Astray: The Epistle To The Creationists book to Charlie because he's Christian and he, being a simple farm boy in his own words, simply latched on & took it for a ride like it was another Bible. :)

 

Wasn't the book that Charlie was pointing out: Earth Has a Cold Heart: The Hydrogen Core Theory by Neil B. Christianson (here)? I don't know if it has creationist content or not—but even if it does, I'm not sure it's terribly appropriate to be asking Charlie if he agrees with Christianson's religious views. As I was saying earlier, it's plenty appropriate for people to reference Lemaître's work even though he was a creationist priest and wrote a lot on the topic of God.

 

As far as I can tell, Charlie is not making a religious argument and we may be doing a disservice by making it into one.

 

~modest

[CharlieO]

Seem like I asked a simple question, qualified it with a detailed observation that, in my humble opinion, the most popular two theories being promoted in textbooks and quoted in scientific articles might be illogical, even absurd, and every word becomes the focus of an inquisition by some forum members.

 

Then, Creationism is introduced, even though I will admit I know very little about the subject; never thought it was worth the time of day. Apparently some are so totally paranoid over the prospect of a creationist asking a question they see one behind every question.

 

Now I find I'm being charged with being devious for asking a simple question about a subject few others seem to have ever questioned. Seems to me some members are being far too sensitive about their dogmatic beliefs. At least that is what it seems to me from what some members have posted.

 

Since the subject of religion was raised, I have to admit I'm not very religious, hardly Christian, albeit a former Board Chairman of my [non-Christian] Church. Sort of between Atheist and Agnostic, with sincere respect for the members of all religions who respect others, even Creationists.

 

My past includes hands-on research into the properties of hydrogen, especially hydrogen embrittlement; which remains a serious industrial problem. I once worked for Shell Oil, which was experiencing considerable financial loss in the process of completing deep borehole wells. Later, I worked for the USAF where compressor blade failures were destroying engines without warning, most often on takeoff; killing pilots and crews in the process.

 

This also proved to be the result of hydrogen embrittlement, due to incorrect annealing procedures; as suspected by Wright-Pat ADC, which is why I was hired. I ended up testifying before a congressional sub-committee against a major defense contractor. That was an experience I don't want to repeat. In the end, I was denounced, vilified and all but tarred and feathered. Apparently, it is hard to try to save lives at the expense of a defense contractor's profits. [in the end, pilots were ordered to “Fly until failure.” Which is one reason why zero altitude ejection seats were introduced.]

 

So, to make a long story shorter, which was made clearly evident in earlier threads, I began to question the dogmatic belief in Earth having an iron-nickel core. This started when I enrolled in an Earth Science class was taught Earth first had a hydrogen core during its initial formation, which was then vaporized and vented into space by the near instantaneous arrival of enormous amounts of iron. I was fascinated by the prospect of there being two popular and conflicting theories of iron arriving after formation and vaporizing Earth's original hydrogen core. I concluded both were more science fiction than fact. Both of these theories were discussed in my original statement leading to my simple question.

 

Again, I don't know if Earth's core is iron or hydrogen or green cheese. Apparently, I'm not alone in suspecting iron may not fill the bill and others with far more research experience than me have come to the same conclusion. [iron becomes too dense at core pressures to be Earth's core.] Currently, some think Earth's core may be iron alloyed with a lighter element, most often given as hydrogen, with potassium a close second.

 

So I'm curious about the fact that hydrogen was thought by so many to be Earth's initial core then iron somehow arrived in enormous quantities and vaporized the hydrogen, which vented into space. Thus my question, “Is there a more plausible theory about how such an enormous amount of iron became Earth's core?”

 

So far one member has suggested Earth might have been formed within a dust ring of iron particles. If so there never was a hydrogen core. Another has provided a more complex theory which doesn't seem to apply to some other galactic masses and I'm still trying to fully understand it. It may in fact be the correct answer. In any event, if any are so afraid of my simple question that they make illogical assumptions, with no basis in fact, then have to resort to utter rubbish, that's their problem. I'm only interested in understanding how Earth's core became iron or hydrogen or a combination of both or something else. Therefore, I asked a question, thinking this forum might be able to provide the answer. Still hope so.

[Turtle]

Wasn't the book that Charlie was pointing out: Earth Has a Cold Heart: The Hydrogen Core Theory by Neil B. Christianson (here)? I don't know if it has creationist content or not—but even if it does, I'm not sure it's terribly appropriate to be asking Charlie if he agrees with Christianson's religious views. As I was saying earlier, it's plenty appropriate for people to reference Lemaître's work even though he was a creationist priest and wrote a lot on the topic of God.

 

As far as I can tell, Charlie is not making a religious argument and we may be doing a disservice by making it into one.

 

~modest

 

Chucky pointed out an author; I pointed out a book by that author. If I'm being inappropriate, I'm sure someone will report it. :shrug: It would be an extreme kindness to say the premise of Earth having an hydrogen core is anything other than outside mainstream geology; it is a silly claim.

 

Here's Chuckle's first post, first paragraph:

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? ...

 

Right out of the gate this is an attack on science (let alone a major physics misunderstanding) and it hasn't changed in tone one whit since. No, I won't take this thread out of the context of all of what Charlie has written. (If I knew more about Lemaître's BS I'd lambaste him too as after all I've done as much for Descartes and his ontological proofs of God. )

 

Anyway, carry on and I'll criticize the pertinent points as we go. :)