Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[CraigD]

Conversely, the same deep, now ABANDONED mines, which have been closed for many years, all become very cold with increasing depth. [been there.] I can also report that every NATURAL cavern and cave, with some caverns in France over 3,000 feet deep, ALL grow colder with depth. [been there too.]

These are extraordinary claims, CharlieO, but even if they were entirely ordinary, as with all claims posted at hypography, need to be backed up by references, preferably links to online sources. Speaking as a moderator, “been there” doesn’t qualify as such a source – unless you happened to have made a methodical study when you were there, and published you observations in a peer-reviewed (or even – though less preferably – self-published) publication, in which case you should provide a link, or at least a citation, to the published work.

 

Without this, a claim, no matter how strongly your personal experience leads you to conclude it true, simply isn’t scientifically credible, but is merely one person’s anecdote.

[Pyrotex]

Thank ... I may start a thread about the ridicule thing if I can find a forum 'room' that supports the topic. ...

We do not have such a 'room' in Hypography and we have no valid reason for creating one.

 

Hypography frequently has visitors who have beliefs, agendas and 'theories' that are not compatible with what is currently known and verified about our world. Many of these visitors interpret our attempts to direct them to the facts, or to demonstrate to them the valid use of logic and reasoning, as the feeling that they have been 'ridiculed'. This is not the case. What has happened is that we have declined their point of view; we have disagreed; we have demonstrated that their 'theories' have major flaws.

 

Some visitors, and CharlieO may be in this group, have been working steadfastly on their 'theory' for years. And to have it critiqued (negatively) by folks with access to vast resources of scientific training, experience and education can be somewhat of a shock.

 

Sorry, Dorothy, but THIS is not the land of Oz, anymore. This is Kansas, where the real laws of nature fully apply, and there are no exceptions. Some folks take disagreement much better than others. Some have invested years of their lives in their 'theories' -- but that is and must be irrelevant to Science. Theories are judged entirely on the basis of scientific merit and rigourous logic.

 

This is what successful scientists HAVE to go through to get their 'theories' accepted. Some (eventually successful) scientists spent decades gathering enough data to validate their pet ideas, and get them accepted into the canon of Science. Nobody gets a free pass. Everybody has to overcome this resistance. There is no conspiracy to exclude anybody. There is only the demand that EVERY 'theory' answer EVERY question and criticism thrown at it. ALL the current theories that Science hold as "fact" had to go through this same process. And so does CharlieO's 'theory'.

 

Welcome to the Real World.

[stereologist]

Stereologist will keep you on your toes. He apparently likes to nit-pick at details and confuse issues, such as: “Your Robert Boyle claim also does not apply to mines below 2000 feet since no one was able to mine to that depth in his time.”

 

I don't know how deep the specific mine was about which he was investigating, only his opinion as to the source of the increased heating in “deeper” mines; which is the point Stereologist apparently tried to confuse or didn't understand.

 

Hardly a nit pick. You posted this blatant mistake for what purpose? Picking information from historical sources in which the science has drastically changed does not support a position.

 

I have also actively investigated Heat Flow activity and found it to be largely dependent on solar radiation. Something I doubt if any others in the Science Forum have done or fully understand.

 

This is not true. If solar radiation were the source for the earth's internal heat then we'd expect to see higher temperatures at the surface. It's the other way around. Temperature goes up as you travel downward. The gradient is in the other direction CharlieO. The amount of solar radiation coming to the earth is only part of the story. The earth is in a state where most of the energy arriving is also lost. If that were not true, then the earth would be increasing in temperature.

 

Finally I would like to extend Boerseun's point that what you say can't even be a scientific theory since a theory addresses empirical data.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Finally I would like to extend Boerseun's point that what you say can't even be a scientific theory since a theory addresses empirical data.

 

This is what successful scientists HAVE to go through to get their 'theories' accepted. Some (eventually successful) scientists spent decades gathering enough data to validate their pet ideas, and get them accepted into the canon of Science. Nobody gets a free pass.

 

Not so, with all due respect. String theory has no empirical evidence to back it up, nor has it made a verifiable prediction. I could most likely come up with a few more. Maybe saying 'most' scientific theory has empirical evidence to back it up would be more accurate. So you see your statement might not be as accurate as it could be. However, I will say that string theory is falsifiable, so it meets the definition for scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion. Free Passes might not exist , but discount passes sure do!

 

; {>

 

String theory under scrutiny - physicsworld.com

[RevOfAllRevs]

We do not have such a 'room' in Hypography and we have no valid reason for creating one.

 

Hypography frequently has visitors who have beliefs, agendas and 'theories' that are not compatible with what is currently known and verified about our world. Many of these visitors interpret our attempts to direct them to the facts, or to demonstrate to them the valid use of logic and reasoning, as the feeling that they have been 'ridiculed'.

 

Well I feel that I could of jumped all over stereologist for making a (mild) blunder that concerns basic science but I didn't, for a reason. I don't feel the need to ridicule our members! It doesn't serve any propose except to alienate many readers and of course the subject of the ridicule! Hostility and ridicule have no place in a science forum IMO. Even saying things like 'welcome to the real world' serves only as insult, or at least it seems like one from where I sit. It's not necessary and only harms doesn't it?

 

; {>

[Zythryn]

Rev, people take offense where none is offered quite often.

Many of the posters we have seen here in the past actually use that fact to distract from the fact their opinions don't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Your comment about stereologist 'making a (mild) blunder' could just as easily be interpreted as an insult.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Rev, people take offense where none is offered quite often.

Many of the posters we have seen here in the past actually use that fact to distract from the fact their opinions don't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Your comment about stereologist 'making a (mild) blunder' could just as easily be interpreted as an insult.

 

I could deal with insults and hostility like that. How exactly would you describe a mistake of basic science when science is whats done here and everyone is expected to have basic knowledge? The difference is intent. I tried to make my remark civil. Just look at some of the comments directed at Charlie O and tell me that the intent of those remarks were nice. No many of them were meant to ridicule. In any case do you agree with my comments about string theory?

 

; {>

[stereologist]

Well I feel that I could of jumped all over stereologist for making a (mild) blunder that concerns basic science but I didn't, for a reason.

 

This was a blunder on my part. The reason I am here is to learn and RevOfAllRevs taught me something interesting. Thanks. Your point was well stated and I was wrong.

[stereologist]

Just to gather more information here on the concept of string theory.

 

In mathematics I think of a theory as a collection of theorems. RevOfAllRevs, would you consider string theory a mathematical theory or a scientific theory? I have no idea.

[RevOfAllRevs]

This was a blunder on my part. The reason I am here is to learn and RevOfAllRevs taught me something interesting. Thanks. Your point was well stated and I was wrong.

 

You are welcome and I am sorry if I came across as mean or hostile I didn't mean it that way.

 

; }>

[modest]

Let's stay on topic folks --> "Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling".

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Ok, I'll take up the OP idea, iron core of the Earth, it really doesn't matter, cold, hot, or moderate the mass and the gravitational pull at the Earth's surface can only be explained by the Earth being made up of mostly iron. To off set the low density of the crust takes a Iron core. Seismic waves show a differentiated very dense core under the mantel of the earth. Is there another element that is more likely to make up the earths core? Cold or hot the core of the earth has to be made of a very dense element, iron is the most probable one by orders of magnitude.

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior/

 

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070330_earth_temperature.html

[RevOfAllRevs]

To the moderator feel free to move this if need be

 

Just to gather more information here on the concept of string theory.

 

In mathematics I think of a theory as a collection of theorems. RevOfAllRevs, would you consider string theory a mathematical theory or a scientific theory? I have no idea.

 

Well thanks for your interest in my opinion. I am not a scientist, but rather a degreed expert in theology. While I am not a expert in string theory I have researched it in order to discuss advanced theology as it relates to space time and other scientific theories and ideas. Is string theory a valid scientific theory? There has been some controversy on this. I would say its debatable but as I said, yes, because ST is falsifiable it meets the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion*.

 

* Google descriptive paragraph included to aid the reader to decide if he wants to access the link.

 

POPPER'S PRINCIPLE OF FALSIFIABILITY AND THE IRREFUTABILITY OF THE ...

of the scientific character of the cycle, in the light of Karl Popper's criteria for demarcating between science and non-science, suggests that persistence ...

doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1980.00310.x

 

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

 

 

; }>

 

ps to the thread author and other members; sorry to get off topic I was answering a members question.

[RevOfAllRevs]

(Excerpt) Is there another element that is more likely to make up the earths core? Cold or hot the core of the earth has to be made of a very dense element, iron is the most probable one by orders of magnitude.

 

The Interior of the Earth

 

Earth's Inner Temperature Taken: It's Hot! | LiveScience

 

I am not aware of another material other than Fe that has been said to make up the majority of the earths core. We are fairly sure that the outer core consists primarily of nickel/ iron (Ni and Fe).It appears to be molten, with about 10% sulfur (S). The inner core is under such extreme pressure that it remains solid and the last thing I read on the subject is pure Fe. So Iron and sulfur (and perhaps other elements in very small amounts) are the only materials that I am aware of that the earths core is made of. However the other planets have cores that are different than earths.

 

; }>

[RevOfAllRevs]

An inner inner core has been confirmed and that is fascinating. I wouldn't think the inner inner core wouldn't have any effect on heat production. I wonder if this inner inner core will effect what we know about the geodynamo that generates Earth's magnetic field ?

 

; {>

[Pyrotex]

Not so, with all due respect. String theory has no empirical evidence to back it up, nor has it made a verifiable prediction. I could most likely come up with a few more. ...

And with all due respect, nonsense. String theory (ST) is not even close to being an accepted canon of Science. It is in the same position as CharlieO's theory: under attack from all sides to whatever extent empirical evidence makes this possible. Yes, ST has no empirical evidence to back it up, and many of us believe that will eventually do it in. The only thing ST has going for it is that, so far, nobody has enough solid empirical evidence to disprove it either. This deadlocked state of affairs has lasted longer than most controversies in Physics have in the past.

 

If ST can be said to be enjoying a "free ride" to any extent, it is because there is not a great deal of competition. The current "accepted" theories of the nature of the sub-nuclear realm don't reach down far enough to make predictions that support or contradict ST.

 

You said you could come up with a few more scientific theories [that enjoyed a "free ride"].

Okay, I'll see your bet, and call.

[RevOfAllRevs]

And with all due respect, nonsense. String theory (ST) is not even close to being an accepted >>>brevity snip<<<

Okay, I'll see your bet, and call.

 

Ha ha hee hee ...Calm down I fear you are going to have a stroke. I don't even fully know what you mean by that reply. Do you support string theory or not? I said it did meet the definition of a scientific theory as per Popperian criterion. And this is off topic. Start a new thread if you wish I have my hands full with the ones I have.

 

; {>