Charlie your comments in this post are a bit weird. Not a flame, condemnation or whatever.
Quote:
|
Eaarth's formation in an iron-rich ring of dust and gases is a new one for me. How very convenient. How equally unlikely, but a good attempt and perhaps even possible. At least someone may not be committed to dogmatic assumptions.
|
This paragraph for instance appears to be full of uncertainties on your part.
Quote:
|
Which is why I find the Grand Bombardment theory so stupid, when the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Jupiter is considered. Hard to believe some so-called scientists would even consider 'swarms' of iron-rich micro-planets attacking only Earth in a short (?) period of time and making it molten, while the swarms apparently ignored the Sun and Jupiter.
|
Then you anthropomorphise the situation and ridicule a theory that you hint you don't understand.
Quote:
|
Apparently, the usual assumptions made in amother thread are still being vented
|
Quote:
|
Apparently, the fact that no one really knows for sure seems to have hit a nerve.
|
Next you suggest that you are being treated poorly. I've seen a lot of good information from some knowledgeable sources.
From the beginning you did say:
Quote:
|
I don't know if Earth has an iron core or a hydrogen core, albeit the latter seems more likely to me;
|
So you sided with hydrogen in the original post and people went to some length to show that hydrogen doesn't work, but iron does.
Next your post reviews some material suggesting iron as the core. But you point out that iron is a small amount of the known mass of the universe. After you described a theory you came up with a few paragraphs why this theory does not make sense to you. Then you mention another theory and dismiss that as well.
The problem here is that step 1 was to address the claim that hydrogen was more likely the core of the earth. Now you want to go on to step 2 which is to gain a better understanding of theories about the formation of the earth.
