Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[RevOfAllRevs]

No worries, with the other actions I thought you were stalking me for sure. Will you contact the administrator and tell him or her what happened ? I will back you up.

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

Originally Posted by modest

Rev,

Boerseun clearly meant to address the post to Charlie and mistakenly addressed it to you. I would think that should be rather obvious. There's no need to compound a simple mistake with an aggressive response.

~modest

Your not wearing my shoes and don't know whats going on behind the scenes.

; {>

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

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]

Originally Posted by RevOfAllRevs

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]

Originally Posted by stereologist

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.

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.