Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[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]

Originally Posted by stereologist

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/environme...mperature.html

[RevOfAllRevs]

To the moderator feel free to move this if need be

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

(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]

Originally Posted by RevOfAllRevs

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]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

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.

; {>

[modest]

Originally Posted by RevOfAllRevs

I am not aware of another material other than Fe that has been said to make up the majority of the earths core....

CharlieO is proposing that the earth might have a metallic hydrogen core. This idea runs into many problems. Moontanman rightly points out that Hydrogen even at core pressures is not dense enough to account for earth's total mass. See posts #1, #6, #10, and #58.

Pyrotex, I found data relevant to the other thread... in case you're still analyzing the stuff ColdCo sent you:

Cold Core Model of Earth's Structure

~modest