Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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

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

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

...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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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!