Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by 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

I'm disinclined to let Charlie off the hook as he mentioned a creationist book touting this hydrogen core business in the 8th post of his intro 2 years ago and has beaten this dead horse to a pulp ever since. Perhpas someone recommended Neil B. Christainson's Two Hundred Years Astray: The Epistle To The Creationists book to Charlie because he's Christian and he, being a simple farm boy in his own words, simply latched on & took it for a ride like it was another Bible. The source of all this hydrogen core and hydroplate and other such pseudo-scientific rubbish about Earth geology is the bass-ackwards attempt to come up with pseudo-scientific babble to match a view of Genesis. That's it, plain & simple. (That's a Fundamentalist Christian view of Genesis by the by, as you won't find any Jews or Muslims in here pushin' this agenda. )

I appreciate the explanations here by Modest, & Pyro et al; it's good stuff. I also know these creationists not only invade our forum with great regularity, but pursue in the US a vigorous effort to get this crap in our public schools. Not on my watch folks; not on my watch.

So, either Chuckles is deceived or deceiving or both, but I'll leave it to him to speak to that.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I'm disinclined to let Charlie off the hook as he mentioned a creationist book touting this hydrogen core business in the 8th post of his intro 2 years ago and has beaten this dead horse to a pulp ever since. Perhpas someone recommended Neil B. Christainson's Two Hundred Years Astray: The Epistle To The Creationists book to Charlie because he's Christian and he, being a simple farm boy in his own words, simply latched on & took it for a ride like it was another Bible.

Wasn't the book that Charlie was pointing out: Earth Has a Cold Heart: The Hydrogen Core Theory by Neil B. Christianson (here)? I don't know if it has creationist content or not—but even if it does, I'm not sure it's terribly appropriate to be asking Charlie if he agrees with Christianson's religious views. As I was saying earlier, it's plenty appropriate for people to reference Lemaître's work even though he was a creationist priest and wrote a lot on the topic of God.

As far as I can tell, Charlie is not making a religious argument and we may be doing a disservice by making it into one.

~modest

[CharlieO]

Seem like I asked a simple question, qualified it with a detailed observation that, in my humble opinion, the most popular two theories being promoted in textbooks and quoted in scientific articles might be illogical, even absurd, and every word becomes the focus of an inquisition by some forum members.

Then, Creationism is introduced, even though I will admit I know very little about the subject; never thought it was worth the time of day. Apparently some are so totally paranoid over the prospect of a creationist asking a question they see one behind every question.

Now I find I'm being charged with being devious for asking a simple question about a subject few others seem to have ever questioned. Seems to me some members are being far too sensitive about their dogmatic beliefs. At least that is what it seems to me from what some members have posted.

Since the subject of religion was raised, I have to admit I'm not very religious, hardly Christian, albeit a former Board Chairman of my [non-Christian] Church. Sort of between Atheist and Agnostic, with sincere respect for the members of all religions who respect others, even Creationists.

My past includes hands-on research into the properties of hydrogen, especially hydrogen embrittlement; which remains a serious industrial problem. I once worked for Shell Oil, which was experiencing considerable financial loss in the process of completing deep borehole wells. Later, I worked for the USAF where compressor blade failures were destroying engines without warning, most often on takeoff; killing pilots and crews in the process.

This also proved to be the result of hydrogen embrittlement, due to incorrect annealing procedures; as suspected by Wright-Pat ADC, which is why I was hired. I ended up testifying before a congressional sub-committee against a major defense contractor. That was an experience I don't want to repeat. In the end, I was denounced, vilified and all but tarred and feathered. Apparently, it is hard to try to save lives at the expense of a defense contractor's profits. [In the end, pilots were ordered to “Fly until failure.” Which is one reason why zero altitude ejection seats were introduced.]

So, to make a long story shorter, which was made clearly evident in earlier threads, I began to question the dogmatic belief in Earth having an iron-nickel core. This started when I enrolled in an Earth Science class was taught Earth first had a hydrogen core during its initial formation, which was then vaporized and vented into space by the near instantaneous arrival of enormous amounts of iron. I was fascinated by the prospect of there being two popular and conflicting theories of iron arriving after formation and vaporizing Earth's original hydrogen core. I concluded both were more science fiction than fact. Both of these theories were discussed in my original statement leading to my simple question.

Again, I don't know if Earth's core is iron or hydrogen or green cheese. Apparently, I'm not alone in suspecting iron may not fill the bill and others with far more research experience than me have come to the same conclusion. [Iron becomes too dense at core pressures to be Earth's core.] Currently, some think Earth's core may be iron alloyed with a lighter element, most often given as hydrogen, with potassium a close second.

So I'm curious about the fact that hydrogen was thought by so many to be Earth's initial core then iron somehow arrived in enormous quantities and vaporized the hydrogen, which vented into space. Thus my question, “Is there a more plausible theory about how such an enormous amount of iron became Earth's core?”

So far one member has suggested Earth might have been formed within a dust ring of iron particles. If so there never was a hydrogen core. Another has provided a more complex theory which doesn't seem to apply to some other galactic masses and I'm still trying to fully understand it. It may in fact be the correct answer. In any event, if any are so afraid of my simple question that they make illogical assumptions, with no basis in fact, then have to resort to utter rubbish, that's their problem. I'm only interested in understanding how Earth's core became iron or hydrogen or a combination of both or something else. Therefore, I asked a question, thinking this forum might be able to provide the answer. Still hope so.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by modest

Wasn't the book that Charlie was pointing out: Earth Has a Cold Heart: The Hydrogen Core Theory by Neil B. Christianson (here)? I don't know if it has creationist content or not—but even if it does, I'm not sure it's terribly appropriate to be asking Charlie if he agrees with Christianson's religious views. As I was saying earlier, it's plenty appropriate for people to reference Lemaître's work even though he was a creationist priest and wrote a lot on the topic of God.

As far as I can tell, Charlie is not making a religious argument and we may be doing a disservice by making it into one.

~modest

Chucky pointed out an author; I pointed out a book by that author. If I'm being inappropriate, I'm sure someone will report it. It would be an extreme kindness to say the premise of Earth having an hydrogen core is anything other than outside mainstream geology; it is a silly claim.

Here's Chuckle's first post, first paragraph:

Being an old farm boy, I'm a great believer of what can be demonstrated to be a physical fact. In reading many of the forums, I'm amazed at all the assumptions which have become 'scientific' dogma.

For example: Does anyone truley believe a spinning earth would have a largely iron core? ...

Right out of the gate this is an attack on science (let alone a major physics misunderstanding) and it hasn't changed in tone one whit since. No, I won't take this thread out of the context of all of what Charlie has written. (If I knew more about Lemaître's BS I'd lambaste him too as after all I've done as much for Descartes and his ontological proofs of God. )

Anyway, carry on and I'll criticize the pertinent points as we go.

[freeztar]

It seems that Charlie is asking two different questions: 1) Is the Earth's core made of Hydrogen and 2) If it is made of iron, how did it form?

I'm quite certain that we've falsified the first question. Do you have any objections, Charlie?

The second question is more difficult to answer. Yet, we have lots of evidence for the mainstream theory of Earth formation. This is not to say that accretion and Solar System processes are completely understood and correct, but the main theory we have agrees with observations. An Earth inner-core composed of iron and nickel agrees with theory. A core of H2 does not match observations, from seismographs to ambient atmospheric readings.

So, why is an iron core puzzling? Is it puzzling because you can not account for its inception or is it puzzling because H2 is a better candidate in your view?

[CharlieO]

So the witch hunt continues. What part of “Where did all the iron supposedly in Earth's core come from” inspire Turtle's personal vendetta? Now, I've been the object of a personal vendetta that included never being able to work for a defense contractor or major USA industry since I blew the whistle on dangerous jet engines. Which why I ended up being an engineer for British Leyland cars. This current micro examination of every word and seeking some devious intent behind simple phrases is child's play.

[Turtle] Try your best shot again, so far you've been way off base.

I suggest Turtle takes the time to look up 'Epistle' as it seems to have scared him silly in that he thinks it smacks of Creationism. Epistle is a 'Directive sent to inform groups.' I don't have clue as to what Neil's religious beliefs might be and I don't intend to ask him. He did rip up the Creationists' views in his book and tried to get them to understand the Earth is a lot older and more complex than they claim.

[Turtle] Read a review of Neil's book first, then you won't make have to make stupid assumptions over misunderstanding one word in a book title. You will appear a lot less foolish in the future.

As for Neil, he is a real rocket scientist. Once Chief of the Titan Missile program in the Pentagon. He also suspects the many and varied claims about how Earth acquired an iron core, which supposedly vaporized the original hydrogen core, are largely illogical and details his reasons in this book. I'm also aware he has recently revised calculations for the density of materials in Earth's mantle, which allows for a much less dense core. [More Mantle density equals less Core density, thus even less possibility for the Core to largely be iron.] This paper should appear in a peer review journal in the coming months.

Oh yes, I've just been made aware of a fifth theory about iron replacing hydrogen in Earth's core; The Gravitational Collapse Theory. Don't have time to go into detail. May do so later this evening. Sorry, got to get back to my duties, but couldn't leave Turtle's latest tirade to fester any longer.

Still curious about any other more plausible theories on how Earth got such an extraordinary amount of iron it its core, if that be the case. Still trying to understand the water-iron theory. If anyone can explain it in simpler terms for a simple old car mechanic who started out repairing tractors on the family farm, please try.

Enjoy. Charlie

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at the chemistry of oxygen, atomic oxygen will gain stability by completing its octet, which amounts to getting electrons to occupy the entire P-orbital. O can do this by sharing electrons, such as in H2O, O2, CO2. It can also do this by forming oxides with metals where oxygen becomes O-2. There will then be a charge attraction to a cation such as M+, M+2, M+3, which has lost electrons (M is a metal), to form ionic compounds such as K2O, MgO, FeO, Fe2O3, Al2O3, etc.

Let us look at the elemental composition of the earth, as shown below. Although there is more weight of iron than oxygen, atomic iron has over three times the atomic mass oxygen. This implies there are roughly three oxygen atoms for every iron atom each which would like up to 2 electrons for the octet.

We also have Mg and Si as the next two big guns, with both having a higher atomic mass than O. If we leave out the Fe, as giving any electrons to O, to complete its octet, the atom count implies most of the O on the earth could not reach O-1 or O-2. This would cause is a potential on the earth for O to draw out electrons to complete its octet.

Earth | Moon
1 2 3 | 4
----------------------+------
Fe 34.6 29.3 29.9 | 9.3
O 29.5 30.7 30.9 | 42.0
Si 15.2 14.7 17.4 | 19.6
Mg 12.7 15.8 15.9 | 18.7
Ca 1.1 1.5 1.9 | 4.3
Al 1.1 1.3 1.4 | 4.2
Ni 2.4 1.7 1.7 | 0.6
Na 0.6 0.3 0.9 | 0.07
S 1.9 4.7 - | 0.3

If we leave out the iron, this drawing out of electrons to complete the octet should be causing other materials to become more positive but there is a limit, and the earth should have been generating covalent materials such as O2 to reduce the electron requirement of the O. But we assume the early earth had no O2. Another way the O could have been satisfied is with H to form H+, which combines with water to form the stable H3O+. This scenario would have made the oceans acidic, but the oceans are basic.

It reduces to two ways to get this to add up. First, the iron of the core already did its corrosion thing at the beginning and the core is form of iron oxide (ferric and ferrous) to satisfy the octet of oxygen. Magnetic lodestone is found in nature, which is iron oxide, so this scenario could still create a magnetic field.

The second alternative is the original metallic iron core is the process of rusting, with a current of electrons being drawn to satisfy the lingering requirement of the assumed amount of O. This could still maintain the magnetic properties of the core since both Fe and FeO are magnetic, but it could have an impact on field direction depending on where the current is stronger due the insulating effect of oxides.

Another thing to consider is magnetic iron is due to the outer electrons of iron having the same spin direction. Although this is stable, it is at higher energy than if one of the electrons had opposite spin for electron wave addition. This higher energy state is one step closer to ionization and could be a natural artifact of O sucking out electrons. The O with potential should stay closer to the iron core, since this is the best bet for electrons, since the crust material is mostly deplete of electrons in the form of stable mineral oxides.

What is also interesting is going from Fe to Fe+2 to finally to Fe+3, might satisfy the O octet requirement. The moon has so little Fe, maybe the the Fe+3 stage would have formed earlier and could be why it lost if magnetic field.

[Turtle]

All I see from Chuckles is rants about "stupid" scientists and their dogma for the past 2 years, including out of hand dismissal of the responses from Ecoglite, Pyrotex, Modest, Janus, etcetera, etcetera. If this was anything but a silly claim, then we'd be referencing peer-reviewed material supporting a hydrogen core. Show me the money. I strongly urge you all to read all of Mr. O's posts and see this is trolling pure & simple, whatever the motivation.

Science is always amendable, a fact which seems to only fuel Chuckle's disdain, and yet were it not for science there would be no discussion of a core at all. For what it's worth, some amendation of what we know about Earth's iron core.
Computer simulations strongly support new theory of Earth's core

...In this new study the researchers present simulations of how seismic waves are reproduced in iron under the conditions that prevail in the core of the earth, showing a difference of about 12 percent depending on their direction-*which suffices as an explanation for the puzzling observations. First the trajectories of movement were calculated for several million atoms in strong interaction with each other. On this basis, the scientists were then able to determine that the progress of the sound waves was actually accurately described in the computer-generated model for iron under the conditions prevailing in the core of the earth.

“We found that the body-centered cubic structure of iron is the only structure that could correspond to the experimental observations,” says Börje Johansson, professor of condensed-matter theory at Uppsala University. ...

[modest]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Earth | Moon
1 2 3 | 4
----------------------+------
Fe 34.6 29.3 29.9 | 9.3
O 29.5 30.7 30.9 | 42.0
Si 15.2 14.7 17.4 | 19.6
Mg 12.7 15.8 15.9 | 18.7
Ca 1.1 1.5 1.9 | 4.3
Al 1.1 1.3 1.4 | 4.2
Ni 2.4 1.7 1.7 | 0.6
Na 0.6 0.3 0.9 | 0.07
S 1.9 4.7 - | 0.3

It might be interesting to label these further. The columns are:

1 32.4% iron meteorite (with 5.3% FeS) and 67.6% oxide portion of bronzite chondrites.
2 40% Type I carbonaceous chondrite, 50% ordinary chondrite, and 10% iron meteorite (containing 15% sulphur).
3 Nonvolatile portion of Type I carbonaceous chondrites with FeO/FeO+ MgO of 0.12 and sufficient SiO2 reduced to Si to yield a metal/silicate ratio of 32/68.
4 Based on Ca, Al, Ti = 5 x Type I carbonaceous chondrites; FeO = 12% to accommodate lunar density; and Si/Mg = chondritic ratio.

Geol 456/656 - Composition of the Earth

I think you touch on a good point. Were earth to have a composition exactly equal to chondrites we would not expect a metalic iron/nickle core. I find this rather interesting. What we would get is described here:

Finally, it is worth reiterating that the division into layers depends critically upon the amounts of available oxygen and sulphur. If the Earth were made of literally carbonaceous chondrite material (as in Fig. 5.3), which is strongly oxidized, it would be almost entirely lithophilic with a small chalcophilic core (about 20% of its mass as FeS) and no free metal. Because the Earth has quite a large core (32% of its mass), it follows that, if in all other respects its chemistry is akin to carbonaceous chondrites, it mist have lost a few percent of oxygen. Thus, the overall oxidation state of a planet may determine the size of its core, whether there is a metallic region, and the position of the boundaries between the respective layers.

The Inaccessible Earth -- page 82

Of course, with a deficit of oxygen it's not unusual that Iron looses it's oxygen to silicates as it has a lower melting point and oxygen is a Lithophile element.

~modest

[Moontanman]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the earth was made up of chondrites. If it had been there would be much more carbon and water than we see on the earth. the collision that formed the moon can account for the loss of the water and even some oxygen (as part of the water) but not the loss of carbon. The feeding zone of the earth and the inner planets was evidently not composed exclusively of chondrites or even mostly of them. Possibly chondrites formed farther from the sun and were driven into the inner solar system from the area of Jupiter or beyond in the form of comet like bodies that evaporated into what we see as chondrites.