Belief in Earth's Iron Core still puzzling

[modest]

Originally Posted by 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.

I should have been more clear, I'm not saying that it's in any way puzzling that earth's composition contains less oxygen than straight chondrites. On the contrary, I'd find it odd if it did. Especially, as you point out, considering Theia stripped away a disproportionate amount of oxides sending hardly any iron to the moon. What I found interesting was that a few percentage points of oxygen would completely do away with our metallic core.

~modest

[Moontanman]

I've read hypothesis that indicate the outer liquid core could contain a significant amount of sulfates, I see no reason some oxides might not be present as well. Is not he heat, 10,000 degrees plus, and the pressures at the core enough to squeeze out oxygen?

[modest]

Charlie,

I think Turtle makes a very valid point. Your posts seem very hostile toward science and you quite often seem to disregard very good and direct answers that people are giving you.

If you consider the leftover ingredients of planet formation which are floating around the solar system; they are stony and iron/nickle meteoroids. They contain almost the exact elemental composition of the sun with the exception of Hydrogen and Helium (and a few other gas-forming elements). Pyrotex has given you a good explanation for this observation. In the hot accretion disc around our protostar hydrogen and helium did not condense—they remained gaseous.

So, we know the composition of these small planetesimals and they are literally the pieces that the earth was made from. Earth and the rest of the inner planets never accreted hydrogen because it isn't massive enough. As you pointed out extensively in another thread: earth looses hydrogen. It doesn't gravitationally accrete free hydrogen from the solar system.

The Jovian planets are different. They formed beyond the frost line (or "snow line") far enough from the sun that hydrogen compounds like water, ammonia, and methane could freeze. This would logically mean the planetesimals in the outer solar system had more material to work with (not being limited to stony and metallic elements and molecules). The Jovian planets would have formed faster and larger gaining enough mass to capture the light gasses hydrogen and helium.

Once a planet starts accreting the hydrogen and helium around it, it would grow extremely quickly since there's so much of it available. It seems quite clear that's what happened to the Jovian planets.

If you think there's a major problem with this hypothesis then you should outline the exact nature of this problem and how you think a hydrogen core fixes it. Railing against science and the people in this thread does not advance your cause.

~modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I've read hypothesis that indicate the outer liquid core could contain a significant amount of sulfates, I see no reason some oxides might not be present as well. Is not he heat, 10,000 degrees plus, and the pressures at the core enough to squeeze out oxygen?

Your right, it could well be oxygen. Oxygen's solubility in liquid iron increases with pressure, so it is possible and I believe I've seen a theory proposing it. I'll edit it onto this post if I can find it.

~modest

**** edit ****

Here we are:

The solubility of oxygen in metallic thus increases with increasing pressure... Our results are consistent with a geochemical model for the core containing 5.8 wt% oxygen and 1.9 wt % sulfur as proposed by McDonough and Sun (1995) [5].

OXYGEN SOLUBILITY IN IRON MELTS AT HIGH PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES: EXPERIMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ON TERRESTRIAL PLANETARY CORE FORMATION.

[HydrogenBond]

Let us do this a different way. Say we took the earth and atomized it, at high temperature, and let it cool. Based on the atomic composition that is assumed, what would we get? Under those conditions there is enough O to oxidize the iron. Therefore, if the iron in the core is not oxidized, wouldn't that give O a potential?

One work around this is to atomize the earth and feed in electrons from an external source to saturate the requirement of O, so it will leave the iron alone. But I don't know of any huge source of bare + charge or electron deficient molecules.

There is another possible work-around. The octet requirement of O is something that is stronger at ambient conditions compared to high temperature. At room temperature one can not make atomic O for more than a milli-sec before it tries to strip off or share an electron. But at higher temperature or energy, atomic O can be made because the octet electrons remain ionized.

What that suggests is if there was an iron core, and O was at high temperature it would have less affinity for the electrons of iron. But one would also have to assume if the O is octet ionized iron is having a problem holding onto all its electrons. But with O not in need for these electrons they remain part of the metallic iron matrix.

As the atomic oxygen cools closer to the surface, the potential for the octet electrons increases, with a maximum near ambient (more or less). If there is any hydrogen trying to escape the crust, the O will takes its electrons. As the surface materials lose their ability to supply electrons to O (saturated), there could be a potential remaining. Plants making O2 is one way to lower this potential or the spontaneous generation of O2 would be another way to help lower the O potential. Another way could be to conduct electrons from the core since the iron has plenty of electrons to spare.

[Moontanman]

HB, if iron was the only element involved you might have a point but I think other elements have higher affinity for oxygen than iron and subsequently there would still be lots of iron left over. We do have free oxygen in our atmosphere but it not anywhere near enough to oxidize even a large percentage of the iron in the earth. All the rest of our oxygen is taken up by other elements many of which have a higher affinity for oxygen than iron. The oxygen in silicon is simply unavailable to any chemical reaction plausible in the earth. i don't see where you would get the oxygen to oxidize the iron in earths core.

[modest]

Originally Posted by HydorgenBond

Let us do this a different way. Say we took the earth and atomized it, at high temperature, and let it cool. Based on the atomic composition that is assumed, what would we get? Under those conditions there is enough O to oxidize the iron. Therefore, if the iron in the core is not oxidized, wouldn't that give O a potential?

One work around this is to atomize the earth and feed in electrons from an external source to saturate the requirement of O, so it will leave the iron alone. But I don't know of any huge source of bare + charge or electron deficient molecules.

Yeah, I agree with MTM. Also, even if you only consider iron I still believe the quote above is not correct. The mantle can be oxidized by simple disproportionation of iron:



creating plenty of metal iron for the core while the charge remains neutral.

~modest

[CharlieO]

Modest: You wrote, “I think Turtle makes a very valid point. Your posts seem very hostile toward science and you quite often seem to disregard very good and direct answers that people are giving you.”

With all due respect and you seem to be a considerate and thoughtful person, please note that I have been appreciative and complimented several members who offered information instead of insults. Also, please consider the fact, repeat, fact, that, in an earlier thread, I only asked forum members to just consider a possible alternative to the “mainstream geology” belief that Earth has an iron core.

I must observe the fact, repeat, fact, that in recent times, geologically speaking, many people were executed or put under house arrest for suggesting Earth was not the center of the universe. So I glad I'm only being called names in this forum.

I must confess, as I have done many times, I am not a trained scientist, just an old car mechanic living in a mobile home on isolated acreage on the Colorado plains. I'm trying to keep my wife free of a nursing home, with good days and bad, 24/7 and always stressful. Then I found this website and thought I might find some release from the mind numbing daily grind with the intellectual stimulation I once enjoyed investigating mechanical failures in my younger days. [Court certified expert witness in same.]

Sadly, I find I'm being called names based on assumptions and misunderstandings or misreadings and my request for the consideration of hydrogen as an alternative is considered worthless and silly. Hardly scientific reasoning on someone's part. So whence comes the “Hostility?” Do you seriously believe defending one's self from unfair, even illogical and highly personal attacks is Hostility?

However, at least I know I don't know it all, but I'm very curious, a trait which has gotten me into trouble more than once. Apparently, questions about dogmatic beliefs are not always appreciated by the insecure and ignorant in many fields, including political and legal.

So you have Turtle making valid points. About what? I only asked in this thread if there were other theories about how such an enormous excess of iron, compared to the cosmos, got into Earth's core, besides the only two theories of which I was familiar. Which, in all honesty, I sincerely consider both of them illogical, even absurd, more science fiction than any logical, physical possibility. Something which is becoming increasingly clear from recent NASA observations.

I was taught Earth formed from within a spinning cloud of elements, mainly hydrogen, and, as with any rotating fluid, gaseous or semi-solid mass, the heaviest elements will always be forced outward, leaving the lightest elements in the center. Thus, Earth originally having a hydrogen core is what I was taught in the 1950s and then again in the 1970s, albeit seldom clearly stated; usually mentioned as lighter elements.

I was also taught that an enormous swarm of iron-rich micro-planets later attacked a smaller proto-Earth in a concentrated bombardment, adding to its mass and making it totally molten. Then, even though early Earth was still spinning to the extent that many believe it was still largely disk shaped, only iron, with some nickel, somehow flowed inward against centrifugal force and displaced the original hydrogen core, vaporizing it and forcing it to vent to the surface where it was blown away by solar winds. Have I got this right? Don't want to leave myself open to any more insults.

The point I'm making is that such a scenario is physically impossible, largely due to the presence of the Sun and Jupiter's much greater gravitational attraction and the total lack of any similar swarms being evident anywhere in the cosmos, as per recent astronomical observations.

Do you think the Grand Bombardment is a viable theory as to how Earth's original hydrogen core was replaced by an enormous excess of iron? I don't.

Then, I learned later in life that the Grand Bombardment was wrong, albeit taught to hundreds of thousands of students as the primary mainstream geology theory at that time as to how Earth came to have an iron core. Now we are to believe a Mars sized planet, which was largely iron, somehow wandered into Earth's orbit and they collided. They supposedly melted together and the smaller planet's immense, proportionally, iron core was transferred into proto-Earth, again vaporizing Earth's original hydrogen core and forcing it to vent into space and be lost. At least this is how I read the latest reviews of this theory in Winkipedia.

However, there is no mention of how the smaller planet obtained an iron core far greater in proportion to its size than the core which ended up as Earth's iron core in a combined mass. There is also no mention as to how it was able to wander freely through our solar system, unaffected by the Sun's or Jupiter's gravity. There is also no mention of how it was able to travel in an orbit different from Earth's, even though all the other planets in our solar system travel in the same direction. Thus, I, at least, believe the 'theory' to be good science fiction, albeit physically illogical to the point of being absurd.

This is my personal opinion, based on the lack of information as to how any Mars sized planet, largely composed of iron, was formed and how it came to be on an opposing orbit to Earth's and how it was able to avoid the gravitational attraction of the Sun and Jupiter; both of which have obviously never experienced any similar event, if their lack of iron is to be considered valid evidence.

Do you think the Earth-Theia collusion scenario is a valid theory as to how Earth acquired its iron core?

One forum member suggested Earth might have been “lucky enough” to have condensed from a primordial ring of iron-rich dust. Seems a better theory than both of the above to me, but highly unlikely since nothing like a ring of iron-rich dust has ever been observed. Again, not to say such can't exist.

Modest: You wrote, “Pyrotex has given you a good explanation for this observation.”

Please remember I complimented Pyrotex for his detailed explanation and I promised to attempt, with my admittedly limited scientific education, to try to understand it better. It may in fact be a more plausible explanation of how Earth came to have at least some iron in its core. This qualification is made because it has been proven that iron-nickel becomes too dense at core pressures to be the only elements in Earth's core. Therefore, lighter elements are currently being considered for inclusion in Earth's core, which will complicate his explanation; most often mentioned is hydrogen.

In fact, it now appears that hydrogen, compressed at core pressured over time, may become sufficiently dense enough to be near the density required to be Earth's core. IF this proves to be true and that Earth's mantle is heavier than originally calculated, the iron core theory may be in trouble. Heavier mantle equals lighter core, for which iron becomes too dense now. However, I'm not holding my breath on this or expecting to live long enough.

Modest: You wrote, “If you consider the leftover ingredients of planet formation which are floating around the solar system; they are stony and iron/nickle (sic) meteoroids.”

Some may consider this to be a fair assumption, but it is based only on the fragments of meteoroids which have survived during their passage through our atmosphere. While there are other types of meteorites, I suspect the original mass of stony meteorites which enters our atmosphere is many fold times greater than the mass which survives and lands on Earth. Whereas, I suspect the original mass of iron/nickel meteorites which survive entry through our atmosphere is not anywhere near as reduced by their passage. Therefore, it seems likely that the iron/nickel found on Earth's surface is only an insignificant portion of the total mass of the alleged “leftovers” floating around the solar system.

And, again, I believe the Sun and Jupiter would have attracted the vast majority of these leftovers long ago, should they have existed in any useful quantity; yet the Sun and Jupiter show little evidence of acquiring anything near the mass of iron attributed to these alleged “leftovers.”

Modest: You wrote, “So, we know the composition of these small planetesimals and they are literally the pieces that the earth was made from. Earth and the rest of the inner planets never accreted (sic) hydrogen because it isn't massive enough.”

Well, I believe this is just an assumption as no one really knows if these small planetesimals are the pieces from which Earth was made. According to NASA observations, suns, planets and moons began as swirling masses in clouds of cosmic dust and gases, evolving into spinning disks and then into solid masses; during which time the heavier elements in every mass, prior to solidification, would be forced outward and lighter elements inward because of centrifugal force. Simple physics. My Cream Separator Theory.

In fact, NO such planetesimals have ever been observed. This is not to say they don't exist, just never been observed. Meanwhile the above evolution of suns, planets and moons appears to be an ongoing and observable process which makes good sense and is both logical and physically possible.

Modest: You wrote, “As you pointed out extensively in another thread: earth looses (sic) hydrogen.”

That I did, but I'm just not sure what this prior thread has to do with my current question in this thread as to how Earth acquired an iron core. Seems to me, changing the issue is a popular way in this forum to avoid answering questions.

Modest: You wrote, “If you think there's a major problem with this hypothesis then you should outline the exact nature of this problem and how you think a hydrogen core fixes it.”

While this is not the question I asked in this thread, I did this in detail in other threads to which you can refer. Again, changing the issue or subject matter does not answer my question in this thread.

Modest: You wrote, “Railing against science and the people in this thread does not advance your cause.”

Seems to me the others have been railing against my questions and opinions, so I have largely been on the defensive instead of learning the facts and information I expected to obtain to satisfy my curiosity. Sad commentary about what some people claim to call scientific method. Most only seem to want to demonize anything not in [their] mainstream beliefs.

What amazes me is the manner in which Turtle attacks me for being devious and a Creationist, largely on the basis of his misunderstanding of an aside on a book by Neil Christianson, “The Epistle to the Creationists.” Turtle must be a Christian, as he appears to believe “Epistle” in the title refers to the Bible. In fact, Epistle means 'Directive to a group' and the book is largely about Neil's research into the history of the belief in Earth having a hydrogen core and it was critical of Creationists.

While hardly a Creationist myself, being more agnostic/atheist, I do know a lot of Creationists. While active with the Boy Scouts, I can report that all the Creationists I have met have been good people and fine parents, and apparently just as biased in their beliefs as others. Fortunately, their sons largely admit their parents are a bit kooky and I believe few will adhere to their parent's beliefs as they grow older. I can say this with some authority as I have held most positions in the BSA, including that of Commissioner. Wonder if Turtle was ever a Boy Scout? Sure doesn't act like one.

Unfortunately, Turtle apparently brags that he will expose and reject anything which indicate a Creationists was asking devious questions [trolling?] in his website. What a bigoted, biased bully. I note he is listed as a “Sponsor.” I also note that no other member has dared to openly criticize Turtle for his hurtful and false assumptions, personal insults and such, albeit you and a few others seem to have wisely counseled that some of my views might be worth considering. For this, I thank you and them, but I must view many of the others as cowardly by comparison. Seem to me, 'Sponsor' Turtle may have 'bought' himself a forum in which he can bully those with whom he disagrees without fear of complaint from other members. I suggest this is not a good thing for those seeking to participate in the expressed intent of this forum as being a scientific and social gathering.

Well, my curiosity is still with me, even though many my age don't know what day it is. So my question is still the same, which I may ask of another forum where there might be more tolerant, understanding and less biased members. Goodbye.

[Moontanman]

CharlieO dude, please give us some links to the evidence that drives your ideas. I've read the wikki article about Orpheus colliding with the earth to form the moon., No where does it mention Orpheus having an extra big iron core or the earth having a hydrogen core that is replaced by it. So far you have proposed many things about an hydrogen core, all of them so far defy physics. A compressed hydrogen core does not just stay that way. It takes tens of thousands of miles of atmospheric pressure and a thousands of miles of liquid metallic hydrogen pressure to make metallic hydrogen in nature and if that pressure is removed the hydrogen goes back to being a gas. I am easy to get along with , just provide some evidence for your ideas, I've never heard of them, At no time in my life have i been told earth got it's iron core form some later bombardment. I am 54 years old, i have been paying attention. lets see some of this info. if your info is compelling I would be more than willing to talk about the possibilities but so far all you offer is third hand "info" that doesn't hold together.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

...What amazes me is the manner in which Turtle attacks me for being devious and a Creationist, largely on the basis of his misunderstanding of an aside on a book by Neil Christianson, “The Epistle to the Creationists.” Turtle must be a Christian, as he appears to believe “Epistle” in the title refers to the Bible. In fact, Epistle means 'Directive to a group' and the book is largely about Neil's research into the history of the belief in Earth having a hydrogen core and it was critical of Creationists.

While hardly a Creationist myself, being more agnostic/atheist, I do know a lot of Creationists. While active with the Boy Scouts, I can report that all the Creationists I have met have been good people and fine parents, and apparently just as biased in their beliefs as others. Fortunately, their sons largely admit their parents are a bit kooky and I believe few will adhere to their parent's beliefs as they grow older. I can say this with some authority as I have held most positions in the BSA, including that of Commissioner. Wonder if Turtle was ever a Boy Scout? Sure doesn't act like one.

Unfortunately, Turtle apparently brags that he will expose and reject anything which indicate a Creationists was asking devious questions [trolling?] in his website. What a bigoted, biased bully. I note he is listed as a “Sponsor.” I also note that no other member has dared to openly criticize Turtle for his hurtful and false assumptions, personal insults and such, albeit you and a few others seem to have wisely counseled that some of my views might be worth considering. For this, I thank you and them, but I must view many of the others as cowardly by comparison. Seem to me, 'Sponsor' Turtle may have 'bought' himself a forum in which he can bully those with whom he disagrees without fear of complaint from other members. I suggest this is not a good thing for those seeking to participate in the expressed intent of this forum as being a scientific and social gathering.

Well, my curiosity is still with me, even though many my age don't know what day it is. So my question is still the same, which I may ask of another forum where there might be more tolerant, understanding and less biased members. Goodbye.

Guess we can't go any further afield than we already have, so here goes. All of the above quoted has nothing to do with the topic. You have no basis Charlie to assume anything about me along the lines of your above speculation. What's more, it has no more bearing on the topic than your personal anecdotes. If you're not a creationist that's peachy, but there is plenty of reason to have suspected you. Still, the point is your attacks on science regardless of your motivation. Considering the above condemnation of my hyperbole it's a little like the pot calling the kettle black aint it?

So anyway, you came here looking for attention for your ideas and now I have assured that you have it. Carpe diem Chuck and you're welcome.