No. That's not how logic works. That's exactly the definition of a fallacy.
What element isotope, exactly, is decaying in the earth's core? Iron?
The earth is flat because you can't prove its round type shit.
No. That's not how logic works. That's exactly the definition of a fallacy.
This is what happens when people try to practice logic who don't understand it.
The theory that best explains observation is rightly the accepted theory until one that better explains observations comes along and displaces it. Yelling, "huh uh, that's not true" isn't logic or science.
What element isotope, exactly, is decaying in the earth's core?
It's probably radioactive elements, but I'm just going out on a limb here. Stuff like potassium-40, uranium, and thorium.
The Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Antineutrino Detector has confirmed the radioactive decay by capturing the resulting anti-neutrinos.
Again, this is all stuff that is easily learned if one so chooses.
The best theory isn't more true simply because other theories are determined to be lesser. That's silly, and certainly not logical.
Every defeated theory, once the better one, wasn't made untrue by a better theory. People used to believe the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Those theories was never true. They might have been the best theories we had, but were never, not for a second, actually true.
The earth didn't become round when we decided round earth was a better theory, nor did the earth stop being the center of the universe when we figured out it wasn't.
And you didn't answer my question. What is the potential that's driving current? I didn't ask how much potential. I asked for the source of potential. A battery, for example, is a potential. Current requires a potential and a load (resistance). What are you suggesting is the potential that's driving the magnetic flux?
And, while it's wiki, so whatever, the article suggests that the Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Antineutrino Detector detects antineutrinos in the earths crust and mantel, not the core, although there wouldn't be any real way to know from where anti neutrinos come. So, not sure where you get the idea that the earth's liquid iron core also has decaying elements to maintain the energy to keep that core liquid.
The best theory isn't more true simply because other theories are determined to be lesser. That's silly, and certainly not logical.
You're getting confused. This is what people mean when they say "don't let perfect get in the way of good."
If a theory can make accurate predictions, what does it mean to say that it's false? Think about that from an epistemological standpoint. If I develop a "theory" about chemistry that 100% reliably predicts how reactions will take place and what byproducts I end up with, what does it even mean for the theory to be "wrong"?
People used to believe the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
Those aren't theories, those are observations (and flawed).
And you didn't answer my question. What is the potential that's driving current? I didn't ask how much potential. I asked for the source of potential. A battery, for example, is a potential. Current requires a potential and a load (resistance). What are you suggesting is the potential that's driving the magnetic flux?
The current theory as I understand it involves the crystalization of iron at the solid core.
(post is archived)