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.
You're getting confused. This is what people mean when they say "don't let perfect get in the way of good."
Nonsense and deflection. The flat earth theory which was theory based on flawed observation, like every other failed theory, is no different that the iron core theory based on seismic wave and magnetic flux observations, which are just as likely to be flawed.
And "crystallized iron" doesn't explain anything and the "solid core" seems like a goalpost shift away from liquid core. Which is it? Liquid or solid? If both which is which? Inner core? Outer core? And again all loose theories with no actual evidence of either.
Nonsense and deflection. The flat earth theory which was theory based on flawed observation
Dude, I genuinely don't mean this as an insult, but how is it possible to be this ignorant about the scientific process while seemingly being so interested at the same time? Your extensive lack of fundamentals is driving you in all kinds of wild directions.
A theory is something that offers a causal explanation for a set of observed phenomena. "The Earth is flat" is an observation like "my shoe is black." Neither explains any previously unexplained phenomenon and neither provides tools to make predictions that can be measured and confirmed or denied.
And "crystallized iron" doesn't explain anything and the "solid core" seems like a goalpost shift away from liquid core. Which is it?
It's both. Go and learn about the structure of the Earth's core so this conversation can evolve into one that's intelligent. You're basically asking me to teach you every step of the way while you resist even the most basic of information.
(post is archived)