Iron doesn't "generate a magnetic field"
Nope, but current passing through iron sure as fuck does.
the lack of an alternative hypothesis is not proof that the OG hypothesis is, in any way, accurate.
It means it's more likely to be accurate than the alternative. That's how logic works.
I doubt a "big bang" caused the center of the earth to have the heat needed to maintain liquid metal for eons.
A good deal of your doubts could be cleared up by educating yourself on the subject. There's no need to attent a communist indoctrination camp. It's all available on the web.
The Earth's heat is generated by radioactive decay.
Also, where is there any suggesting that current is passing through the core to generate a magnetic field?
What is the potential generating this current? And to what load?
Also, where is there any suggesting that current is passing through the core to generate a magnetic field?
One prime piece of evidence is an iron core and a magnetic field. I'm open to other hypotheses on generating a magnetic field with iron.
What is the potential generating this current? And to what load?
I can't tell if you really don't know the math, or if you're just hoping I don't know. It's easy to calculate both given the known magnetic flux at Earth's surface. I'll let you do that yourself.
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.
(post is archived)