So what's your alternative hypothesis that better fits the observations? Don't forget it has to be something that generates a magnetic field, too.
Iron doesn't "generate a magnetic field" and the lack of an alternative hypothesis is not proof that the OG hypothesis is, in any way, accurate.
I have no idea what the core consists of. I don't know where humans came from. I don't know how the universe was formed. But I'm very skeptical of the nonsensical theories that are laid out as "muh science". I doubt my ancestors were apes, and I doubt a "big bang" caused the center of the earth to have the heat needed to maintain liquid metal for eons.
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?
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.
(post is archived)