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?
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.
(post is archived)