The article is pure speculation. No actual science behind the core theory other than it doesn't allow one type of seismic wave to pass through and slows anther type, therefore density higher than mantel. And then, suggests it must be liquid iron because of our magnetic field.
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.
(post is archived)