Is the center of the Earth really molten metal?

For the Skeptic this site is also for you and has some information. Thanks

http://www.halfpasthuman.com/alsoaintwhatitusedtobe.html

Nah mate, it’s made of the compressed and tortured souls of a billion sinners.

Nah, it’s full of dinosaurs (which has about the same amount of credence as your links, if that was too subtle).

Yep.

Not only is it molten metal, it is the motion of that metal that causes the magnetic field that surrounds our planet and shields us from radiation that would otherwise render the planet unsuitable for life as we know it.

As I need to be getting back to work, I didn’t follow the link to the article. However, I’m curious about the statement that spinning metal can’t form a magnetic field. As I understand it, that phenomenon is scientific fact, not speculation.

The Russians drilled straight through to hell! Don’t worry too much about it, though; Sarah Palin isn’t.

@YoBob Yes it is correct that the spinning of the core causes the magnetic field and that protects us from the radiation of the sun but there is no evidence that the core is metal at all. There have been some attempts at drilling but they cannot drill very far at all too much pressure.

I went directly to the “skeptic” site you referenced, after seeing what utter nonsense was available at the first link.

At least the “skeptic” site had a good reference to a load of bunkum in its promotion of Doug Copp and his “triangle of life”, which led me to an excellent debunking of his claims, and specifically of the “triangle of life” nonsense. You could find that here.

So, thanks for leading me on that wild goose chase that actually netted an egg. It would have been so much handier to have been directed to the science first, without having to wade through the bullshit. I guess I’m not complaining, though.

Your first link goes to a page that is not about the core of the earth. I am not going to dig through all the pages on that site to find it. Can you provide a direct link?

Your second link makes absolutely no sense at all. Everything on it violates almost every tenet of earth science, and the writer provides no information whatsoever as to his scientific credentials (or lack thereof!)

The site for the sceptic seems to deny the existence of plate subduction zones. Someone should tell the people of north-eastern Japan that there was no earthquake, attendant tsunami (with some regions being hit by a 30m wave) and consequently no reason for a nuclear crisis.

Someone is making shit up here. Don’t be so credulous, @Summum.

It looks like Doug Mclure’s arse crack….allegedly.

@Summum

“Even when molten metal spins it cannot create a magnetic field. ”
“there is no evidence that the core is metal at all”

Try some real science articles on for size-

Molten Metal Magnet – Physical Review

What causes the earth’s magnetic field? P- hysics. org

Building a Baby Earth to Test Its Magnetic Field – NPR

Are you a Scientologist? I’d like to know where you are coming from with all your stuff.

Here is another site to consider based on lava flow and the fact that it does not contain but little molten metal but silicates.

http://www.elkadot.com/en/astronomy/Cosmic%20body%20magnetic%20field.htm

Q6. What is in fact the chemical composition of Earth core?
Actual geophysics accepts that Earth is formed by a thin crust of solid silicates floating on a core of molten material.
Active volcanoes present a natural property to pomp part of liquid material found under the silicate crust toward surface.
It is very strange that despite of large spread of volcanism phenomenon on the Earth surface, no scientist has ever thought to make a correlation between chemical composition of lava and chemical composition of internal Earth layers. Admitting as real the existence of an internal Earth core formed by Ni and Fe, the chemical composition of volcanic lava appears as one of the strangest phenomena in physical chemistry.
The lava carried out by an active volcano must reflect the composition of internal core; this means chemical composition of this lava must contain a high percentage of molten metals. The reality is completely different and, in all cases, ejected lava from active volcanoes does not contain molten metals, but only silicates. Of course, it is very strange how modern science, in spite geochemistry, is not able to make a difference between molten salts and molten metals. Maybe a visit is necessary to be organized, near an active volcano, for those theoreticians dealing with these problems in order to learn something about metals and salts.
At this point it is interesting to see if an experiment can be organised in order to simulate at laboratory level the situation encountered at level of Earth planet. Let’s suppose the arrangement from fig. 11 where a layer of silicates cover a layer of a metal (iron or nickel). The heater is situated under the metal layer and the heating of silicate layer is made in an indirect way by metal layer.

The article continues

If you notice in the experiments for generating a magnetic field they use liquid sodium which does give some valitity to the site I gave above about science not understanding the difference between metals and salts as does the fact that liquid metals are not found in the lava flows.

@Summum: O RLY?

Sodium (Na) is not salt; that’s sodium chloride (NaCl).

Incidentlly, sodium is a metal.

Thank you @the100thmonkey your article shows my point very well.

Silicate melts are composed mainly of silicon, oxygen, aluminium, alkalis (sodium, potassium, calcium), magnesium and iron. Silicon atoms are in tetrahedral coordination with oxygen, as in almost all silicate minerals, but in melts atomic order is preserved only over short distances. The physical behaviours of melts depend upon their atomic structures as well as upon temperature and pressure and composition.[6]

Viscosity is a key melt property in understanding the behaviour of magmas. More silica-rich melts are typically more polymerized, with more linkage of silica tetrahedra, and so are more viscous. Dissolution of water drastically reduces melt viscosity. Higher-temperature melts are less viscous.

And, to be frank, I genuinely wonder if you have the faintest idea what any of that means.

I am in no way saying this is so what I am saying is it is a possibility and should be consider and looked at.

I believe that the world is actually a disc held up by four giant elephants riding on the back of a truly immense turtle.

It’s a possibility, therefore it should be looked at?

:)

Q.E.D.

Ok, admittedly I went to American public schools. However, we were taught that the earth’s core was made mostly of molten iron (OTOH, at one time kids were taught that the earth was flat and the center of the universe). This jives with what Wikipedia has to say about the composition of the Earth’s core.

“Seismic measurements show that the core is divided into two parts, a solid inner core with a radius of ~1,220 km and a liquid outer core extending beyond it to a radius of ~3,400 km. The solid inner core was discovered in 1936 by Inge Lehmann and is generally believed to be composed primarily of iron and some nickel. In early stages of Earth’s formation about 4.5 billion (4.5×109) years ago, melting would have caused denser substances to sink toward the center in a process called planetary differentiation (see also the iron catastrophe), while less-dense materials would have migrated to the crust. The core is thus believed to largely be composed of iron (80%), along with nickel and one or more light elements, whereas other dense elements, such as lead and uranium, either are too rare to be significant or tend to bind to lighter elements and thus remain in the crust (see felsic materials). Some have argued that the inner core may be in the form of a single iron crystal.[2][3]

The liquid outer core surrounds the inner core and is believed to be composed of iron mixed with nickel and trace amounts of lighter elements.”

@Summum – nice edit on the last post ;)

@YoBob I agree that is what we have been taught for a long time and new science is questioning that and it should be looked at. We have not known what the core is and the outer evidence is not supporting what we were taught. It supports more the first link I gave by its development over time. And the other articles also are supporting a different view. I’m not saying the old way is wrong but I am saying evidence is showing maybe a different picture and should be examined.

Great thing about questioning conventional wisdom is that every once and awhile you discover something new.

From my experience blacksmithing, iron looses it’s magnetic properties as it heats up. And that does make me question how a blob of the stuff that is hot enough to melt can form a magnetic field.

@YoBob Take a look at that last article on what is the core of the Earth is it gives a few insights like they don’t find the evidence in volcanic lava.

@Summum

“new science is questioning that”

You have yet to present any articles that are scientific in nature. Give us a link to some actual science and we can talk.

@YoBob

“that does make me question how a blob of the stuff that is hot enough to melt can form a magnetic field.”

Here’s a great link with a short article that gives an explanation for how it works. Click the “In-depth information” for lots more.

From the article:
“For magnetic field generation to occur several conditions must be met:

1. there must be a conducting fluid;
2. there must be enough energy to cause the fluid to move with sufficient speed and with the appropriate flow pattern;
3. there must be a “seed” magnetic field.

All these conditions are met in the outer core. Molten iron is a good conductor. There is sufficient energy to drive convection, and the convective motion, coupled with the Earth’s rotation, produce the appropriate flow pattern. Even before the Earth’s magnetic field was first formed magnetic fields were present in the form of the sun’s magnetic field. Once the process is going, the existing field acts as the seed field. As a stream of molten iron passes through the existing magnetic field, an electric current is generated through a process called magnetic induction. The newly created electric field will in turn create a magnetic field. Given the right relationship between the magnetic field and the fluid flow, the generated magnetic field can reinforces the initial magnetic field. As long as there is sufficient fluid motion in the outer core, the process will continue.”

Actually, the center of the earth is a solid iron core.

Dynamo Theory

@crisw That is the current conventional statements but they always use liquid silicate minerals in the testing phase of those models.

@Summum

Do you really have any idea what you’re talking about? What does my quote have to do with anything experimental?

And, as has been pointed out, the models use sodium, which is a metal.

@crisw Yes I do, not here to agrue just to expand knowledge.

Scientists can determine the composistion of the core by using earthquakes. The way that an earthquake wave travels through earth tells us the density and sizes of the different layers.

Density provides a key clue. We can find the density of the earth (about 5,500 kg/m^3) by knowing its size and amount of gravity. We can also find the density of surface material (about 3,000 kg/m^3). We know that the inner layers must be much denser. We know it has to have at least a certain density to account for this, and we know that it cannot have more than a certain density, because it would then have too much mass. This tells us about the composition of the core, since different materials have different densities. It is currently beleived that iron and nickel sunk to the core during planetary differentiation. This can explain the density of the core, and the properties of the outer core.

By the way, I’m pretty sure the core does not actually exist.

The tectonic plates theory is shown as possibly being incorrect also by the evidence of how the Earthquakes are and how they shake. The west sides of continents vs the east sides and many other factors.

We can know the depth of the planet, we can know many things about the planet but we theorise and then come to a hypothesis when it comes to the core. But a hypothesis is only the accepted conventional current acceptance of scientific tests that have been applied and they come to the conclusion that the hypothesis is the best known answer. But it still could be something different and should always be studied and tested when something new comes along.

@Summum

“The tectonic plates theory is shown as possibly being incorrect also by the evidence of how the Earthquakes are and how they shake. The west sides of continents vs the east sides and many other factors.”

Huh? What is that supposed to mean? Earthquakes are actually a very good demonstration of how tectonic plates work, and explain very well why the west coast of the US has more earthquakes than the east- ever heard of the Ring of Fire? (and no, I don’t mean the Johnny Cash song!)

“But it still could be something different and should always be studied and tested when something new comes along.”

Again and again and again- what is this “something new” and what SCIENTIFIC evidence (not loony webpage rants) do you have for it?

Now I’m going to respond just a little to the critical people that post comments. I will only do this once so listen please.

How does a new idea come about? It takes someone that is willing to put his reputation, life and his beliefs on the line and ask. And then there are those that have NO acceptance of what they try and say at all and just push it off. This has happened throughout history even with the OLD statement about the world being flat. How does one finally make the science world look at a different view? It is not what some are going to say because they are not really a part of the science investigation world. It takes someone willing to put himself out there and say that what is believed is not what I think is the way it is. There are so many judgements that come from this enviornment. Does anyone understand how difficult this is? Look at how people like @crisw react to everything that is said. Until people can open their minds (and science is one of the most closed minded) then others that think different risk so much. LISTEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reseach and look at how long it has been since the science view has stated new ideas oh there are a few and that nothing has changed that for a hundren years. Now I mean really look into how long it has been since science really published a paper with other scientists that agreed and said this is the way. It has been many many many years for almost everything. Do some reseach and you will see.

I read this today and was reminded of this thread.

Perhaps by 2020 this discussion will be a bit more than academic.

Is the temperature at the center of the sun really 15,000,000° C? No one can look inside. But we can look at the available data like surface temperature, composition, size, weight and so own. And draw reliable conclusions. The same applies to the center of the Earth. So, yes.

Great Information @YoBob Thanks

What makes scientists adopt new models of the universe?

Data.

Incidentally, so far you have given none in support of the hypothesis you wish to propound: that the Earth is actually an expanding sphere filled with plasma. As one of the people who are “critical” of your posts, I have specific problems with your thought process that I’d like to see you respond to:

You have ignored prima facie objections to the idea – it doesn’t account for current data such as the megathrust earthquakes that occurred in the subduction zones near Touhoku, Japan and the West coast of Sumatra, Indonesia). If you can’t respond directly to the objection, it makes me think that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and hence have no good faith reason to be propounding alternative hypotheses that can’t place actual, irrefutable data within a coherent ontology, particularly when it has been suggested that the hypotheses you propose don’t account for known data!

You edited a post after it had been responded to in order to remove a clear error in your thinking (you know, the one about “obsorb ideas”?). This smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Why should anyone engage with you and listen to your ideas when you remove posts that demonstrate the very problems people like I and @crisw have been pointing out?

A fundamental tenet of science is follow the facts, even if the facts falsify the hypothesis (please read the page about the null hypothesis – it really is at the heart of what I and others have been saying to you. Repeatedly. While you’re at it, please read up on Occam’s Razor, another fundamental tenet of the scientific worldview).

Look at the controversy in the early decades of the 20th century surrounding Einstein’s theory of relativity and Newtonian dynamics. One can argue about personality all one likes – Kuhn overestimated its role, in my opinion – but the debate wasn’t settled on argument. The reasons that scientists began to doubt the absolute accuracy of Newtonian dynamics was not that tenacious individuals eventually forced scientists to listen, it was that the data no longer fell within the range that could be dealt with by the theory. To put it another way, data became available – due to improvements in the quality of scientific instruments and, concomitantly, the data they provided – that the current paradigm could not place into its description of the laws of nature. Relativity has been tested to an astonishingly high degree of accuracy and been found to work, yet still there are problems with it – it can’t logically combine with quantum mechanics. Scientists know that it is an incomplete, or perhaps ultimately erroneous, description of nature.

The same is true of plate tectonics and hypotheses about planetary formation – it’s not complete, and there is insufficient data to state categorically (ontologically) that the planets are definitely this way or that way. @YoBob has posted about an experiment that will provide the data to falsify either your claim or the claim of the scientific community. Either way, it will be data, not websites whose sole claim to authority is youtube clips. Think about that.

Several people have tried to engage you on this and other threads, and you have totally failed to respond to their questions and criticisms, instead preferring the “what about this?” argument (also known as changing the subject).

Is it any surprise that people used to dealing with empirical data don’t take you seriously? I should find it genuinely shocking if your answer is “yes”.

@Summum How does one finally make the science world look at a different view?

Today’s mail brought me the latest issue of Scientific American, the world’s pre-eminent general science magazine. On the cover it says: “Quantum Gaps in Big Bang Theory: Why our best explanation of how the universe evolved must be fixed—or replaced.” Does that make it sound like the science world won’t look at different views?

As an intellectual enterprise the hallmark of science is that all results are tentative and subject to revision in light of new evidence. (Never mind that individual scientists are humans, who are naturally resistant to change.) Theories can and do get revised all the time—you just don’t hear about the details unless you’re an expert in the field. Every working scientist knows this and hopes to be next maverick to knock over accepted orthodoxy. Not so easy, however, since existing theory is rock solid.

I don’t know why you guys bother with him. I gave up a long time ago.

@Rarebear: I’m beginning to wonder the same thing myself.

moi aussi.

Those that respond with such distane for me of course I will ignore them. There are ways of discussing things and there are flat out ignorant people that attack. They think they know all there is too know about things and when someone brings up a subject they want proof. THERE is no proof not even in the scientific world. There are a few things that really are what they are but we know so little and comtemplating over ideas in my mind is wonderful. I have always been an open minded thinker and have never taken anyones say so and I have never asked anyone to take mine. Again there are ways to find your answers go find them but don’t put someone down that has theirs.

I see what you mean.

I don’t know that people have disdain for you personally, @Summum, (though they surely will before long, given your attitude toward valid criticism of your ideas), but we certainly have no respect for ideas with no apparent basis in fact, experimental validity or conformance with known facts about the world we live in.

It seems ironical to an absurd degree that you seem to epitomize the perceived haughtiness of the scientists and geologists that you disdain in your refusal to back up any of your outlandish and novel claims.

I’ve read several of your fantastical claims on other topics in other threads, and though I think the ideas themselves are nearly always absurd and ridiculous, it’s just the silly ideas themselves that I have a problem with. I think you’re probably a fine person. Misguided, uneducated, maybe even brain-damaged, but otherwise a fine person.

@Summum “should be consider and looked at” ,“should be examined”,
By whom? Qualified professional? Scientists (i.e. people who actually understand what ‘science’ is)? Science fiction writers? poets?

What makes you think those ideas haven’t been considered ? If they are so easily debunked by our lay-person crowd here, the real scientists will have thrown them out long ago because they don’t jive with things like ‘facts’ and ‘information’ that are borne out through experimentation and are repeatable. If they hang onto these “ideas” at all it will be for repeating at cocktail parties for a laugh.

“expand knowledge” “Do some research” Take your own advice. Look up the word “science” and look into what scientific method means. Research does NOT mean read a lot of stuff on internet fringe sites.

Pretending you’re persecuted because your “ideas” are being dismissed is wasting everyone’s time. Those “ideas” are being dismissed because they fly in the face of known information. Science does that, “ideas” that are unsupported by those inconvenient things like “facts” and “information” get thrown out.

If you want to play with fantastical ideas, there is nothing wrong with that, understand that you’re a poet and present your “ideas” in that context and we will appreciate them a lot more

You’re preaching to the choir now, @dabbler. No more @Summum here.

Thanks, @WasCy. It’s hard to tell what the discussion’s progress has been w/o timestamps on replies.

Although it’s always good to see another science based skeptic on Fluther.

Actually, @dabbler, there is a timestamp, if you know where to look for it.

See the line under this post with my name (lurve) | Great Answer (# ) | Flag as…? If you’ll hover your mouse just to the right of “Flag as…” you’ll see a mark appear on the screen (a “paragraph” mark in English editing), and if you’ll hover over that for a second or two then you’ll see… the timestamp on the response. For all responses.

@WasCy Whoa. o_o

Truly a Pearl of Wisdom from @WasCy

@WasCy outstanding ! thank you.