Earth's Inner Core Shouldn't Technically Exist

[C C]

https://www.livescience.com/61715-earth-...radox.html

EXCERPT: One day, about a billion years ago, Earth's inner core had a growth spurt. The molten ball of liquid metal at the center of our planet rapidly crystallized due to lowering temperatures, growing steadily outward until it reached the roughly 760-mile (1,220 kilometers) diameter to which it's thought to extend today. That's the conventional story of the inner core's creation, anyway. But according to a new paper published online this week in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, that story is impossible.

In the paper, the researchers argued that the standard model of how the Earth's core formed is missing a crucial detail about how metals crystallize: a mandatory, massive drop in temperature that would be extremely difficult to achieve at core pressures. Weirder still, the researchers said, once you account for this missing detail, the science seems to suggest that Earth's inner core shouldn't exist at all....

MORE: https://www.livescience.com/61715-earth-...radox.html

[RainbowUnicorn]

https://www.livescience.com/61715-earth-...radox.html

EXCERPT: One day, about a billion years ago, Earth's inner core had a growth spurt. The molten ball of liquid metal at the center of our planet rapidly crystallized due to lowering temperatures, growing steadily outward until it reached the roughly 760-mile (1,220 kilometers) diameter to which it's thought to extend today. That's the conventional story of the inner core's creation, anyway. But according to a new paper published online this week in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, that story is impossible.

In the paper, the researchers argued that the standard model of how the Earth's core formed is missing a crucial detail about how metals crystallize: a mandatory, massive drop in temperature that would be extremely difficult to achieve at core pressures. Weirder still, the researchers said, once you account for this missing detail, the science seems to suggest that Earth's inner core shouldn't exist at all....

MORE: https://www.livescience.com/61715-earth-...radox.html

, anyway.

Current science is yet to understand Gravity.

Thus i guess to a point it stands to reason that there is a vast amount of missing data around the core principals of how the big lumpy things stick together.

materials science is an ever growing field... look at smart fabric metals for example.
fabric that you can put an electrical charge through and it forms to a specific shape & aquires massive strength etc etc...
modern society is yet to start manufacturing this latest discovery.
... electrical cars... etc etc etc...

is there a more concerning undercurrent of ego centric knowledge facism espoused by tyrants seeking to be celebrity leaders(cult of personalitys) ?

[Catastrophe]

https://www.livescience.com/61715-earth-...radox.html

EXCERPT: One day, about a billion years ago, Earth's inner core had a growth spurt. The molten ball of liquid metal at the center of our planet rapidly crystallized due to lowering temperatures, growing steadily outward until it reached the roughly 760-mile (1,220 kilometers) diameter to which it's thought to extend today. That's the conventional story of the inner core's creation, anyway. But according to a new paper published online this week in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, that story is impossible.

In the paper, the researchers argued that the standard model of how the Earth's core formed is missing a crucial detail about how metals crystallize: a mandatory, massive drop in temperature that would be extremely difficult to achieve at core pressures. Weirder still, the researchers said, once you account for this missing detail, the science seems to suggest that Earth's inner core shouldn't exist at all....

MORE: https://www.livescience.com/61715-earth-...radox.html

Have you seen the article on Jupiter in the current issue of ALL ABOUT SPACE? It deals with rates of accretion for that planet and has to do with why no planet was formed between Mars and Jupiter (as I understand it). It contains points like:
QUOTE
Now Jupiter is able to grow and reach its present day mass. Research suggests more rocky material is gravitationally accreted while a gap opens in the Solar Nebula, preventing further gas accretion.
QUOTE

It also deals with 'pebble isolation' and 'smaller second generation planetesimals' formation.