John I read the reference of the google link, thanks for that. "Scientific American", it does actually admit at one point that they don't actually know the temperature, there are a lot of implicit assumptions made to get to their answer, some of which I would question. For example, I don't believe for a minute that Earth was formed from "Cosmic dust" compressed to create the heat of our core, otherwise, how can we explain that all planets revolving around the sun do so in roughly the same plane, in the same rotational direction, each planet itself rotating in the same direction?

Coincidence? Of course not, it is much more likely we were all just ejected from the sun, which was rotating itself, during an earlier volcanic phase, and now the heat in our cores is simply residual heat from the core of the sun, maintained at something like a constant temperature by the heat of the sun still landing on us.

The reasons why the cosmic dust argument were conjured up was all about scientists needing answers which no-one could disprove, which supported other bullshit theories to get paid. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the truth. If we are honest, we should admit we've all had to lie sometimes to get paid. Scientists, and other techies just do in lanuage most folk don't understand, hoping the consequences won't be that bad, and that they'll be long retired before anything ever becomes a problem.

We are at that point now, and the consequences for believing in that particular untruth is we might waste a lot of remaining valuable energy, and time, chasing rainbows inside the Earth, when the real rainbow comes from the sun.