That's non-controversial, regular knowledge right? That the proto iron age happened all over in 1 or 2 centuries in which meteors dropped iron from the sky. It was in regular history books when i was a kid.
They always brush right over why it was raining iron. Isn't that crazy wth is that about?
You do know that is the theory derived from seismic research in the 30's. By 1940 it was concluded the inner core was "solid Fe" at 9,400 degrees. A bit convoluted how that determination was made, particularly in light of the fact there is no such thing as "solid Fe" above 2,880 regardless of pressure. It did fit the "dynamo" story however. It made sense to think of like a motor/generator. You move the magnet over the coil or the coil over the magnet. They had no idea the earth was part of a solar elec circuit, or that Maxwell had shone 30 years prior that all elec fields produce equal magnetic fields at 90 degrees. If you haven't made the connection this is why the poles wander, as they are doing now, and occasionally flip, as they are about to do. This would not ever happen in the "magnetic iron core" model even if the "solid iron core" were replaced with something both magnetic and solid at that temp (???) and the "molten outer iron core" (cooler but liquid...hmmm) were spinning and conductivity not dropping. 90 year old science. Modern geo-physical scientists deal with much better equipment and much more complex internal structures,... "LLSVPs" and they admittedly know less today than back in the day
The triple point of iron is estimated to be 3800C. The temperature of the core is estimated to be at 6000C. How do we explain the discrepancy? Possibly different states of crystallization. Just like how carbon can form different states at extreme pressures, so can other elements. But it can also be a liquid yet stable form. It doesn't have to be "solid" to be iron and in a permanent semi-solid (coherent) ball.
Is that the "truth"? I have no idea, but neither do you (unless you've been the the center of the Earth and just aren't telling me). It makes a lot of sense that the core is iron, regardless of how the magnetic field is produced.
When we look out into the universe we see a whole lot of iron. Experiments show us that iron is at the bottom of the fusion pile, which gives a reasonable explanation as to why we observe so much of it. Considering that the Earth is a (mostly) solid rock, it makes sense that its core would be iron. Most other rocky planets are also thought to be mostly iron (core) for exactly the same reasons; i.e. what we observe.
As for the sun connection, sure, there is likely a EM connection with the Sun. That doesn't mean that the core isn't iron, nor does it mean that the Earth isn't a dynamo. Just because there may be other elements than we are aware of doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It is true there is a lot of iron. 10% of total mass of 26 and above is generally accepted. Also true Iron and higher mass numbers are created in stars of predictable mass. This is not true with lower mass elements. In fact 1 thru 25 can be and are produced in various quantities even inside earth. While Fe accounts for 10% of mass of all higher elements, don't lose sight of the fact it is far from the most prevalent. H accounts for 90% of the known universe, 2 thru 118 for the rest. "But it can also be a liquid yet stable form" True but a miss use of terms. "Stable" simplify means "not radioactive" ... it's not in the possess of becoming a different element. Also, the crust, a tiny portion of the earth, is mostly solid rock. The majority of mass is in the mantel and is "plastic state" with many LLVSP's very out of balance protrusions... not at all nice little symmetrical shells of concentric nested balls like the nice picks from grade school. Does it make a difference? Yea, it does. I don't know your age but you may well live to see why.