1. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Obviously a very fringe idea, but any geologists want to make a debunk out of this one?
    Could be in the 'not even wrong' category.

    The idea that nuclear fission is going on underneath us is not too controversial.
    The logic of the claim seem based on man-made nuclear reactors - they explode (they don't really, they overheat and melt through their containers) if not cooled, global warming is heating the earth, ergo, earth will explode!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Short answer: "No".

    Longer answer....this seems (to me) to be a full-on Science Fiction-based meme. Might I point out....BAD "popular Sci-Fi"...not real Science Fiction.

    ETA: I can envision, over possibly geological (thousands, hundreds of thousands of years...millions?) a situation where a planetary body is subjected to extreme....very extreme....gravitational gradients that can act to cause it to break up.

    Citing the rings of Saturn as a "possible" explanation for their existence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    heres the paper I think:
    its pretty old
    http://nujournal.net/core.pdf







    Gemma says no
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Oh, OK....getting the implied reference now....the implication that a man-made nuclear bomb/warhead "explodes", and trying to equate it on a planetary scale.

    From (what little) I know about actual nuclear devices...(that 'explode' as bombs)...this requires a measure of "FOCUS" on the nuclear reactant material, provided by very precise aiming. Difficult to imagine such a confluence of circumstances to occur naturally within the Earth's core, mantle, etc.
     
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    seem to be quite a few unfavorable opinions on Dr Tom J. Chalko, not sure where to start
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    OT: but actually this guy seems like he'd be pretty fun at a party (as long as he takes that shirt off before I get drunk!)

    chalko.JPG
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    ROFL!!!!!!
     
  8. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    The energy has to come from somewhere regardless of feedback or resonance or any of that. And it's a silly huge amount of energy. The figure Phil Plait uses in his book Death From The Sky is 2.25x10^32 joules. That's one of those numbers so huge that metaphors just don't work, like killing a mosquito with the combined global nuclear arsenal.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No.

    The planet has gone though far worse heating in the past.

    And earthquake activity has not changed.

    It's just nonsensical, barely worth addressing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    This caused me to recall the "ultimate future" of this planet, when it will be heated and incinerated by the Sun, as it uses up its fuel, and expands to the size of a Red Giant...the Sun will encompass all four of the inner "rocky" planets, during this phase of its life-cycle...and of course, the Earth will be heated FAR beyond what "global warming/climate change" can accomplish. This planet will merely burn to a cinder, and likely then break apart within the gravitational stresses of the dying Sun's immense fields.

    Don't worry, though. A LONG, LONG time....perhaps 5? 6 billion years??

    http://www.space.com/23154-death-of-sun-will-destroy-earth-infographic.html
     
  11. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    The Plato reference is about the hypothetical planet Phaeton, thought once to be the source of the asteroid field.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaeton_(hypothetical_planet)


    This is disproved by the different materials in the asteroid belt itself.



    This seems to be the actual Plato reference.
    I don't know how that becomes proof that 1000s of years ago people were familiar with a planet that disappeared in a flash one day.


    o_O
    He's pretty much self-publishing.
    http://nujournal.net/
    Interesting ideas, but not really grounded in this reality.
    http://thiaoouba.com/faq.htm

    I probably should have just left it well alone, oh well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Ah....the long-ago disproved concept of a "missing" planet, where the Asteroid Belt currently (vaguely) orbits.

    As I recall, this stemmed from Kepler's work (originally) as he strove to find some sort of "association" or "resonance" to the observed orbital distances or "periods" of the (then) known planets....and the "gap" between Mars and Jupiter (moving outwards from the Sun) seemed to "fulfill" his hypothesis.

    I think, IIRC, that the problem was using our ONE example (of a star system, planets orbiting a star) as a "base set". Of course, in modern times, we have observed at least 460+ Star Systems with a huge variance in planetary formation patterns, in terms of relative sizes and distances from their host stars....as compared to our Solar System.

    This means that a LOT of work is still ongoing into the mathematics and physics of star system/planetary dynamics and formation.

    (I will add that in OUR Solar System, the presence of Jupiter is a HUGE influence, over some billions of years, or maybe only less than one billion??...we just don't know, yet... in stabilizing and influencing our current arrangement).

    http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/how-mighty-jupiter-could-have-changed-earths-habitability/
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2014
  13. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Soo... I guess I'll still have to pay back that car loan?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Nope!!! (That IS the "beauty" of it!!!....sorry, been watching the series 7 of "Doctor Who"...)
     
  15. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    What do you mean? It's already happening :D

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/yellowstone-road-melts_n_5576514.html

     
  16. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Oh....a bit of humour?

    The "mega-volcano" underneath Yellowstone National Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera) has been discussed for years...maybe decades. MIGHT continue to be discussed for centuries, long after YOU and I are dead.

    That's the interesting part.....our planet Earth does not care. The "Yellowstone Caldera", if it "BLOWS" in the next few decades will make Hurricane Katrina (Circa August 2005, for future historians) PALE in comparison. So, it will DEVASTATE a large portion of the Western United States. So what??

    (I say this AS a resident of this region, and also with a certain knowledge that it will not YET happen, in the lifetimes of those reading this....presently. Of course, this BEING the Internet....OTHERS will one day, likely, read this...no matter how many centuries in the future from THIS DATE....11 July 2014. Pacific Daylight Time).

    (Same as 12 July, 2014....UTC).
     
  17. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    He came to attention several years ago, because for some bizarre reason, CBS ran one of his articles.
    AGW denialists were very amused.

    And it came up again in 2012.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...rmingclimate-change-story-of-the-past-decade/
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Sorry, this JUMPED out at me....and I "HAD" to focus on it......
     
  19. "They"

    "They" New Member

    I got this info from this website:
    http://space.about.com/od/venus/a/Venus.htm

    The planet Venus, named for the roman goddess of love, is often referred to as Earth's Twin or Earth's Sister. But, Venus does not bare much of a visual resemblance to Earth, so why is it called Earth's sister?

    From a strictly physical perspective Venus is roughly the same size, density and composition as our planet. It orbits at a similar distance from our Sun, and at its creation would have appeared nearly indistinguishable from Earth. As the two planets evolved over time however, they became vastly different. Ultimately, Earth's sister was molded into a desolate and unforgiving world.

    -----

    The Venusian atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide (~96.5%), while only containing about 3.5% nitrogen. This is in stark contrast to the Earths atmosphere, which contains primarily nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Clearly, we would not be able to breath the air on Venus. Moreover, the effect the atmosphere has on the rest of the planet is dramatic.

    Global Warming on Venus
    A great cause for concern on Earth is global warming, specifically the emission of "greenhouse gases" into our atmosphere. As these gases accumulate in our atmosphere, they trap heat near the surface, causing our planet to heat up. Because Venus has such a dense atmosphere, this same effect has occurred, though to a much higher degree. Global warming on Venus has caused the surface temperature to rise to nearly 9000 F, enough to melt lead.
    -----


    I'd just say that if Venus hasn't exploded yet I'm pretty sure we are safe.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Hilarious!!!
     
  21. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    Complete nonsense. The Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of primordial (residual) heat and radioactive decay. There is no "nuclear reactor" inside the Earth - decay is not fission. Ultimately, we are talking billions of years, most of the radio isotopes will decay, the primordial heat will cool, and the Earth will become a solid rock. I won't speculate if it will be hospitable to life or not but the point may be moot as the Sun may start running out of fusion fuel before the Earth cools.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...active-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    While we are on the topic of geology....

    The final effects of a super eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera are fairly accurately presented in the docufiction "Supervolcano" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano_(film)). I met the volcanologist that was the scientific adviser for the film when I was at Colorado School of Mines (she gave a visiting lecture on a different topic). I challenged her on the unrealistic timeline from first indications of an eruption to a cataclysmic eruption and she agreed that the producers had to compress time to create a view-able story. All of the phenomena shown in the movie are realistic and based on evidence of previous eruptions found in the geologic record. Except that the events that are shown playing out over a few weeks would actually occur over 10's of thousands of years. Imagine the massive caldera-wide increase in geothermal activity shown in the opening minutes taking place over a thousand years, and the first minor eruption of lava happening 10 thousand years later and you can put the movie into a realistic geologic time frame.

    I should add that another cataclysmic eruption in the vicinity of the Yellowstone Caldera will occur at some point. It may be shifted a bit to the northeast as shown by the temporal migration of the calderas associated with it:

    [​IMG]
    From: http://www.photovolcanica.com/VolcanoInfo/Yellowstone/Yellowstone.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1