It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Nuclear Heart of the Earth

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
www.spacedaily.com...



What would we find if we were to dig a hole all the way down to the centre of the Earth? According to high school science books we would discover a liquid iron alloy core and a smaller solid inner core at the center. For ten years, geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon has presented increasingly persuasive evidence that at the very centre of the Earth, within the inner core, there exists a five mile in diameter sphere of uranium which acts as a natural nuclear reactor. Dr. Herndon likes to term this beast the "georeactor". Think of the early Earth as having been like a spherical steel hearth. A hot ball of liquid elements freshly formed out of the primordial disc surrounding our sun. The densest metals sinking down by force of gravity while lighter materials "floated" outwards. Uranium is very dense. At about 19 grams per cubic centimeter, it is 1.6 times more dense than lead at the Earth's surface. But deep within our planet density depends only on atomic number and atomic mass. Uranium, having the greatest atomic number and atomic mass, would be the most dense substance in our planet and will ultimately end up at the center of the Earth.


The first link is Dr, herndon`s theroy laid out well in a breif interview. Below is his website with many good links and the science behind his beliefs. I think this makes so much more sense than the hollow earth theories , and might just explain why the magnetic field is stronger than can be accounted for. www.nuclearplanet.com...



[edit on 29-4-2010 by bluemooone2]




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I find this really fascinating) Come on someone tell me what you think. Phage? anyone?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
All I can picture is an alien solar system construction team creating a star and then different sized "planetary seeds" in a nebula and letting matter stick to these radioactive seeds since the radiation would cause in-falling matter to heat up.

I like this theory less than the solid core theory.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Thank you for this link. I will take a look at it later. When I did I'll bump your thread with my uneducated opinion.




posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
I find this really fascinating) Come on someone tell me what you think. Phage? anyone?


Lets think about the physics:

a) Presumably this natural nuclear reactor would have been ongoing for at least hundreds of millions of years

b) This nuclear reactor would generate heat locally (of course)

c) heat would cause strong convection, and pieces of the hot uranium would (over core/magma time scales) convect up and eventually mix. (And this may reduce or eliminate criticality necessary for the nuclear reactions).

d) fission of uranium creates very specific and recognizable isotopes and wastes, including some with very long half-lives which could outlast the mixing times from core to outer magma.

e) eventually we'd see them in lava (it would be a little bit radioactive), and the first nuclear geochemists to compare crustal versus magma rock would clearly notice the differences. This would have been 60 to 70 years ago .

f) we do not notice such evidence.

g) nuclear reactions (fission and fusion) produce neutrinos.

h) modern large particle detectors can detect neutrinos and we detect them from the Sun and from energy and angular & time distribution we'd be able to determine where they come from and what their source is.

i) we do not see any persistent from-the-interior sign of neutrinos consistent with a running natural fission reactor


I'm not a geologist but I am a physicist. I find the notion to be unlikely: mainstream science should have detected clear unambiguous signals of such already if it were true.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by mbkennel]

[edit on 26-6-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Thanks for the input . I am not a physicist (or even close) so I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this and see if It adds up? thanks )




Since the late 1960s, scientists throughout the world have found traces of helium in volcanic basalt that comes from within the Earth. Two isotopes of helium are observed, helium of mass 3 and helium of mass 4. Helium-4 was not a surprise because helium-4 is a product of the natural radioactive decay of uranium and thorium. Helium-3, however, was a great mystery as scientists were unaware of any deep-Earth natural mechanism for major production of helium-3. Lacking knowledge of an adequate deep-Earth production mechanism, scientists, for more than thirty years, have assumed that the observed helium-3 is a relic left over from planetary formation 4.5 billion years ago. To explain the helium found in volcanic basalt, scientists have also had to assume that about 9 times as much helium-4 from radioactive decay had to have been mixed with the assumed primordial helium-3 in such a way as to give a rather narrow range of compositions, shown statistically for 95% confidence in table at right. But then along came the georeactor numerical simulations.


www.nuclearplanet.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
It's a mystery, but if you're going to hypothesize any geologically significant uranium fission, you'd get long-lived fission products. The distribution of these are immediately identifiable as coming from fission of uranium.

You'd need some quantitative computations to suggest why one would see He3 and not these other things.

In other words, the burden of proof is on the people making the hypothesis, and they would need to refute with more detailed computations the obvious suppositions of "why haven't we seen clear signals of it yet?" The possible answers are

a) it's not true
b) physical processes & quantitative computations make it not so easy to see
c) we have seen it but people have misinterpreted results.

Arguing b or c requires evidence.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Pretty much shot down by Borexino earlier this year.

Our measurement of reactor anti neutrinos excludes the non-oscillation hypothesis at 99.60% C.L. This measurement rejects the hypothesis of an active geo-reactor in the Earth's core with a power above 3TW at 95% C.L.

arxiv4.library.cornell.edu...



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


As usual Physicisists with their heads up their backsides only capable of seeing what they want to see, however I also do not go along with the ball of uranium either.

Nuclear furnace? Sort of. Plasma!



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join