It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Nuclear Planet!

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2003 @ 05:52 AM

The guy actually seems very right.

Jupiter, Saturn, Neptun do all produce VAST amounts of radiation compared to how much they absorbe from the sun.

Also Jupiter, Saturn, Neptun all share something in common that their radiationless sister, Uranus, doesn't have, atmospheric activity on a large scale.

Now this man correlates the conditions of the Gas Giants, to Mother Earth.

Heat in the earth is thought to be produced by the crystalization of molten nickle-iron in the outter core, into the inner core. But Mr. Herndon's view is that this would mean a consistent Magnetic Field. As we all know, hell some have posted here at ATS about when will the next Magnetic Pole switch occur, is that the magnetic field is NOT consistent, it "meanders" and shifts in intensity.

Herndon says this is because it is fueled by a Nuclear Reactor for a core, challening the classic theory of what is at the center of the earth.

And what's more, someday in the futre, that reactor is going to die out.

And with it, our planet.

[Edited on 16-3-2003 by Hammerite]

posted on Mar, 16 2003 @ 09:49 AM
Hmmm... It is an interesting article I will say. It seems to be a modified version of a theory floated around the turn of the century though. At the time, heat measurements were being used in crustal cooling calculations to determine the true age of the planet, and they were coming up with incredibly young ages, as young as 2000-3000 years. These discrepancies were explained as a layer of radiactive isotopes existing at the bottom of the crust/top of the upper mantel (supported by the statement in the article that the radioactives readily bond with silicates, which are the main constituent of the crust/mantel) were decaying, releasing heat at a much higher rate than released by the core.

The other problem I see with this is that we currently have no evidence or proven mechanism for the direct conversion of charged particles/radiation into a magnetic field. The current theory holds that the magnetic field is created by slow movement of the inner mantle around the core, basically as a giant dynamo or generator, forming electrical induction through the physical movement.

It is interesting though, and I would be interested if he comes up with more evidence.

posted on Mar, 16 2003 @ 09:16 PM
It's bogus ... Think about it for a sec ... Our sun is roughly 5 billion year's old, and has another 5 billion left in it. It's the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system.

Look at earth's core .... It's tiny compared to the sun. How did it last on nuclear power for 4.6 billion year's? If the nuclear core theory is right, we should lose all heat next week!

It's a joke. heavier element's go toward's the center, lighter element's go uP ... Our atmosphere is losing hydrogen, isn't that one of the thing's our core would need to sustain a nuclear reaction? I know the hydrogen does get replenished ... but I don't think it would be replenished enough to be sucked down into our core to sustain a mini sun that is supposed to die out one day ...

Pffft .... next thing we'll here from that guy is that the earth really is hollow and intelligent dinosaur's live there and are planning on conquering us in 10 year's from now!

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 01:33 AM
e-nonymous do you prize yourself a geophysicist?

Are you in any way a Nuclear Physicist?

No you aren't, now if you'd go to the sites links to the basics of Nuclear fission, I'm sure you'll learn everything you need to to answer your own counter-points.

Maybe you should actually RE-READ the article.

There is no HYDROGEN in the center of the earth, it is URANIUM.

Which has totally different properties when it is reacting.

And it is much heavier than most things on earth so of course, that is likely where it would be, in the Core.

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by Hammerite]

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:12 AM
Ok ok ok ... read the link this time. Same problem though stand's with uranium ... After 4.6 billion year's our beloved mini sun at the center of our soon to be announced hollow earth that has killer dino's hell bent on man's destruction, would have died out long ago.

Uranium on this planet doesn't regenerate. Once it's gone, it's gone. The guy also take's away quit abit of his credibility with this little jewl ...

"At the moment, there is considerable uncertainty. The georeactor might die in as little as 100 years, maybe in a million years, perhaps even 1,000 million years from now. But one thing is certain: the georeactor will die. And when the geomagnetic field subsequently dies, life on Earth will never be the same."

He's very certain huh? Ok ... show us the EVIDENCE that there really is a mini sun ready to go kaput any day now ... All I've seen is a theory that say's a mini sun in the center of our planet could last 4.6 billion years ... keeping the same rate with our sun so far ... Give me a break .... IF there were a mini sun, it would be so damned small, that ANY fusion reaction would last prolly less than a billion year's! IT'S TO SMALL, even with uranium.

"By contrast, Uranus radiates little or no internally generated energy and has a quiescent, featureless appearance. Has Uranus nuclear reactor already reached the end of its lifetime?"

Uh huh ..... A much BIGGER nuclear reactor somehow died out before our itty bitty one ... Let's use our BRAIN'S on this one ... trust me ... the dino's won't be comming to get you if you do ....

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:36 AM
e-nonymous your points continue to be very flat.

Who says Uranus's nuclear reactor would have been larger?

Who says any of the gas giant's have larger "nuclear reactors".

As for how long a reactor would last, do more reading, I'm not so certain they last as short as you feel.

Afterall he does go into a discussion about how large a Nuke reactor would have to be to sustain the measurements of the He3//He4, and how large it is today, which estimates how long left we have.

Don't be a skeptic until you've read the articles, viewed the links.

There are few to no holes in his theory, the problem is there isn't a lot of convincing hard evidence either, as they have yet to test how the needed materials would react in conditions such as the outer core.

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by Hammerite]

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:58 AM
Read a few more of the link's as you've suggested ... yet, there still nothing convincing from the psuedo-science guy that show's the earth has a mini sun at it's core ...

I mean, the guy has NO evidence, everything listed is all theory. All of it. I've read thing's that goes against the guy from some of the link's ... Yet, he explain's it all away with more THEORY and no evidence ...

It's a big april fool's joke ... the guy will anounce his stupity on april 1st ...

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 05:02 AM
Uh except for the helium 3, yeah I guess that is just supposed to be overlooked. As he points out helium 3 in the conditions we have would be formed by Uranium, or a totally improbable other reason. So that's why he's seeking out the Uranium core idea.

In case e-nonymous you have not noticed.

The "Iron core" is just a theory with NO actual proof either.

It simply just makes sense. And so does the Nuclear Core theory.

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 05:19 AM
Heh, atleast it isn't your theory this time ... eh FM

BTW, welcome back ... Funny, I'd be damned shocked if you weren't FM ... Sound exactly like him!

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 05:42 AM
e-nonymous mistakes are only made once, this time it is your head you should hide.

The reason I so promptly reply to you, is so the good people of this board aren't turned away by your arrogance, thinking "well because he thinks its full of # it must be", when in actuality you simply are speaking an opinion, meanwhile a respected scientist has formulated a theory no other scientist will refute.

What gives you the right to THINK that you can refute him? Not even dragonrider, whom has clearly shown superiority in this field of science over all of us, does not "refute" it.

You are stepping out of line, repeatedly, so any further problems and I'll see to it your subsequent posts are removed.

I'm sick of people trying to "debunk" something over and over and over again, with the same information, that has no valid arguement.

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Hammerite

You are stepping out of line, repeatedly, so any further problems and I'll see to it your subsequent posts are removed.

Do not be so bold as to assume you can influence any factor of these forums. You are in absolutely no position to make demands of any user of Above Top Secret.

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:12 AM
Hearndon isn't considered credible, frankly. Yes, I know all the arguments about "forbidden science" and "establishment scientists", but the facts are that the site has ONLY the papers of one person, and they frankly sound like a bad SF movie. fact, they sound a lot like the script for THE CORE, a widely panned (and laughed at) movie:

As that article says, "Most scientists believe the Earth's core is made of nickel and iron, not of a radioactive soup around a reactor. Under the standard nickel-iron theory, the radioactivity is spread throughout the core and acts as a supplemental source of heat. " There hasn't been any reliable evidence to show that it's made of anything else.

His writings are referred to as a "hypothesis"... and some of the magazines he's cited as being published in will publish anything by their members.

What I find significant is that he's not co-publishing papers with any other scientist and he's not being cited on any other scientific papers that I find. This is important, because if someone else found his data convincing, they'd be copublishing with him. Richard Feynman was considered the "bad boy" of math and physics and was extremely controversial and hard to deal with and had some strange ideas -- yet people rushed to co-publish with him because he could prove that his outre' ideas WERE correct.

(p.s. -- William, glad to see you're re-moderated.)

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 11:16 AM
P.S. The "OKLO reactors" (which I was initially skeptical about) really DO exist and do warm certain areas of the Earth.

Here's a page with a nice, clean, easy-to-understand layman's explaination:

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 02:57 PM

Relax ... Sheesh ... it's not your theory being attacked this time. Sure, it's an interesting theory, but with abit of common sense you wouldn't even need to know crap about it to realize it's bogus.

And William is right ... Your not in any position to demand crap out of me. How did you think you'd go about having my subsequent post's removed anyway's? Were you planning on bitching about how I don't believe the hogwash theory of a mini sun in the center of earth?

It's almost laughable!

Edit: BTW ... How am I stepping out of line? I'm not a very bright guy, so your gonna have to spell it out for me.

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by e-nonymous]

new topics

top topics


log in