Global Warming: Earth can EXPLODE !!!

[wet1]

This popped up before my nose on the internet. Don't know what to make of it exactly. It sounds plausible though. What do you people think? Please, no nonsense replies...

Global Warming:
Earth can EXPLODE !!!
The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating the planetary interior.
Galileo discovered that Earth moves. Copernicus discovered that Earth moves around the Sun. In 2000 Tom Chalko, inspired by Desmarquet's report, discovered that the solid nucleus of our planet is a nuclear reactor and that our collective ignorance may cause it to overheat and explode. The discovery, verified by experts in many disciplines of science, has been published in June 2001 by the new scientific journal NUJournal.net.

Polar ice caps melt not because the air there is warmer than 0 deg Celsius, but because they are overheated from UNDERNEATH. Volcanoes become active and erupt violently not because the Earth's interior "crystallizes" as it is currently believed, but because the planetary nucleus is a nuclear fission reactor that needs COOLING..

The current doctrine of a "crystalline inner core of Earth" is more dangerous for humanity than all weapons of mass destruction taken together, because it prevents us from imagining, predicting and preventing truly global disasters.

In any nuclear reactor, the danger of overheating has to be recognized early. When external symptoms intensify it is too late to prevent disaster. Do we have enough imagination, intelligence and integrity to comprehend the danger before the situation becomes irreversible? Did you see the figure above?

If we do not do anything TODAY about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we will not survive THE NEXT DECADE. In a systematically under-cooled spherical core reactor the cumulative cause-effect relationship is HYPERBOLIC and leads to explosion. There will be no second chance...

If you doubt whether a planet can explode - you need to see a witness report of a planetary explosion in our Solar system. Plato (428-348 BC) reported that the explosion of the planet Phaeton had been perceived by our ancestors on Earth to be as bright as lightning...

We apologize for making this message pop up in front of your eyes, but the matter is URGENT. Please forward this page (or the link to it) to ANY scientist or person of integrity whom you know. Our ONLY chance is to UNDERSTAND and PROVE to everyone what will happen if we do not change our attitude to atmospheric pollution. Avoid the mass media - they are controlled by those who run the "economy" and are interested in keeping humanity misinformed to the greatest extent possible.

Withholding, distorting or otherwise interfering with the Truth about the Planetary Core is a Crime Against Humanity - one of the greatest crimes that man can commit. Please copy and print this page and this article before they will become assassinated.

Money cannot save the Planet.
Only Understanding can.
Focus on Understanding. It cannot be undone.

http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

 

[(Q)]

Banshee

Please, no nonsense replies...

How else is one able to respond to nonsense?

 

[goofyfish]

Tom Chalko, the same guy who believes in the power of auric garments?

Peace.

 

[justagirl]

All I can add as MOST theories accepted today were rejected when first introduced. This theory shows a lot of sense and I will read what I can on it.

 

[daktaklakpak]

Try heating a large ice cube from under and you are expecting the top melt first? What makes one think the land surface on polars are hotter then anywhere else?

Talk about non-sense. LOL

 

[Xev]

Thanks Banshee, I needed a laugh.

Galileo discovered that Earth moves. Copernicus discovered that Earth moves around the Sun. In 2000 Tom Chalko, inspired by Desmarquet's report, discovered that the solid nucleus of our planet is a nuclear reactor and that our collective ignorance may cause it to overheat and explode. The discovery, verified by experts in many disciplines of science, has been published in June 2001 by the new scientific journal NUJournal.net.

Ah, no, there is radioactive decay occuring in the mantle, but the core is not a nuclear reactor. It is made out of IRON AND NICKEL HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL COULD IT BE A REACTOR??

New scientific journal - I like that. I bet they make the interveiws in Playboy look like evidence of peer review.

Polar ice caps melt not because the air there is warmer than 0 deg Celsius, but because they are overheated from UNDERNEATH. Volcanoes become active and erupt violently not because the Earth's interior "crystallizes" as it is currently believed, but because the planetary nucleus is a nuclear fission reactor that needs COOLING..

Uh huh. I wonder if there is evidence for this beyond 'the tooth fairy told me so'?

The current doctrine of a "crystalline inner core of Earth" is more dangerous for humanity than all weapons of mass destruction taken together, because it prevents us from imagining, predicting and preventing truly global disasters.

Sounds like somone went off his medication.

If we do not do anything TODAY about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we will not survive THE NEXT DECADE. In a systematically under-cooled spherical core reactor the cumulative cause-effect relationship is HYPERBOLIC and leads to explosion. There will be no second chance...

This is not hyperbole. This is bullshit.

In any case, there is no way the earth's core can be a nuclear reactor. And I don't think 'HYPERBOLIC' is a scientific term.

If you doubt whether a planet can explode - you need to see a witness report of a planetary explosion in our Solar system. Plato (428-348 BC) reported that the explosion of the planet Phaeton had been perceived by our ancestors on Earth to be as bright as lightning...

Ah, Plato ain't describing the explosion of a planet. This guy don't even know his mythology.

We apologize for making this message pop up in front of your eyes, but the matter is URGENT. Please forward this page (or the link to it) to ANY scientist or person of integrity whom you know.

I think forwarding it to a scientist is the worst thing they could do to thier theory.

Money cannot save the Planet.
Only Understanding can.

No, money can. If you send all your money to Xev, she will keep the earth from overheating and exploding.

 

[kmguru]

Tom Chalko's other article says "It is demonstrated that quantum encoded information transfer in Nature is not only feasible and highly probable, but it is an essential feature of material reality that enables us to determine and verify the Purpose of existence of the entire Universe."

Well, as soon as I build the quantum decoder, I will tell you for sure what the Universe is talking to iteself, and even when the earth is going to explode from the nuclear reactor it is building in secret.

 

[Edufer]

<i>If we do not do anything TODAY about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we will not survive THE NEXT DECADE.</i>

I know you hate facts, banshee, but there is no other way to deal with reality. So this man says --and you go along with it-- that if Earth warms a little more, it will explode?

I remind you that Earth has been significantly warmer before, and nothing happened, as nothing happens to Venus or Mercury that are thousand of degrees warmer than Earth. Or perhaps they have not a built-in fussion reactor inside? They came without "batteries included"? That would not seem plausible as they were formed at the same time as Earth, and by the same process.

But remain calm. Temperatures during the called Little Climatic Optimum (800-1200 AD) were 2.0°C higher than now and, as shown by NASA satellites readings, the Earth has not warmed at all since they started making the readings --and add to that that the Antarctic has been getting colder and colder for the past 35 years, then it seems we are not going to explode...

At least not before the 100,000 years of Glacial Age that is coming towards us. Wrap yourself with a thick blanket and turn on your solar powered heater, banshee, it is going to be really cooooold!

 

[gotanygum]

earth explode idea

please see below:

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/antarctica/QA/geology/Volcanoes

According to it, there are volcanoes growing underneath antarctic ice. Wait a minute, underneath, you say?

For the record, I am not a scientist so I'm not really able to get into the nitty gritty unfortunately. I just thought of mentioning the above link, it is peculiar to me in all of this.

 

[gotanygum]

is earth center reactor or not

try this one:

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/april24/shrimpcore-424.html

 

[Xev]

kmguru:

Well, as soon as I build the quantum decoder, I will tell you for sure what the Universe is talking to iteself, and even when the earth is going to explode from the nuclear reactor it is building in secret.

If you send in the tops of 10 boxes of Lucky Charms, you get a special quantum decoder ring!

gotanygum:

First, welcome to Sciforums. Sorry but....

Dude, its not about whether or not the surface temperature is increasing, but how it is distributed, and WHY. Besides, temperatures increase underneath when cooling capacity of atmosphere and gravitational equilibrium of inner van allen belt are disturbed by pollution chemicals. one example of proof is here:

Global warming would increase the earth's surface temperature uniformly...

Secondly, the Van Allen belt does not affect gravity....perhaps I've read you wrong?

Third, there is no 'atmospheric cooling capacity'. Clouds have somthing called 'cooling capacity', but the atmosphere as a whole does not have any set limit on how hot it can get.

There are volcanoes growing UNDER antarctic ice. The reason it is possible is because convection cooling is affected, as a result of solutions worked out based on equation in appendix 4 [d = partial derivative in this case, * means multiplied by, not to the power of, wihch I will denote as ^] Got this straight from the paper, it is his simplification of the eq. 34:

I'm sorry, but I missed the relevence?

its FISSION reactor, and yes, all planets contain one, but most cool down to temps not suitable for life. In natural state, Earths also cools down. Im pretty sure of these.

No, the earth's core is composed of iron. Radioactive decay does occur in the mantle, that is what drives convection. Global warming shouldn't affect this radioactive decay, so it should not affect convection.

 

[Edufer]

There have been "natural nuclear reactors" in this planet before, near the surface, although I seriously doubt if the Earth's core is a reactor in itself. All geological studies have shown that the composition of the core is made of iron, nickel, etc, and do not mention radioactive minerals.

Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, former head of the US Atomic Energy Commission tell us in her excellent books "Trashing the Planet" and "Environmental Overkill", this interesting fact:

"In Gabon, West Africa, near a place called Oklo, where there is now a uranium mine, the concentrations of fissionable isotope U-235 was once so high that 1,8 billion years ago a natural chain reaction set in. Nature produced a nuclear "fission" reactor that "operated" on sustained criticality for a period of one million years. tons of uranium were burned and both plutonium and other typical fissi9on reactor isotopes (transuranics) were produced. Even though the reactor area has been subject to rainfall and other weathering agents, the plutonium and fission isotopes have migratyed only a few meters from the place of their production. This natural nuclear reactor has been throughly researched."

Perhaps there has been many other such natural reactors, but I have never heard about the possibility that Earth's core could be one. If there is a serious scientific study claiming that, I would like to hear about it.

 

[Xev]

Edufer: Yes, I have read of that reactor, but I do not think that such natural reactors would be affected by global warming either.

Banshee's e-mail remains as it has been: pure and complete nonsense.

 

[gotanygum]

here goes ...

Hi again,

The website http://www.angelfire.com/nc/HUMMINGBIRD1/physics.html is the only online source I know of that links to the abstract for 'Theory of Gravity and the Universe' by Tom Chalko, the article in full itself having been pulled for some time now.

oh yea, when I said fission I meant to correct an earlier post, Im not sure if it was you, Xev, or somebody else; he or she had said 'FUSSION' -- tell me is this fusion or fission??

pages 7-9 and appendices 3 & 5, at http://nujournal.net/core.pdf:

author's calculation modification of previous assertion of it being Fe, suggests a core made of denser-than-Os density, around 28.6 g/cc density, which is a presently unknown element to us.

oh yea, cool pic Xev -- although I haven't watched LEXX in a long time. She's from LEXX, right?

 

[kmguru]

Best way to solve this climate issues is to model the thermodynamics of planet earth including all the electromagnetic inductions from solar radiation and earth's movement through galactic space. And, oh, dont forget our changing landscape of planes, trains and automobiles.

If one uses a super computer, it may take 5 years for the model to complete and simulation to begin. Then we could find out what direction we are headed and how to prevent (may be) if there is a serious problem.

Without such a program, we are six blind men trying to describe an elephant...And if someone says, NASA is doing this and that - they are not.

 

[gotanygum]

[And if someone says, NASA is doing this and that - they are not. [/B][/QUOTE]

hey kmguru, you're right, we are. A computer modeling system would indeed be very useful, but, it would only come to fruition if enough people were actually willing to support that research. Because, and I could be off on how much money it takes, but since our research system is based on cash, no money = no research therefore no trust/willingness to acknowledge basal data = no money and thus we never find out what actually could be going on practically.

BTW, didn't NASA press releases indeed reveal van allen belt activity, position and properties Tom described from that quote I used? I don't believe he was lying or exagerrating, if this is what you were referring to [see below].

Check out these websites and decide for yourself. If you feel inclined, check out the following:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spaceflt.pdf [page 18, part entitled 'The Terrestrial Planets, and p. 20, about Van Allen belt]

http://lena.gsfc.nasa.gov/Docs/paper_bad_honnef.pdf [page 6 gives good info. basic on Van Allen belts]

http://sat2.space.noa.gr/~daglis/rev.pdf [real good explanation into van allen belts].

the NU equations [modified maxwell equations] still need to be verified, any supercomputer based research would focus on field research and experiments into actual values to be input into equation 34 and other crucial ones like density and positional stability.

 

[kmguru]

Cash (research money) is not a problem, if there is a leadership. Heck, I can even raise $250 million dollars (to start with) if we can have a high profile organization behind it. It is all in marketing ideas. If dotcoms can raise billions of dollars on hokey stuff, surely we can do better.

I do have some friends at NASA. But they are bitching, moaning, groaning research employees. They are no help in setting up and raising funds for a project of this magnitude...they want somebody to offer it on a silver platter.

So, if you have some connections, we can go forward. Imagine the project bio - kmguru meets gotanygum on sciforum, they start super computer project...

 

[Xev]

Gotanygum:

Yeah, the avatar is Xev from Lexx. You can get avatars by doing a google image search - under advanced, select 'small' or 'ikon sized'. If an image is too big, you can use www.gifworks.net to modify it. Also, I think that www.gifs.net has some avatars...

But according to the Chalko paper [that is the topic of this thread] it is only a side effect of a larger problem, that being core overheating and such from the abstract. Also, one of the roles to keep in mind, of the atmosphere in cooling process is letting out certain solar radiation back into space, in a controlled fashion [disrupted by greenhouse effect].

Okay, see, I don't see any evidence for that - and I don't see how such a thing could be caused by global warming.

About the van allen belt, when pollution, certain pollution reactions occured somewhere in atmosphere, it is principally the charge of the van allen belt that MAY be affected, thus possibly irritating positional stability of earth core, because of what VAB is, Tom's re-definition of it would play into possible effects. Since Im obviously not too much of an expert in geological sciences and just enjoy discussing this kind of stuff, I choose to bring this up because it looks important.

I don't think that the Van Allen belt affects the earth's core at all - sorry, but I've never heard such a thing and I don't see any connextion when I enter it on google.

"Earth in its entirety can be considered a nuclear reactor fuelled by spontaneous fission of various isotopes in the super-heavy inner core, as well as [and here it is] their daughter products of decay in the mantle and in the crust." -- So this may explain the reactor idea better? How to 'prove' in mantle etc are naturally produced 'daughter products?' It could be.

Okay, I don't think (perhaps Edufer knows more than I) that fission occurs in the inner core.

And also, it still hasn't been connected to global warming.

 

[gotanygum]

I'll have to check and see if anyone wants to start this up. Unless you're teasing me, its not unlikely there are few people I 'distantly' know who might want to do it. I'd have to ask and see what happens. Don't know what part I'd even play.

just a few more quotes . . .

utilizing criterion of equation (13), [page 7],

" . . . The radius of the existing inner core of Earth is known to be 1220 km. According to the density distribution proposed by Dziewonski and Anderson [2] that is generally accepted today - the pressent inner core is 2.2 times too small to stay in the center of the planet!"

"In other words, the density distribution proposed by Dziewonski and Anderson [2] is self-contradicting because its acceptance is equivalent to a direct violation of the elementary laws of mechanics- and more specifically- violation of the fundamental stability criterion that needs to be satisfied for the solid inner core to remain concentric."

This seems to be an important condition/concept revision.

 

[kmguru]

Hey, kmguru, nice idea there. I'll have to check and see if anyone wants to start this up. Unless you're teasing me, its not unlikely there are few people I 'distantly' know who might want to do it. I'd have to ask and see what happens. Don't know what part I'd even play.

No, sir - I am serious. Instead of complaining about how rotten the world is or will be, we can take active steps. We have an international body of over 4700 well educated members on this forum (some are in high school or college and soon to be)...now, sometimes, any one of the members may not have the authority but could know someone who does. I call this butterfly effect.

Many years ago, one of my sales paerson visited Chile to sell some high tech products to improve their industries. When he came back, he said, the Chileans dont have the money to pay for it. I asked, what do they have? He said - a lot of wine. So I took the wine, sold it to a broker and got my money, they got their product. When there is a will, there is a way...

New ideas never start out as widely hailed when un-famous people figure them out.

How true...that is human nature...