The Nuclear Heart of the Earth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The science behind 'The Core' including an interview with J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D. by Wayne Smith 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 implications of this relatively new georeactor hypothesis are far reaching indeed. Not only does it threaten to change the way we view our own Earth and planetary formation in general but the very origin of the stars might need to be rewritten. Recently returned from the red carpet World Premiere Screening of "The Core", I caught up with Dr. Marvin Herndon for an interview. Continued.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Inside Heating!? Creation of atoms in the centers of stars and planets /1/ seems to be the simplest explanation for their hot interiors. The atoms are torn from the innermost cores of much larger sources of interaction, seen as planets and stars /1/ and then follows a very simple and clear new picture of the universe, which lacks the basic flaws of the big bang theory. If somebody looks for a more complex explanation, then he must tell how complex it should be? Can one challenge the principle of parsimony? It is one of the basic principles of science, known also as Occam's razor. The rotation of the core arises from the found one's rotation around one's 3D spiral source /1,2/. I would like to mention that the inner core should show nucleus like behavior. 1. http://www.eugenesavov.com 2. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002
The gravity at the centre of the earth is not zero. Take a look at the equation for gravitational attraction. Fg=G(m1*m2)/r^2 where Fg is the force of gravity. As r->0, Fg goes to infinity, assuming m1 and m2 are constant. Therefore as an object gets closer to the core of the earth the Force of gravity on that object approaches infinity.
As pointed out in the article, strong evidence does exist. More proof than exists for the traditional theory. I would say overwhelming proof in fact. A geo-reactor sub-core fits in with computer simulations of the inner Earth perfectly. It accounts for helium 3 and 4 ratio's found in lava and basalt. It accounts for the fluctuating geomagnetic field. No known hearth is 100% efficient at dividing elements. The trapped radiation down below causes violent upheavals in the magma sphere. Currents of liquid elements like water on the boil. Some traces of heavier elements would be trapped in the crust when it solidified. Dark matter has been observed to be more abundant around stars of low metal content. Fissionable elements are metals. If fission is the trigger for fusion in stars then this explains the 90% of missing matter in the universe. Non-ignited stars. A monstrous fast breeder reactor. Because they aren't from a smashed planet. Nothing so romantic. Just leftover rubble from when the solar system was made. They formed small. Therefore they posessed too little gravity to have a core. All the elements found in them are the same but they are evenly distributed throughout. Here on Earth most of the heavy stuff is concentrated in the middle. Perhaps 65% of the Uranium is in the Core. After 4.5 billion years any drag should have gone. Ever noticed how the moon always faces us the same way? Tidal drag. If gravity can slow the moon and halve the Earths planetary rotation in a mere 70 million years from 36 to 24 hours then how can the inner core still be churning around inside a liquid mantle offering constant resistance? I find that comment insulting and rather condescending. I recommend you research the matter further. Plate Tectonic theory faced identical criticism despite having similarly strong evidence to back it up. This is not the mindless ravings of a quack. Dr Herndon is an ex-university professor who recieved his Ph.D in geophysics from giants in the field. His research has been published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society of London paper among other well respected scientific journals. Nuclear engineers and scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory have made further numerical simulations which refine and extend the original findings. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I can not yet get this. What is to be falsified if one is proved to exist. How science is born from a proof of the opposite to one's existence. It the proof of existence or in other words it is the truth that is the object of scientific study. It seems like a mind game that misses the core of the matter.
The most popular scientific theories used to explain anything are not falsifiable but simple and posess supportive evidence. Evolution, relativity, tectonic plate movement. The fact is that more evidence now exists for a georeactor sub-core than the previous iron nickel hypothesis. Not that the old theory wont go down fighting. Both ofcourse are only theories and might ultimately be proven false. A new theory might come along with even more evidence to back it up. At present however, Herndons theory is a clear winner and I expect more and more people in the relevant fields will begin to realise this. It could open up an entirely new field of science.
For all the examples given alternative theories exist to explain them. Even relativity is being looked at for revision. If the mounting evidence for georeactors can be dismissed as not falsifiable then you may aswell throw away all scientific theory since the discovery of electricity.
The evidence for something very dense, hot, rotating in the center of the earth is just more grist in the mill of the theory of interaction (http://www.eugenesavov.com). New experimental data should push forward newer theories, which present a simpler and in the same time far reaching explanations.
Since the supposed nuclear core is slowly decaying and cooling, we might need all the global warming we can get to compensate for it, more CO2 plz!!!
I would like to add that Mars and Venus are very much like earth. Mars is the little brother and Venus our twin sister.. Radiation must have played a major part in Earths evolution... As with all planets in this solar system... Radiation must be the powerhouse that keeps the oceans from disappearing. That gives us our magnetic protections so that we might breath.. And humanity should stop shunning this gift of power and exploit it so that we can all thrive...
Yes it is a mystery why Venus does not have a magnetic field. As a result it is losing its atmosphere to space due to the solar wind. Yet this may only be a brief period, Earth has lost its field time and time again due to the reactor shutting down. On a side note. Mars was thought not to have a magnetic sphere, but it has been discovered that there are larger magnetic fields at various places, which might explain why mars still has some of its atmosphere. I would also imagine that planets closer to the sun would contain higher quantities of heavy elements thus driving a hotter reactor, giving Venus its very active volcanic disposition. Venus rotates the way it does due to the tidal influence of the sun on its atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is not the major green house gas. Water is a very effective green house gas and is abundant in its atmosphere.
Venus does have a magnetic field. All bodies with mass exhibit a gravitational attraction to any other mass body.
Venus does have a very weak magnetic field. Venus spins backward only very slowly, from memory 250 Earth days. Computer simulations suggest that it is the drag from its atmosphere.
"Can one challenge the principle of parsimony? It is one of the basic principles of science, known also as Occam's razor. " Occam's razor must be one of the stupiest principles around. It is a totally subjective thing to believe that a simplistic theory should be better than a more complexe one ... it's a principle that tries to make you play the game of science more savely: the less you assume, the less chance there is you're wrong. I'd say the principle is too philosophical (it is actually plain philosophical) to be used as some kind of a law. Nature is complex: more complex than any manmade theory will ever be. So, what makes Occam's principle thick? Nothing.
I think the previous post should be in separate thread. Subjective to believe??? Get with it dude.. Science does not assume. Science give results that includes margins of error, if two solutions give the same result, one being a simple two minute calculation and the other so complex that no human could possible do it in their life time, both giving the same answer with the same margin of error, I know which solution I would use. Science is not trying to be nature. It is about explaining the universe around us in practical ways.
Simplicity is better! What if complexity is genrated in the mind of beholder from one multiscale interaction as shown in Eugene Savov's Theory of Interaction. Why should nature be more complex if a simpler description accounts for what we see?
The center of gravity for the Earth is some 1,500 miles at depth. The center of the Earth remains hollow, possessing zero gravity. In addition the center of the earths is cold, rangeing from 2 degrees Kelvin to 50 degrees Kelvin. The core of the Earth remains hollow,unamiously! as the attraction of the Universe will not allow it to be a solid. The Universes attraction, attracts at all angles, and on a greater suface area, for this reason the Earths has a greater surface area than the core, and the surface or upper regions posess more mass than the core resulting in a center of gravity approaching 1,500 miles. In addition the result of radioactive decay engery is transmitted to the gratest suface area outward torword space at some 288 Kelivns with a resistance equal to the solar background constant some 50 kelvins. The by products of radioactive decay in every reaction results in the release of Hydrogen and Helium, providing a greater amount of these gases than any other element. This means that Hydrogen and Helium a product of nuclear decay for every element is more abundant that any other element in the Earth. The effect of Hydrogen,Helium having the greatest escape velocity, lift, propelling mass outward from the center, adding to the prevention of the Earths core being solid. If the Earths core were say soild it would have release and be intermingled with to much Hydrogen to allow it to be soild. Even seeping mass as some assume, seeping to the center of Earth would be under the condtion of Hydrogen and Helium saturation, resulting in no uranium core, or heavy metal core at all, more like oxygen at best if lucky. Fact is that the Earths core is hollow and surrounded by Hydrogen, Helium and Oxyegn, these gaseous generate the magnetic feild of earth. DWAYNE D.L.RABON
Close enough. Its 243 Earth days. I wonder if the dark side of venus is habitable? Imagine mobile cities crawling along to keep forever in the shade. A pity that the crust turns itself inside out on a regular basis. Pellucidar. Its an intriguing notion. One I took lengths to investigate myself once. Was supported by many followers in earlier years. Like the flat earthers they don't really have the numbers any more but you can't blame them for clinging to the dream. Its such a romantic idea. The theory was initially proposed by Edmund Halley in 1692. Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a whole cycle of novels set in the hollow earth. Even Tarzan visited it.
