Journey to the Center of the Earth

[suchandra]

 

According to comic-book folklore going back quite some years, Superman escaped as a child from a planet with an unstable uranium core that exploded in a super-atomic blast. Now science is imitating cartoon art: Researchers are preparing to test the theory of a San Diego scientist, J. Marvin Herndon, who thinks a huge, natural nuclear reactor or "georeactor" -- a vast deposit of uranium several miles wide -- exists at Earth's core, thousands of miles beneath our feet and thus turning about 75% of the inside earth into realy hot magma what we can observe at so called hot spots where lava is leaking out. Are we flying on a huge natural nuclear reactor around the Sun? At least science has to admit: Only God could create and maintain such an Earth which requires so many control mechanisms. Scientists like Herndon believe it might help to explain otherwise puzzling phenomena of planetary science, such as fluctuations in the intensity of Earth's magnetic field. Without the Earth's magnetic field the cosmic rays coming from the Sun would turn the Earth into a desert.

"Herndon's idea about (a reactor) located at the center of the Earth, if validated, will open a new era in planetary physics," said four Russian scientists at Moscow's Institute for Nuclear Research and Kurchatov Institute in a paper published online.

It might sound bizarre, the very idea of a "natural" nuclear reactor -- a geological version of commercial nuclear power plants such as Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s Diablo Canyon plant near San Luis Obispo. But if Herndon is right, then the reactor at Earth's core is just a much bigger and deeper version of an extinct natural nuclear reactor that scientists discovered in a uranium mine in Gabon, Africa, in 1972.

 

The Gabon reactor consists of geological deposits of uranium that, being radioactive, naturally emit subatomic particles called neutrons. These neutrons split the nuclei in adjacent uranium atoms, causing them to emit more neutrons and, thus, to split even more uranium atoms -- in effect, it's a slow-speed chain reaction. Research in the 1970s revealed that the Gabon reactor operated intermittently for a few million years about 2 billion years ago.

Scientists have long believed the planet's core is divided into a solid and liquid part composed largely of iron, the liquid circulation of which powers Earth's magnetic field. They have not thought of the core as a repository for uranium, although the possibility of uranium in the core was suggested in passing in 1939 by the scientist Walter Elsasser.

Herndon and his backers believe his theory of a uranium georeactor in Earth's core has certain advantages over existing scientific ideas, by providing more convincing ways to:

-- Explain the ratios of helium isotopes emitted from volcanoes in Iceland and Hawaii. Those ratios are consistent with the ratios of helium isotopes emitted by a nuclear reactor.

-- Explain why planets such as Jupiter emit far more heat than they absorb from the sun. Herndon thinks they, too, have natural nuclear reactors at their cores. (Because heat is continually generated by the decay of radioactive elements in Earth's crust and mantle -- the regions above the core -- scientists are uncertain whether Earth emits more heat than it receives from the sun.)

 

 

-- Explain variations in the intensity of Earth's magnetic field, which fluctuates over time. Herndon believes that in the core, the georeactor drives the motions of the liquid iron that creates the magnetic field. But the georeactor varies in activity levels over time. Those activity variations, he believes, might explain intensity variations in Earth's magnetic field.

Now, Rob de Meijer and associates at the Nuclear Physics Institute in Groningen, the Netherlands, are planning to test Herndon's theory. They're drawing blueprints for a large device that could detect ghostly particles called antineutrinos that have escaped from Earth's core. If Herndon's theoretical nuclear reactor really exists, then it should be gushing out antineutrinos that would fly through the roughly 4,000 miles of solid rock and emerge at the Earth's surface.

The European scientists have proposed drilling a shaft more than 1,000 feet deep into the island of Curacao in the Caribbean. They hope to lower into the shaft devices called photomultipliers, which could detect particles from the hypothetical deep-Earth georeactor.

The estimated cost: $80 million. In an e-mail to The Chronicle, de Meijer said he is seeking funding from the Dutch government and industrial consortiums. He and his team plan to visit Curacao in January to take the geological samples needed to design the subterranean antineutrino "antenna," as they call it.

Curacao is a good location for the antineutrino detector because "the island's rocks have relatively few natural radionuclides that could mask the (antineutrino) signal from the Earth's core," the journal Physics World noted in September. The detector could be confused by antineutrinos emitted by commercial nuclear reactors, but Curacao is far enough from the southeastern United States that reactors in Florida won't affect it.

Scientific reactions to Herndon's theory are all over the map.

On the one hand, "virtually every scientist thinks (Herndon's) theory is nonsense," says geophysicist Gillian Foulger of the Earth sciences department at the University of Durham in England.

On the other hand, "Dr. Herndon is a brilliant and original thinker. I agree with his claim that his theory has been unjustly ignored," said geoscientist David Deming of the University of Oklahoma.

"The problem with most scientists working today is that they have no knowledge of the history of science," Deming adds. "As late as 1955, continental drift was regarded as the equivalent of alien abductions, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. By 1970, continental drift was an accepted part of the new theory of plate tectonics."

One of Herndon's leading critics is planetary scientist David Stevenson of the California Institute of Technology. He says in an e-mail: "Herndon is a solid and knowledgeable person when it comes to (nuclear) reactors. But the amount of attention this (georeactor) idea has received is out of proportion with its plausibility. ... It's not complete nonsense, but it's highly unlikely. There are many instances in science where this happens. This one has merely received more attention than most.

"The idea is based on two very dubious propositions: (a) That uranium (or any heavy element) would naturally go to the center of the Earth. This is almost certainly untrue. It is a misunderstanding of chemistry and statistical physics at a very fundamental level. (b) That there is something about Earth's heat flow or helium that is so wildly discordant with our usual ideas that it requires an outrageous hypothesis to explain it. This is incorrect."

But Herndon is taken seriously by Richard Muller, a noted physicist and author at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley. Since the 1970s, Muller has done pioneering research in diverse fields, including cosmology and planetary sciences.

"Herndon's hypothesis is a very positive contribution to deep Earth science. He raises issues that are worth considering, and he may even be right, " Muller adds. "I consider his work to be 'out of the box' thinking, and as such, it is valuable even if it turns out to be wrong."

On a side note, in case you're wondering: Unlike the planet-busting reactor of Superman lore, neither the Gabon reactor nor Herndon's hypothetical deep-Earth reactors could explode like atomic bombs. A-bombs require highly concentrated amounts of fissionable materials that are explosively compressed together in a fraction of a second -- far faster than the snail's-pace processes that would be characteristic of the natural reactors.

Herndon received his bachelor's degree in physics at UC San Diego in 1970. He studied nuclear chemistry and meteorites in graduate school at Texas A&M, where he received his doctoral degree for a thesis on meteorites.

Iconoclastic scientists often have trouble getting their papers published in scientific literature. Herndon "is no exception," he acknowledges. "I live in a strange world where I go against a strong establishment that pretends I don't exist." NASA has turned down Herndon's applications for research funding, he says.

No longer able to attract research funds, he quit academic science in 1980. He has supported himself ever since in a variety of ways, ranging from doing scientific consulting work for mining firms to dealing in antiques and investing in real estate.

"I can't make a living and do the science that I think is important to do, " Herndon acknowledges. As a result, "I have had less than a satisfactory career in science. But I have made fundamentally important discoveries that will reshape geophysics."

Even so, operating as an independent scientist, over the years, he has managed to publish papers in prestigious journals, including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.

His main allies and sympathizers are non-Americans, like the de Meijer team. On Dec. 16, Herndon is scheduled to deliver the prestigious annual "Christmas Lecture" at the European Commission's Institute for Transuranium Elements in Karlsruhe, Germany.

He draws unhappy conclusions from his bumpy scientific career. Had his two sons -- now physicians -- planned to become scientists, he says, "I would have steered them away from it because you can't make a living and do legitimate science; you have to 'howl with the wolves' or you don't survive. This is a sad testament to our times. There's something very wrong in American science."

<hr> Herndon’s theory

According to traditional theory, the core of Earth consists largely of iron. The SanDiego scientist J. Marvin Herndon has added a new wrinkle by arguing that a large deposit of uranium also exists in the core, where it powers a natural nuclear reactor or “georeactor.” Herndon believes the nuclear process is somehow responsible for variations in the intensity of Earth’s magnetic field.

During the radioactive decays, the georeactor releases ghostly particles called antineutrinos, which fly through thousands of miles of solid rock to Earth’s surface. Scientists hope to test Herndon’s georeactor hypothesis by using special instruments to detect the hypothetical antineutrinos as they pass through the outer crust.

Sources: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ http://www.ansto.gov.au/

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Interesting article, to be sure, but aside from one mention of the "too perfect to not have been created by God" argument (which is a weak one in my estimation), I fail to see the spiritual applications.

 

Of course, the subtext regarding how much pressure there is to conform to prevailing paradigms in the scientific world is poignant.

[suchandra]

 

Interesting article, to be sure, but aside from one mention of the "too perfect to not have been created by God" argument (which is a weak one in my estimation), I fail to see the spiritual applications.

 

Of course, the subtext regarding how much pressure there is to conform to prevailing paradigms in the scientific world is poignant.

Thanks Murali Mohan prabhu for your short rating - sorry that it doesnt comfort your understanding of what is a spiritual topic - didnt pass your test. What many ex-members of audarya are telling me is that they are missing current issues put into vedic parameters - content to make us getting faith in the Vaishnava preaching - Krishna is the origin of everything. A half dozen senior forum members in exchange of blows what is actually said in sastra can't belie that this is enough to present Vaishnava siddhanta on the world wide web. I think a forum has the responsibility to give entrance for newcomers to find content of events of the day related to Vaishnavsim - content, content, content. And when someone makes a post which isnt already matured to comfort the personal likings of a senior member, we shouldnt immediately put it down but try to develop. After all writing good topics takes time. But if we develop topics together things become easier. And isnt a forum something like a co-production? Why turn it into a Guruvani's one-man-show forum - all his forums, bhaktiforums.com, saraswata.net ended up in an one man show graveyard and were closed?

Btw, where're your contributions of "spiritual topics"?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

As I said, it's an interesting article. If you could point out *how* you find it spiritually-relevant, that would be appreciated.

 

In relation to the below, can you point out how the article above meets the criteria of being "content to make us getting [sic] faith in the Vaishnava preaching"? Maybe it's obvious to you and everybody else, but it is not to me.

 

As for me posting spiritual topics--I have been drinking from this (often polluted) fountain too often and neglecting my own reading from "primary sources", so I've been settling into the role of self-appointed policeman here.

 

I certainly appreciate you adding lots of fresh material to the mix here. If you could provide some context for that content, the presentation would be more potent in my not-very-humble opinion.

 

 

Thanks Murali Mohan prabhu for your short rating - sorry that it doesnt comfort your understanding of what is a spiritual topic - didnt pass your test. What many ex-members of audarya are telling me is that they are missing current issues put into vedic parameters - content to make us getting faith in the Vaishnava preaching - Krishna is the origin of everything. A half dozen senior forum members in exchange of blows what is actually said in sastra can't belie that this is enough to present Vaishnava siddhanta on the world wide web. I think a forum has the responsibility to give entrance for newcomers to find content of events of the day related to Vaishnavsim - content, content, content. And when someone makes a post which isnt already matured to comfort the personal likings of a senior member, we shouldnt immediately put it down but try to develop. After all writing good topics takes time. But if we develop topics together things become easier. And isnt a forum something like a co-production? Why turn it into a Guruvani's one-man-show forum - all his forums, bhaktiforums.com, saraswata.net ended up in an one man show graveyard and were closed?

Btw, where're your contributions of "spiritual topics"?

[suchandra]

 

If you could provide some context for that content, the presentation would be more potent in my not-very-humble opinion.

 

You're welcome, I'll try to put it as simple as possible. A natural nuclear reactor in the center of the Earth burning Uranium and working since billion of years smoothly and thus keeping the Earth's iron core liquid so it creates the required magnetic field would strongly further prove intelligent design. Now, just look at present atomic plants like e.g. in Springfield where presently Homer J. Simpson works as the safety inspector - how much technology and control is required to keep an atomic plant working safely and not to have a scenario like the Chernobyl accident - a core melt high risk probability in which the whole planet could blow up. To find out that there's actually a huge smoothly functioning nuclear reactor below our feet in the center of the Earth could somehow change people's consciousness slightly into this direction how Krishna could create all this so nicely that besides some occasional volcano activities everything works perfectly. And may be - to treat Mother Earth more respectfully.

 

Hawai‘i's Kilauea Volcano

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I appreciate that explanation.

 

As I've posited before, if you concede that there is a finite probability that any particular chain of events will occur in any given time period, then, over infinite time, that chain of events *will* occur.

 

Maybe you're not willing to concede that basic assumption, but it is a perfectly logical assumption.

 

So, reason dictates there *could* be a nuclear plant at the core of the earth purely by chance. If that nuclear plant was not stable, we would not be here discussing it.

 

 

You're welcome, I'll try to put it as simple as possible. A natural nuclear reactor in the center of the Earth burning Uranium and working since billion of years smoothly and thus keeping the Earth's iron core liquid so it creates the required magnetic field would strongly further proof intelligent design. Now, just look at present atomic plants like e.g. in Springfield where presently Homer J. Simpson works as the Safety Inspector - how much technology and control is required to keep an atomic plant working safely and not to have a scenario like the Chernobyl accident - a core melt high risk probability in which the whole planet could blow up. To find out that there's actually a huge smoothly functioning nuclear reactor below our feet in the center of Earth would surely change people consciousness how Krishna could create all this so nicely that besides some occasional volcano activities everything works perfectly.

[suchandra]

 

 

So, reason dictates there *could* be a nuclear plant at the core of the earth purely by chance.

 

Thats what we learned in our school books:

 

http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/core.htm

 

What does the core consist of?

 

Inner core:

It is 3,200 - 3,960 miles (5,150-6,370 km) below the earth's surface and mainly consists of iron, nickel and some lighter elements (probably sulphur, carbon, oxygen, silicon and potassium. The temperature in the inner core is about 9032 - 10832 ºF (5000-6000 ºC). Because of the high pressure, the core is solid. The average density of the core is about 15g/cm³.

 

But how can it be possible that after millions of years of cooling down the Earth is still 9032 - 10832 ºF?

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

But how can it be possible that after millions of years of cooling down the Earth is still 9032 - 10832 ºF?

 

Cooling down?!??!! Do you have any idea how much energy the Sun is pouring into the Earth system?

 

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html

 

 

Average over the entire earth = 164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day So the entire planet receives 84 Terrawatts of Power

 

So, sure, a lot of heat (energy) is escaping into space, but there's a steady supply coming in as well.

 

The heat of the earth's center is due to the incredible pressures present there according to conventional wisdom. That heat is *not* residual heat from the formation of the planet, if memory serves.

[suchandra]

 

Cooling down?!??!! Do you have any idea how much energy the Sun is pouring into the Earth system?

 

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html

 

 

 

So, sure, a lot of heat (energy) is escaping into space, but there's a steady supply coming in as well.

 

The heat of the earth's center is due to the incredible pressures present there according to conventional wisdom. That heat is *not* residual heat from the formation of the planet, if memory serves.

So far, if the Earth produces more heat from within than the Earth receives heat from the Sun can't be said with 100% sureness. Just like the Sun is an interface between the Brahmajyoti ("Sun is reflection of brahmajyoti" ) and the material Universe the core of the Earth is as seen in pic below is even a place where Lord Vishnu resides.

 

 

What exactly is happening at such hot spots where spiritual energy pours into the material energy seems to be acintya - never to be understood by our material science. Therefore science is so much troubled to explain what excatly happens on the Sun.

Fact is however, from New Zealand till Island or take the deep-sea explosive activity on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge near 34°50'N, everywhere you find red hot liquide magma leaking out the Earth core see pic below Pahoeoe fountain at an temperature as hot as 1600°C.

That such heat of melting rocks is produced simply by pressure is rather quite speculative since the Earth is rotating and thus there are also quite some centrifugal forces pulling in the opposite direction of the Earth's core.

 

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

That such heat of melting rocks is produced simply by pressure is rather quite speculative since the Earth is rotating and thus there are also quite some centrifugal forces pulling in the opposite direction of the Earth's core.

 

No doubt it is speculative, but, such speculation is not without basis. After all, there are folks out there producing artificial diamonds by exerting tremendous pressures on carbon, thereby simulating what happens below the Earth (though, admittedly, far above the Earth's core).

 

In our own everyday experience, there is the example of gases under pressure. Have you noticed that, if you use a can of compressed air to clean your keyboard, the can gets quite cold as the gas is expelled? This is a practical demonstration of the laws of thermodynamics. Conversely, when gas or other matter is compressed, heat is generated.

 

In regards to your second point, you mean to say "centripetal forces". It's true that, due to it's rotation, there are centripetal forces being exerted upon the earth's surface (and below). However, if those forces were greater than the force of gravity due the mass of the Earth, we would all have been flung into space long ago. Also note that, due to the relationship between linear and angular velocity, the centripetal forces at the surface of the Earth are far greater than those near the core (at the center of rotation, there are *no* centripetal forces).

[mahak]

Cool pics, but where are the nagas. Call lowborn, we need a consult.

 

No scientist has been more than a coupla miles beneath the surface. Why do we believe them or their artwork speculations? The trillions spent on space has gotten us two hundred miles up, yet we believe their theories on galaxies billions of miles away. I got an oil well on the hamakua coast to sell ya.

 

This is a discussion of spiritual matters because the bhagavatam indicates there is an entire planetary system beneath the surface of the earth. Patala, rasatala, lie dat. The nagas live there, and the nagapatnis are full of gopilike madurya rasa..

 

I do like volcanoes, tho, I wish JRdd were still with us, she was the lady of shasta.

 

haribol, ys, mahak

[suchandra]

 

Cool pics, but where are the nagas. Call lowborn, we need a consult.

 

No scientist has been more than a coupla miles beneath the surface. Why do we believe them or their artwork speculations? The trillions spent on space has gotten us two hundred miles up, yet we believe their theories on galaxies billions of miles away. I got an oil well on the hamakua coast to sell ya.

 

This is a discussion of spiritual matters because the bhagavatam indicates there is an entire planetary system beneath the surface of the earth. Patala, rasatala, lie dat. The nagas live there, and the nagapatnis are full of gopilike madurya rasa..

 

I do like volcanoes, tho, I wish JRdd were still with us, she was the lady of shasta.

 

haribol, ys, mahak

 

Where're the nagas? Good question, Lord Ananta or Lord Sesa is the power which sustains all the planets in their different positions. Materially this sustaining power is known as the law of gravitation, but actually it is a display of the potency of Lord Sankarsana. Since present Vaishnavism allows full bent to materialistic scientists to explain the functioning of Krishna's Universe according their materialistic approach of research it should be clear that they fall prey of material illusion. On the other hand, Prabhupada considered this as important to not let modern science spread their "accomplishments" uncommented. What happened is that till today other GM groups considered Prabhupada's effort in this direction, to dovetail scientific research with the preaching of bhagavat-dharma as "contaminated by santa-rasa". Usually at Vaishnava forums you'll find that such kind of topic is immediately classified as non-spiritual discussion, people overstrained to consider things which are obviously related with Krishna as preaching tool. What makes me often ask this questions when examining lectures by present Vaishnava leaders to a crowd of newcomers in Vaishnavism, do these Vaishnavas actually know how to preach?

Meanwhile scientists draw attention "to know the truth" more than anyone else - also in areas where they're more or less only speculating by presenting headlines to our school children in this way:

 

 

Rotation and Magnetism of Earth's Inner Core

The stability of the earth's core and the geodynamo

Earth's Core and the Geodynamo

Planet Within a Planet: Rotation of the Inner Core of Earth

A Laboratory Model for Convection in Earth's Core Driven by a Thermally Heterogeneous Mantle

The Inner Core Translational Triplet and the Density Near Earth's Center

 

 

The sun goes through cycles of increasing/decreasing output. It's what has caused all of the earth's cycling through ice ages in conjunction with the earth's precession. The biggest thing is this:

 

If global warming is due to man than why are the polar ice caps on Mars melting too? Google that too. A book was written about this called The Greening. It's just a big power play. Here's a link with tons of debunking evidence: http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/index.html

 

[Avinash]

 

It's true that, due to it's rotation, there are centripetal forces being exerted upon the earth's surface (and below). However, if those forces were greater than the force of gravity due the mass of the Earth, we would all have been flung into space long ago. Also note that, due to the relationship between linear and angular velocity, the centripetal forces at the surface of the Earth are far greater than those near the core (at the center of rotation, there are *no* centripetal forces).

Let me tell something about centripetal and centrifugal forces. In a given frame of reference, if some object moves in a circular path with constant speed, then the force is towards the center of the path. That force is called as centripetal force. If the speed is not constant, then we can find a component of the total force towards the center. That component is called as centripetal force.

To give an example, Earth is rotating. Take an object on the surface of the Earth. That object is rotating in a circular path. The object experiences force of gravity from Earth.

Case A: If the object is on equator, then the gravity is towards Earth's center and the object is also rotating in a circular path whose center is Earth's center. In this case, the force of gravity on the object is itself the centripetal force on the object.

Case B: If the object is not on equator, then gravity is towards the center of the Earth, but the center of the path is some other point. In this case, find the component of the gravity towards the center of the path. That component is centripetal force.

It is important to note that centripetal force is not an extra force. Rather, in the above example, the force of gravity itself or a component thereof, is called as centripetal force. Since centripetal force is not separate from gravity, it is meaningless to talk about what will happen if centripetal force is more than gravity. In case A, gravity itself is centripetal force. So, how can centripetal force be greater than gravity? In case B, centripetal force is a component of gravity. A component of a force can never be greater than the force itself.

 

Now, let me talk about centrifugal force. Centrifugal force is not a real force in the sense that there is nothing that applies this force. This is a pseudo(also called fictitious force). Pseudo forces are assumed to apply Newton's laws in non-inertial frames.

Again consider an object at some point on the surface of the Earth. If we fix the frame of reference on that point itself, then the object is at rest. But we know that it experiences centripetal force. Because of centripetal force, it should be accelerated towards the center of the path. But, its acceleration is zero. So, what to do? To solve this problem, we assume a force on the object equal in magnitude to the centripetal force but opposite to the centripetal force. Therefore, centrifugal force is radially outward, while centripetal force is radially inward. Since centrifugal force is equal in magnitude to centripetal force and since centripetal force can never be greater than gravity, therefore centrifugal force also can never be greater than gravity.

In light of the above, please explain your following statement:-

"However, if those forces were greater than the force of gravity due the mass of the Earth, we would all have been flung into space long ago."

Edit:-

I read your post again and found that perhaps you want to say something else. You have written that there is centripetal force because of rotation. This is not so. Rather some force causes rotation and we call that force as centripetal force. So, centripetal force is the cause of rotation and not the result of rotation. Your statement indicates that centripetal force is result of rotation.

However, I do agree that if force which Earth's rotation is more than the force of gravity that an object on Earth experiences, then that object will be flung into space.

May be this is what you also wanted to say. But I first objected because your sentence indicated something else.

[suchandra]

 

In a given frame of reference, if some object moves in a circular path with constant speed, then the force is towards the center of the path.

The force is towards the outside when for example a carousel rotates.

Since Krishna created the Earth to rotate not only around its own axis (day and night) but also around the Sun (four seasons), the Earth's mass is also forced to the outside, just like a child sitting on a carousel is not forced towards the center of the carousel but towards the outside.

 

 

 

source: scielo.br

 

This illustrates the complexity of just three rotating planets:

 

For the centrifugal force the expression is (Prado, 2002):

 

Now, it is necessary to develop an equivalent equation for the gravitational force of the Sun (). From Fig. 3, it is possible to find the following relations, where stands for the radial component and stands for the perpendicular component:

 

 

 

 

Those equations can be used to find analytical equations for the radial and perpendicular components of the gravitational force of the Sun.

 

 

[Avinash]

 

just like a child sitting on a carousel is not forced towards the center of the carousel but towards the outside.

 

In my previous post, I already talked about centrifugal force. The child is forced towards the outside with respect to the carousel. This means that we have to fix the frame of reference on the carousel. The carousel is rotating; which means it is non-inertial frame of reference. Therefore, we apply pseudo force radially outward. This pseudo force is centrifugal force. Because of this centrifugal force, the child is forced outside. I already talked about centrifugal force in my previous post.

[Avinash]

Let me again emphasize that centrifugal force is not a real force.

Consider a disc, which is rotating. Since it is rotating, this means some centripetal force is acting on it. Put some object(say a ball) on the disc. You will see the ball move radially outward. You may think that there is some force, which moves the ball outward. This force is called as centrifugal force. But this is not a real force. If it is not real, then how does it cause the ball to move outward?

To know the answer, consider the part of the disc on which the ball is kept. This part experiences centripetal acceleration radially inward because of centripetal force. The ball does not experience this force. This is why compared to this part of the disc, the ball tends to move outward. The friction between the ball and the disc tries to stop the ball from moving outward. But, if the acceleration of the ball, caused by the friction is less than the centripetal acceleration on the part of the disc, then the friction is not sufficient to stop the ball from moving outward.

To understand it better, consider an analogy. Suppose I am in a car, which is moving at constant velocity. I take my hand outside and drop some object. Neglecting air drag, I will see the object just below where I dropped it. But if the car's speed is increasing, then the car will move ahead and the object will be behind. It is important to note that there is no real force on the object, because of which it fell back. The real force is on the car, because of which the car accelerates. This is why, when seen from the car, it seems as if the ball fell back. To explain this, we assume some force on the object if we are observing the object's motion from the car's frame. In reality, this force does not exist. But we assume this force to study the object's motion in car's frame, which is a non-inertial frame. This force is a pseudo force.

Likewise, there is no real force on the ball because of which it moves out. In reality, force exists on the disc and this force is centripetal, i.e. radially inward. Therefore, if we study the ball's motion in the disc's frame of reference, then we assume a radially outward force on the ball. This force, which is fictitious(or pseudo) is called as centrifugal force.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Sri Krishna is behind everything, but he creates nothing. He says so on more than one occasion. He is disinterested in the material realm and has innumerable servants to undertake the more mundane tasks.

 

Sri Krishna plants the seed in the heart of Lord Brahma (who is a Jiva, right?) and Lord Brahma "creates" everything.

 

Of course, from what I've seen, the exact *method* used by Brahma to create everything is not specified.

 

So, it very well *could* be something like a Big Bang and natural selection that Lord Brahma uses. If somebody has faith in Sri Krishna, none of this is distressing or perplexing.

 

Avinash. Thanks for the correction regarding centripetal/centrifugal forces. You see my point. After posting, I realized I wasn't entirely accurate in my presentation. I figured clarifying the point would confuse people even more.

 

Suchandra. Unless we are qualified scientists, perhaps it's best to focus our preaching efforts in the philosophical/theological arena and leave cosmology alone. Otherwise, we look like fools and can that give a poor impression of Krishna Consciousness in general.

[suchandra]

 

Let me again emphasize that centrifugal force is not a real force.

Consider a disc, which is rotating. Since it is rotating, this means some centripetal force is acting on it. Put some object(say a ball) on the disc. You will see the ball move radially outward. You may think that there is some force, which moves the ball outward. This force is called as centrifugal force. But this is not a real force. If it is not real, then how does it cause the ball to move outward?

To know the answer, consider the part of the disc on which the ball is kept. This part experiences centripetal acceleration radially inward because of centripetal force. The ball does not experience this force. This is why compared to this part of the disc, the ball tends to move outward. The friction between the ball and the disc tries to stop the ball from moving outward. But, if the acceleration of the ball, caused by the friction is less than the centripetal acceleration on the part of the disc, then the friction is not sufficient to stop the ball from moving outward.

To understand it better, consider an analogy. Suppose I am in a car, which is moving at constant velocity. I take my hand outside and drop some object. Neglecting air drag, I will see the object just below where I dropped it. But if the car's speed is increasing, then the car will move ahead and the object will be behind. It is important to note that there is no real force on the object, because of which it fell back. The real force is on the car, because of which the car accelerates. This is why, when seen from the car, it seems as if the ball fell back. To explain this, we assume some force on the object if we are observing the object's motion from the car's frame. In reality, this force does not exist. But we assume this force to study the object's motion in car's frame, which is a non-inertial frame. This force is a pseudo force.

Likewise, there is no real force on the ball because of which it moves out. In reality, force exists on the disc and this force is centripetal, i.e. radially inward. Therefore, if we study the ball's motion in the disc's frame of reference, then we assume a radially outward force on the ball. This force, which is fictitious(or pseudo) is called as centrifugal force.

 

Bhaktivedanta Institute:

Einstein argued that because of its permanence, gravitation must be a feature of space-time. He made the revolutionary suggestion that gravity is not like other forces. A mass does not create a force field around it that will cause another mass to accelerate. Instead, it distorts the structure of space-time around it. Let us describe the phenomenon of the earth moving in an elliptical path around the Sun in both Newtonion as well as the GTR frame-works. In the Newtonian framework, one would say that the earth is constantly attracted by the Sun. But in the GTR framework, we would say that the Sun has influenced the structure of space-time in its vicinity. It has distorted the space-time in its vicinity and the earth freely moves along a geodesic in this curved space-time. The light rays, too, must follow the geodesic path and thus bending of light is expected near a massive object like the Sun, which was verified experimentally in 1919.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Suchandra. Unless we are qualified scientists, perhaps it's best to focus our preaching efforts in the philosophical/theological arena and leave cosmology alone. Otherwise, we look like fools and can that give a poor impression of Krishna Consciousness in general.

[Avinash]

To Suchandra-

It is true that as per GTR, gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of space-time because of mass. But often Newton's laws are good approximation to GTR. Moreover, you yourself talked about gravitational force, centrifugal force etc. thus treating gravitational force as a force as defined in Newtonian mechanics. This is why I decided to clarify the difference between centripetal force and centrifugal force.

[suchandra]

 

 

Suchandra. Unless we are qualified scientists, perhaps it's best to focus our preaching efforts in the philosophical/theological arena and leave cosmology alone. Otherwise, we look like fools and can that give a poor impression of Krishna Consciousness in general.

This is what I like so much about American Vaishnavas, they're so straight and honest.

Murali Mohan, but thats what I did, to simply present the work of a qualified scientist, J. Marvin Herndon, see beginning of topic, who presented the proof that there's a natural nuclear plant in the center of the Earth. I did nothing but said, look how wonderful is Krishna to create Lord Brahma who created all the planets. On the other hand I have no problem to be called by US Vaishnavas a fool - in fact I can live best with it.

 

The Nuclear Heart of the Earth

The science behind 'The Core' including

an interview with J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.

<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="200"><tbody><tr><td>

out of the box and into space</td></tr></tbody></table> by Wayne Smith

Brisbane - September 22 2007

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.

Wayne: Dr. Herndon, I have read that you believe Mars to have a dead georeactor as evidenced by its not possessing any electromagnetic field. Can you speculate on other planets in the solar system including the Gas Giants?

Dr. Herndon: I first came upon the idea of planetary-scale nuclear fission reactors by considering the Gas Giants. When I went to school, I was taught that planets don't produce energy; they just receive energy from the sun and re-radiate it. But in the late 1960's astronomers found that Jupiter radiates about twice as much energy into space as it receives from the sun. Later, Saturn and Neptune were also found to radiate prodigious amounts of internally generated energy. For twenty years planetary scientists, believing that they had considered and eliminated all possible planetary-scale energy sources, pronounced that the extra energy being radiated was from the original gravitational collapse some 4.5 billion years ago. When I started thinking about the problem around 1990, that explanation did not make sense to me. Jupiter is 98% hydrogen and helium; both of these gases are extremely efficient heat transfer media. Then I realized that each of the Gas Giants had all of the necessary ingredients for a planetary-scale nuclear reactor, an energy source that had not been previously considered. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune each radiate prodigious amounts of internally generated energy and have very turbulent atmospheres; Uranus radiates little if any extra energy and its atmosphere appears featureless.

[speculation: Has Uranus' nuclear reactor shut down or died?]

After the paper on the Gas Giants was published in Naturwissenschaften, I realized that hydrogen was not necessary for slowing neutrons; that bit of insight lead me to begin developing the concept of a nuclear fission reactor at the center of the Earth, which I first published in 1993. We have no direct evidence (yet) that Mars has or had a nuclear reactor. However, Mars has the largest volcano in the solar system, Mons Olympus. There was at one time a source of energy needed to form that volcano. Now it appears that the interior of Mars may not be frozen. Interesting. Jupiter's moon, Io, has volcanic activity. I have read recent reports suggesting that tidal interaction with Jupiter may not supply enough energy. One might SPECULATE on the possibility of a nuclear reactor being involved, but at present it would only be a speculation. There was a recent report suggesting that the interior of our own moon may not be entirely frozen. There is paleomagnetic evidence to support the idea that the moon had its own magnetic field during its first 500 million years of life. What is needed is hard evidence.

Wayne: This aspect will I know interest the readers. Could a georeactor possibly "blow up" destroying its surrounding planet?

Dr. Herndon: No. For an explosion one needs very pure "weapons grade" uranium or plutonium. The impurities in natural uranium, including U-238, would rule this out. (Too bad for reader interest.) There is some nonsense on the web about global warming causing the georeactor to explode. Nonsense. Pseudoscience.

Wayne: Except for a georeactor winding down, are there any other dangers posed to life?

Dr. Herndon: The only elements that can escape from the core are very light elements. Light element fission products are low in abundance and, if radioactive, typically have short half-lives.

Unlike other potential planetary-scale energy sources which can change only very gradually in one direction over time, a nuclear reactor is capable of variable energy production, as I pointed out in my 1994 Proceedings of the Royal Society of London paper.

Questions that scientists should begin thinking about are whether such variable energy output for the earth can be detected and how might it affect the surface regions of our planet. Is the El Nino, for example, affected by such variability??? Ice ages??? I am not suggesting that they are, but one should keep an open mind. For example, in models of global warming, the heat flux from the interior is ASSUMED to be constant.

Is it? These are questions that scientists should address.

Wayne: What would control this energy output variability if it does exist?

Dr. Herndon: In a nuclear fission reactor, the nuclei of uranium and other actinide elements are caused to fission in a chain reaction, splitting typically into two pieces.

These fission products absorb neutrons and, if left in place, will slow the neutron chain reaction and, ultimately, will shut down the reactor. But the fission products have roughly half the atomic number of the uranium fuel and half the atomic mass. At the pressures that prevail in the deep interiors of planets, density is a function of atomic number and atomic mass. The fission products will therefore be less dense than the uranium fuel and will tend by gravity to migrate radially outward while the uranium fuel re-concentrates inward. One might imagine in the ideal case something of an equilibrium being established. But if, for example, the rate of production of fission products exceeds their rate of removal, the output power of the reactor might be reduced until the fission products have a chance to migrate by gravity away from the reactor zone. Then the power will increase.

Wayne: I was thinking about how this georeactor planetary theory if proven must apply to most if not all planetary bodies throughout the universe. I'm certain you are familiar with Drakes equation for trying to guesstimate the number of intelligent civilizations which might exist in the universe. Much revered by SETI. Wouldn't a new value have to be added representing the expected lifetime of a georeactor at any Earthlike world?

Dr. Herndon: I think that people would very much like to find evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. But the fact remains that Earth is the only planet where life has been found. I do not think that one can assign a probability to an event that has only been observed once. I am not in any way against efforts to find evidence of life, but I think that people need to be objective in that pursuit.

Wayne: Do you envision any strange examples of natural fission? Physicists have theorized about all manner of peculiar things such as miniature and even doughnut shaped black holes for instance. Could an unusual type of natural fission reactor exist somewhere in the universe?

Dr. Herndon: I try to build science step by step, one insight leading to another. I have had no reason to expect unusual types of reactors to exist in the universe. On the other hand, I think there is much that we still do not know about "ordinary" planetary-scale nuclear reactors. And who knows what we may ultimately learn?

Wayne: I hope you had fun in Hollywood rubbing shoulders with the stars.

Dr. Herndon: I found to my surprise that, not only did I get to rub shoulders with the stars, I was treated as a star and paraded along the red carpet at the World Premiere of THE CORE. That's quite a boost for science.

Wayne: Dr. Herndon thank you for taking time out from your hectic life to speak to us.

Dr. Herndon: It has been my pleasure. I find that people want very much to learn about their world. I am glad to have the opportunity to make this knowledge available. Thank you.

Natural Reactors.

On June 2 1972 a French analyst named Bougzigues discovered spent uranium in an ore sample later found to have originated from the Oklo deposits of Gabon in South West Africa. A number of ancient natural reactors were consequently discovered in the middle of this ore deposit. Scientists investigating the site confirmed that fission had taken place there approximately 2 billion years ago. U-235, the fissionable isotope of uranium, was more abundant in natural deposits of that era than at present. So ancient ores were in fact quite similar to enriched uranium and could fission under the right circumstances. With water acting as a moderator on particularly porous ores a sustained reaction became possible. The existence of natural reactors such as these had been theoretically predicted by P. K. Kuroda in 1956; Oklo was the first actual evidence of them to have been found.

Inside the Earth.

What we do know about the deepest regions of the Earth is largely deduced from meteorites and rock samples.

Lava and basalt contain small amounts of helium-3 not predicted by traditional planetary theory. There was no known natural production method to account for this isotope being present in such high quantities so scientists could only conclude that it originated from the Earths formation around 4.5 billion years ago. Rather incredible to believe but with no other obvious explanation available other than cosmic dust it has remained the generally accepted theory for over 30 years. To make it fit the evidence roughly 10 times as much helium-4 from radioactive decay had to have been mixed with the helium-3 and in a fashion enabling very narrow ranges of composition.

Results of the first numerical simulation of a deep-Earth reactor were published in 2001 by Marvin Herndon and Daniel Hollenbach. Confirming everything Herndon had published in the eight years prior to it, the calculations showed for the very first time how a deep-Earth nuclear reactor would produce both helium-3 and helium-4 in similar ratios to what is actually found in volcanic lavas and basalts. This is extremely strong evidence for a deep earth reactor. Recently, nuclear engineers and scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory made further numerical simulations which refine and extend the original findings of Herndon and Hollenbach. A 4.5 billion year old planetary scale georeactor with a heat output of approximately four terawatts looks increasingly likely as more evidence keeps mounting. The variable energy output expected with such a natural reactor has some supportive evidence also. Earth's geomagnetic field has over the course of history weakened, increased, reversed and even temporarily shutdown. Activity which makes very little sense if you ascribe to the traditional assumed heat generation from an assumed cooling and growing nickel iron inner core.

A five-mile-wide spherical reactor of mixed uranium 235, uranium 238 and self made plutonium is what nuclear engineers would call a fast-neutron breeder reactor. The nuclear fission produced heat warms the nickel silicide inner core and supplies energy to the mechanism that produces the geomagnetic field. Many people think that the heat from the inner core then heats the fluid core causing convection motions which act like a dynamo to produce the geomagnetic field, although the true mechanism is not yet known with any certainty.

One argument raised by other geophysicists is to ask how all of that uranium could have reached the center.

Many people think that uranium combines with oxygen and becomes part of the silicate mantle. Herndon's answer to this thorny question came to him from space. From stony meteorites to be exact. Chondrites are rubble left over from the creation of the solar system. "Most of today's geophysics is based on the idea that Earth is like ordinary chondrites, which were formed under relatively oxygen-rich conditions," says Herndon.

Enstatite chondrites which were created in conditions of low oxygen show much closer similarity to Earth's composition and do contain uranium. "These are like the inner planets, the oxygen isotopes in enstatite chondrites are identical to what we find inside Earth.

When there is plenty of oxygen, all of the elements that like to combine with oxygen would go with the silicates. But when there is limited oxygen, elements such as uranium and magnesium would in part go to the Earth's core," he explains.

Dark Matter and Stars.

If natural fission is commonly found at the hearts of planets then it might also be found in metal rich protostars. This might then be the actual trigger mechanism for fusion. Thus rewriting the theory of how stars ignite and challenging the traditionalists among astrophysicists 'and' geophysicists. The popular explanation has long been gravitational collapse heat as being the trigger for a fusion reaction. Such a reaction requires temperatures of about one million degrees celsius. Herndon's idea of fission providing the trigger is experimentally proven by the detonation of hydrogen bombs. No experimental proof on the other hand exists for gravity being capable of achieving the same result. In fact, calculations indicate that it may not be possible to attain a million degrees by gravitational collapse because energy is radiated away as a function of the fourth power of temperature.

Using step by step logical reasoning we can therefore assume that stars not containing a critical mass of fissionables can't ignite. Astronomers seem to be slowly coming to the same conclusion, having observed that dark matter appears especially plentiful near stars with low amounts of metal. No significant level of fissionable metals means no fission and therefore no fusion. So the bulk of that missing 90% of the universe labelled 'Dark Matter' which astronomers have been scratching their heads over for decades, might simply be accounted for by non-ignited stars.

The end of the georeactor's lifetime is approaching.

Nuclear georeactor numerical simulation results reveal increasingly higher ratios of helium-3 to helium-4 fission products occurring as the world ages. A sign of uranium fuel depletion at the core. This trend combined with the high helium ratios observed today in fresh lavas from Hawaii and Iceland indicates the end of the georeactor's lifetime to be rapidly approaching(geologically speaking). Dr. Herndon is now working to narrow down a more specific date for this event currently estimated to happen anytime from the next century to a billion years in the future. Beryllium-9 and beryllium-10 samples from the core, if locatable, might contain vital information to help with predictions. When combined with other data it could provide us with an answer to 'when'.

After the georeactor does die, the Earths magnetic field will follow, having no source of energy to power it. This collapse will have an adverse global effect on animal and plant life, from birds getting lost to solar radiation stripping off our atmosphere. It's questionable if life could in fact survive at all. We do know that the sterile looking surface of Mars presently has no geomagnetic field.

This theory undoubtedly deserves serious scrutiny from the scientific community. Like so many other 'earthshaking' new ideas in science it has sadly been largely ignored to date. Plate tectonics suffered the same 'pariah' status for fully half a century with experts refusing even to consider it. Radical new ideas in science frequently face hostility because scientists themselves are only human. Geophysicists who have spent the better part of their lives writing papers on the dynamics of Earth's inner structure do not want to hear about how they might have been wasting their lives chasing the wrong theory. Building up a reputation as being an authority on a subject is extremely difficult. It requires enormous dedication and long years of study with little pay and perhaps mounting debts. Many of us imagine the scientific community to be extremely logical and fair-minded in assessing new ideas. We see these people in their spotless white frocks taking exceedingly precise measurements of the universe and its easy to think they must administer themselves in the same way.

Following the demandingly stringent doctrines laid down by the scientific method to judge any new theory on its merits alone. This would be the action of a robot. In truth, science is just another belief system that can be corrupted by ambition, jealousy and fear.

Dr. Herndon discovered this the hard way and has paid for much of the research done so far out of his own pocket. However, as evidence builds in favour of his "georeactor sub-core", the walls of opposition are now finally starting to crumble. People everywhere are beginning to realise that it makes sense. The Earth is not yet a dying planet, but a World that is alive with a nuclear reactor heart.

Related Links

NuclearPlanet.com

SpaceDaily

Search SpaceDaily

Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

 

 

 

 

Science and Spiritual Quest

 

 

 

3^rd All India Students’ Conference

 

 

 

22-23 December 2007

 

http://www.binstitute.net/aissq2007/

 

 

Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh – 517501, INDIA

 

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Prabhu. You are a good-hearted and sincere Vaishnava. It is because of your sincerity that you see the hand of the Lord in all things.

 

I am an envious snake and fool.

 

Please continue your valuable efforts and pay no mind to my useless whinings.

 

Nitai-Gaura Hari Bol!

 

 

This is what I like so much about American Vaishnavas, they're so straight and honest.

Murali Mohan, but thats what I did, to simply present the work of a qualified scientist, J. Marvin Herndon, see beginning of topic, who presented the proof that there's a natural nuclear plant in the center of the Earth. I did nothing but said, look how wonderful is Krishna to create Lord Brahma who created all the planets. On the other hand I have no problem to be called by US Vaishnavas a fool - in fact I can live best with it.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

thats what I did, to simply present the work of a qualified scientist, J. Marvin Herndon, see beginning of topic, who presented the proof that there's a natural nuclear plant in the center of the Earth. I did nothing but said, look how wonderful is Krishna to create Lord Brahma who created all the planets.

OK. Now that apologies have been offered by me to you, a question still remains.

 

What is it about this particular cosmological theory that you find to be more indicative of an Intelligent Designer/Creator than the prevailing theory? Could not each theory equally indicate a Divine Consciousness behind everything that exists?

 

Would you find it *more* comforting if the center of the Earth was made up of candy-cane houses, chocolate rivers, and oompah-loompas (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Willy Wonka reference)?

[suchandra]

 

OK. Now that apologies have been offered by me to you, a question still remains.

 

What is it about this particular cosmological theory that you find to be more indicative of an Intelligent Designer/Creator than the prevailing theory? Could not each theory equally indicate a Divine Consciousness behind everything that exists?

 

Would you find it *more* comforting if the center of the Earth was made up of candy-cane houses, chocolate rivers, and oompah-loompas (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Willy Wonka reference)?

Thanks Mohan prabhu, but your points were quite ok, no need to apologize. My mistake was to present it as theory and not as fact. Why it kept my busy - well in this part of the world environmental activists still see nuclear reactors as an enormous threat and now they come to know that there's a huge nuclear reactor right in the center of the Earth and we sitting on it and orbiting through space. A grotesque creation for pointing out that although we're so dependent, so much at the mercy of nature, still human beings do nothing but to day and night score off each other. Something like castaways on an island who beat each other and making their shipwrecked lives an even worse misery instead of helping each other and working together. What more proof does humanity need that there's no place for such kind in the spiritual world?

I mean except the devotees.