Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Refining a planetary model

  1. #1

    Refining a planetary model

    There is considerable debate about the categorisation of Pluto. In light of this debate, lately I have been considering the issue, together with the categorisation of other planets and would be planets in our solar system. In doing so, I have etched a model which I hope proves useful to reaching a personal understanding of some of the issues involved. I am posting this in the hope that the model can be refined or even abandoned upon the feedback of better informed and/or qualified members here. I am not suggesting the model ought to replace the existing one(s) because the peer-reviewed paper it is based upon has only recently been published and appears to be still under consideration by the relevant parts of the scientific community.

    In considering the issues I have made several posts in the various Pluto threads on this board. This post or model brings together some of the ideas in those posts, crystalised as a result of the following paper by Mikio Fukuhara in late November of last year. The model is based on the idea "what if this paper is correct?"



    Abstract

    The cause and source of the heat released from Earth’s interior have not yet been determined. Some research groups have proposed that the heat is supplied by radioactive decay or by a nuclear georeactor. Here we postulate that the generation of heat is the result of three-body nuclear fusion of deuterons confined in hexagonal FeDx core-centre crystals; the reaction rate is enhanced by the combined attraction effects of high-pressure (~364 GPa) and high-temperature (~5700 K) and by the physical catalysis of neutral pions: 2D + 2D + 2D → 21H + 4He + 2  + 20.85 MeV. The possible heat generation rate can be calculated as 8.12 × 1012 J/m3, based on the assumption that Earth’s primitive heat supply has already been exhausted. The H and He atoms produced and the anti-neutrino are incorporated as Fe-H based alloys in the H-rich portion of inner core, are released from Earth’s interior to the universe, and pass through Earth, respectively
    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740

    The basis of the model is that a planet, consistent with the idea put forward in the above paper, is capable of a nuclear reaction at its core. The paper deals specifically with Earth, but there is no reason to think that Earth is exceptional in this respect alone. In fact, there appears ample evidence from observations of other planets in our solar system and exoplanets that if Earth's core is nuclear active, then such a reaction is common.

    As a starting point in relation to any planetary model I have chosen Earth. Regardless of whether Earth is the only mass which accords with the idea of a planet, it is to be thought of that Mass which most fulfills the idea of a planet.

    Assuming the paper to be correct, that Earth's core is active, several things are taken into consideration in this model and possible implications of the model

    - Earth's core nuclear activity appears balanced (the Goldilocks principle)
    - The measure of balance is the presence of liquid water, with the further inference that such water sits on a solid surface, not necessarily at the planet's surface. The idea of a surface in this context being refined by reference the planet's ability "catch" or hold liquid water and not loose it into its interior or the atmosphere and then possibly space. The liquid water balance has protection.
    - Thus, for any potential planet to be considered a Planet it must have a solid surface capable of "catching" or retaining a liquid. This is important because assuming a liquid on a surface being the measure of balance, then without such a potential it cannot achieve balance.

    The model categorises the masses we refer to as planets and moons in the following way:

    Earth - Planet (Balanced)

    Mercury - 1st degree Planet (Spent - no longer nuclear active)
    Venus - 1st degree Planet (Spent - no longer nuclear active)
    Mars - 1st degree Planet (Spent - no longer nuclear active)
    Pluto - 1st degree Planet (Active)
    Ceres - 1st degree Planet (Spent - no longer nuclear active)

    Proto Planets (no solid surface for liquid + nuclear active)

    - Jupiter
    - Saturn
    - Uranus
    - Neptune

    2nd Degree Planets (examples)

    Io (Active)
    Europa (Active)
    Ganymede (Spent)
    Titan (Active)
    Enceladus (Active)
    The Moon (Spent)



    The model speculates that the nuclear reaction assumed occurs or "sparks" approximately at the stage a circular form is achieved by a mass. This would give the model further geometry if correct.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Apr-15 at 07:36 AM.

  2. #2
    The model above further suggests that if Mikio Fukuhara's paper is correct:

    1. the nuclear reaction will cause the mass of the planet to compact, contracting the overall size of the planet;
    2. consequently, assuming no additional factors, the surface gravity of the planet will increase according to the contraction;
    3. water liquid and other elements and compounds will be squeezed from the interior of the planet towards the surface the more the mass of the planet contracts, potentially splitting the mantle and/or crust of the planet;
    4. tidal flexing of planets assists the nuclear reaction process; and
    5. the exact type of nuclear reaction may be particular to the planet, depending upon local conditions and factors, such as tidal flexing, base composition of the mass, proximity to other energy sources such as stars, and potentially other factors.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Apr-15 at 06:41 AM.

  3. #3
    The model further suggests, if Mikio Fukuhara's paper is correct:

    6. the resonances of two masses to each other will be effected by the nuclear reaction(s) suggested by Mikio Fukuhara as a result of mass compacting in the planet(s). The alteration of these resonances has the potential to disturb and alter orbits in a solar system:

    7. the reaction will possibly cease at iron:

    8. the reaction will result in a larger amount of iron at the core than if the reaction had not taken place: and

    9. because certain elements and compounds will be squeezed towards the surface during the reaction (compaction), when they are vented to the surface it will result in the increase of the mass of the planet's atmosphere.

    10. The greater the spherical perfection of two or more masses in a resonant system because of the reaction, the greater the likelihood the resonance will be stable and harmonious. The Laplace resonance of Jupiter's moons being an example of a stable and harmonious resonance of 3 highly evolved spherical masses in a system.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Apr-15 at 06:41 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,398
    How on earth did that paper get published?

    Aside from the strange 'open questions' where basic things like the Oklo mine and radioactive decay are mangled into the argument that if there were radioactive decay in the Earth we'd all be dead it is all based on the assumption that low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR, aka cold fusion) works. And the only citations or evidence for this are his own papers in what look to be either irrelevant or pay-to-publish journals.

    If your model is predicated on this paper being right then it is dead in the water as far as I am concerned.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    How on earth did that paper get published?
    ...

    If your model is predicated on this paper being right then it is dead in the water as far as I am concerned.
    Not from radiation poisoning though, right? Just drowned or something, I guess.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Apr-15 at 06:40 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Canis Lupus View Post
    Not from radiation poisoning though, right? Just drowned or something, I guess.
    Yeah no need to worry about "a large nuclear mass emission from radioactive elements primarily concentrated in the shallow crust" or even "an example of spontaneous ignition due to high enough concentrations of radioactive elements in crustal rocks at Oklo".

    Even allowing for translation issues there are so many problems with the claims and reasoning presented in that paper. Sorry but it really does make your planetary model a non-starter.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    45,979
    Closed pending moderator discussion.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    13,845
    Thread will remain closed. No ATM discussion outside the ATM forum.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •