An acquaintance recently directed me to the following Web page and asked my opinion of it...

http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html

Since I'm an engineer and not a planetary scientist I'm not fully qualified to debunk it. I do see some elements of truth in the theory, but I find the overall concept absurd. Does anyone know anything about this Dr. Chalko guy? Is he some sort of maverick or does his theory actually have some credibility?

My apologies if this topic has already been discussed. If it has, perhaps you can just point me to the appropriate thread. Thanks.

If there was any truth to what this guy is saying we wouldn't be here to discuss this because the Earth naturally experiences long term average global temperature changes as large or larger than what is proposed by global warming advocates.

Yuop. during the mesozoic there were no polar ice caps and the global tempurtre level was much more than it was no. Have no fear, The Earth will not explode.

On the other hand, if we accumulated a large enough group of HBs such that a critical mass was achieved, the planet might implode! #-o

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I briefly mentioned Dr. Chalko's important contribution to human knowledge ( ) back in '02 when I brought Phil Berardelli's story about a possible natural nuclear reactor at the center of the Earth's core to the attention of the board.

Note that the "Number of active volcanoes" graph at http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html and http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html is not displaying the red forecasted volcanoes bars in Internet Explorer 6 and Mozilla 1.5.

Apparently, Dr. Chalko's paper was returned to him for a revision on September 2, 2002.

A few years ago Britain experienced a number of mysterious exploding manhole covers (They would just launch themsleves in to the air for no apparent reason). Boredom perhaps? This phenomena was never satisfactorily explained!

Was it an early warning sign? :wink:

I have no delusion that the Earth is about to explode; in fact, I have already written a response to the inquiry saying the theory is nonsense. I think I included some pretty strong arguments, but in the end it is still just the opinion of an amateur. I'm trying to confirm that my opinion is the correct one. For instance...

* I believe that the effect of global warming is small in comparison to the large-scale temperature variations that have occurred throughout history. Thus the current warming is unlikely to have any unusual effect on the Earth's core temperature.

* I believe that the internal heat generated by the decay of radioactive isotopes will decrease over time as these substances are transformed into stable elements.

* I believe the time required to melt the Earth's core, if that were even possible, would likely be millions of years. Thus any short-term global warming effect is a non-factor in the 'big picture'.

Now let's play devil's advocate and say the core did melt. In this case, how much of what Dr. Chalko says has a basis in fact? For instance...

* Would elements segregate by atomic weight as he describes? I believe this is a possibility, at least to a point.

* Would U-235 separate from U-238 in a sufficiently enriched form to support an explosive chain reaction? I seriously doubt it.

* If U-235 did accumulate in a highly enriched form, what would trigger a chain reaction? Would it occur spontaneously?

Even if there was some remote possibility that an atomic explosion could occur, I find it strange that all the U-235 would cooperate and patiently wait millions of years to accumulate into one enormous devastating mass before exploding. Why wouldn't we just have a serious of small inconsequential explosions as pockets accumulated?

I'd like to know if the scientific community considers this Dr. Chalko a crackpot or am I just being overly critical of the man.

I'm not the scientific community, but I'd say he's off his rocker regardless. One only has to look to Venus to see that he's wrong. Since it's still here, and not a chunky pile of asteroids, I'd guess that ol' Terra here will remain quite firma.

I would think that the limiting factor on transferring heat from the earth's core to space is the several thousand kilometers of insulating rock between the two, not the atmosphere. And vice versa, if I could point out.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Actually breaking up an Earth-sized planet into a mass of asteroids takes more energy than the sun puts out in a week. There's no plausible mechanism by which the Earth's core could create that much energy. Can't happen.

I never fail to be amazed at how folks that predict an apocalypse are unfazed by being proven wrong. :-?

You think after several hundred attempts, they would come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with their prediction techniques.

I'd be willing to bet my life savings that the Earth will not explode, because:

a) it's not going to.
b) if it did, I wouldn't be alive to pay up.

__________________
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/GM/GS/MU d- s+:+ a--- C++ U--->+++ P--->+++++ L+>+++++ E? W++ N? o? K? w+>--- O? !M V? PS !PE Y+ PGP t+(t++)>+++ 5 X+>++++ R tv+ b+>++ DI++ D+ G++>++++ e>+++ h! !r y?
------END GEEK CODE------

And besides, wouldn't it then all turn into Kryptonite and kill Superman? We can't have that.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

I propose that they generally segregate by density. When the Earth was molten, iron and similar elements settled in the core due to density, not atomic weight. Does U-235 and U-238 have different densities? I don't know.

You can however point out that water has, IIRC, an atomic weight of 18 yet many oils, whose atomic weights are far greater, float in water. Even oxygen gas has an atomic weight of 32 yet is 'lighter' than water.

Density is what I was thinking, though not what I said. The assumption being that each isotope would have a different density and would therefore segregate from the others.

The person who asked me about this Chalko theory posted my comments on another forum. Apparently Dr. Chalko himself responded. I'm still trying to digest his comments, though I don't think he added much that wasn't already said. He did however direct me to a document and suggested that I "please study solutions to an elementary heat equation of a spherically symmetric object that generates heat in its entire volume and is cooled only at its surface at http://nujournal.net/coreheat1.pdf". I haven't had a chance to do so yet, but will. He also said that "chain reaction is not limited to uranium". Other than U-235, U-233 and Pu-239 (which is not naturally occuring) what other materials are capable of fission chain reactions? I think he is wrong.

TriangleMan is on the right track with the idea of relative densities, I am sure. The idea of differential isotopic enrichment is far-fetched as far as I can tell. As a thought experiment, think how hard it is to separate uranium isotopes under controlled conditions. As was also mentioned earlier, the whole thing needs a kind of prefect symmetry physics experiment quality.

One other thing I noted on reading the article summary a second time just jumped out. Italics mine:

The most important thing is that everything flows from the proof that the solid core is shrinking, not growing. THAT is the real 'astonishing' conclusion of the report.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

Looking around the site complex (the sites that sci-e-engineering.com links to) you can see that there's a firm connection to Kirlian imaging, selling those machines, "bioresonance" and chakra centers. All domain names are owned by Dr. Chalko, which is suspicious. No matter how brilliant Dr. Chalko might be, a single person cannot prove anything scientifically. For it to be science, others have to read it too. Otherwise it's an anecdote.

Doctor of Engineering Science Tomasz Josef Chalko is a real person and actually is a docent in Univ. of Melbourne, so no funny business there. He's a recognised scientist. However, his field of experitise is different: lasers. It is curious how little quantitative analysis (read: formulas) Dr. Chalko gives in his argument, especially when this area of interest involves a great deal of Hard Math(tm). Credibility--;

Michael Sephton (from the same university) did an analysis using Excel that Chalko's model gives bad results. (In my opinion, anything where Excel is involved in is not science, so this may not be a sufficient proof.)
http://www.student.unimelb.edu.au/~m.../SCI~paper.htm

My opinion here is that Dr. Chalko got a bit tired of his narrow field and began jocular (or delusional, or the worst case, SERIOUS and ACCURATE) writing on a subject he found interesting. Another reason could be that selling Kirlian equipment should be lucrative; selling hot air always is. Sometimes finding other interests is good (example: world-famous patent official Albert Einstein), sometimes not (example world-famous artist Adolf Hitler).

If you're interested in a similar case where the writer is actually serious, look for Dr. Tuomo Suntola's replacement for General Relativity. Dr. Suntola developed the Atomic Layer Deposition machine we have here at our lab of Inorganic Chemistry, so he's no Internet anomaly or a new Johan af Grann. I've seen the machine working; for the microscopic scale it operates it's funny how macroscopic its puffing and clicking is. The result is a nice (molecule-thin) layer on the silicon chip.

c) life savings? what life savings?

It think I've answered my own question regarding fissionable materials. It seems the only naturally occuring fissile isotopes are Uranium-235 and Thorium-232. Uranium-233, which is manufactured from Th-232, and Plutonium-239, which is manufactured from U-238, are also fissionable.

The bulletin board on which Dr. Chalko posted his reply to my comments is hard to follow because it seems to jump from one unrelated topic to another. Also, the text is all the same so it's difficult to separate his comments from mine. Nonetheless, you can read it here if interested (message 33)...

http://groups.msn.com/ConspiracyTheo...61025238957968

My follow-up letter got posted here (message 4)...

http://groups.msn.com/ConspiracyTheo...60190765319123

(NOTE: I am not participating directly in this other forum, my comments are being posted for me.)

I also just sent off another reply as follows. Bolded text are Dr. Chalko's comments.

I do not participate in forums with suspicious aims. Below I make a few comments for your information.

My only aim is to get to the truth.

It is a sphere that generates heat by nuclear decay of isotopes that it contains. One can call it whatever.

I think Dr. Chalko is being very glib about this. He is making a technical presentation thus he should use precise terminology. A nuclear reactor is a device in which a nuclear chain reaction is initiated and controlled. Radioactive decay is not a chain reaction, thus Earth is not a nuclear reactor.

Please study solutions to an elementary heat equation of a spherically symmetric object that generates heat in its entire volume and is cooled only at its surface at http://nujournal.net/coreheat1.pdf

I have printed the document and will study it as soon as time permits.

Solutions to the above heat equation indicate that if the core is under-cooled even by a tiny amount, but for sufficiently long time ...

By what amount and for how long? Please provide numbers.

... temperatures in its very center may exceed temperatures of stars. This is mathematical fact.

Stars vary dramatically in temperature from a few thousand degrees at their surfaces to tens of millions of degrees at their centers. Again, please provide numbers.

Limiting considerations to Uranium and assuming "iron core" paradigms etc.. is simply unwise. Chain reaction is not limited to Uranium.

Other than Uranium-235, Uranium-233, Plutonium-239 and Thorium-232, what other materials are capable of fission chain reaction? By the way, U-233 and Pu-239 do not occur naturally.

The truth is that media is controlled by those who take advantage of humanity. As a result media is a source of propaganda and misinformation. These are facts.

I certainly have no love for the media, but it is unfair to lump them all together into a single stereotype. Being a source of propaganda and misinformation does not mean that the media ONLY reports propaganda and misinformation.

Even if Earth doesn't explode, Global Warming WILL cause global volcanic activity, followed be several decades of ice age. This is how a planetary interior cools itself and this is what it had done many times in our planetary history.

BINGO! The Earth has done it many times in the past because the planet goes through cyclic temperature variations, and it will go through them again. The Earth hasn't exploded in the past and it's not likely to in the future.

Dismissing the mathematically precise evidence http://nujournal.net/coreheat1.pdf without studying it is not a sign of competence and integrity...

I did not dismiss it. This document is not referenced on your Web page, thus I was unaware of its existence.

In conclusion, Dr. Chalko has produced a Web page in which he has presented an extraordinary conclusion - the Earth will explode! On that Web page is a link to the full article, yet that link takes us to a single page document that says the article has been returned to the author for revision. In response to my earlier comments, Dr. Chalko provides a link to a document giving heat transfer equations and essentially says "figure it out for yourself". I think that Dr. Chalko owes it to all of us to make public his complete analysis and calculations so that it can be fully scrutinized by his peers. Such extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

First, look at this simple article about the Earth's core.

I looked at this article and found several major errors with applying it to model the heat transfer within the Earth.

First, the Earth is not a solid. There is a large liquid section.

Second, composition of the Earth is not uniform so the thermal conductivity, k, the thermal diffusivity, the greek symbol alpha, and the heat generation term, q cannot be to considered constant values. A mistake made by only a few undergraduates.

Third, the surface temperature of the Earth is a variable by location. The radius and two angles as measured from the center.

Fourth, the surface boundary condition is wrong. The land masses experience both convection and radiation. The surface under the ocean experiences convection. Not a constant temperature

So, what we have here is an inappropriately applied equation.

Thank you very much for your expert opinion. I've looked at the document myself but I think I need a refresher before I'll fully understand it. :-k This is not the type of stuff I routinely deal with and it's been far too long since my college days. Can I call on you if I need help?

Although I have many more thoughts on this topic and just as many questions, I now feel the ball is in Dr. Chalko's court. Since he is the one making the extraordinary claims the burden of proof is clearly his. If he chooses to respond I'll take up this fight again, but until then I'm going to let it drop.

Were there really only five volcanoes active in 1995? That seems a tad low for the entire planet.

http://bioresonant.com/quakes.gif

__________________
Neither love nor money makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, we're down to about 17 ounces of the highly unstable stuff that does.

Surely there are not that few 'active volcanoes' in the world. I assume what he is counting is the number of annual eruptions. A volcano can be active without erupting for many years. The five eruptions in 1995 could simply be anomalously low, just as the 40 or so in 2001 could be anomalously high. I find it amazing this guy attempts to support his hypothesis with only seven years of data. That is far too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. Perhaps 1995-99 was a period of unusually low volcanic activity and in 2000-01 we see a return to normal? There is just no way to know for sure with such a small sample. Give us a century of data and maybe we can begin to tell something. Also, what happened in 2002-03?

(Edit: grammar)

I suspect that the "Doctor" used a chart like this to just count the number of eruptions. This one does indeed show five in 1995, but one needs to look at all the of the volcanos to see if they have erupted in the past ten years or so. Look at KILAUEA, HAWAII which is listed as on going. The large list is here.

A couple of things to add. There are underwater volcanos that may not be listed, since they are not known.

According to this site there have been 2600 eruptions since 1956, on average 55 per year.

Second, an eruption is not the only way a volcano looses energy. Gas and stream leaving a volcano is an energy loss. Also the growth of the volcano is an energy loss.

Hey, that's a belief system for you. Facts don't get in the way.

As Cleavon Little said in Blazing Saddles, "Keep the faith...!"

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Wouldnt this process be a long on in the making if it was actually possible.
I mean this would have to be something to affect the next few hundres generations right.

Would the sun have burned itself out before this.

Is this actually remotly possible or is this guy another Nancy.

Who knows? It never happened before when there was more nuclear fuel, more heat left over from the formation of the Earth and hotter surface temperatures. It hasn't happened on Venus either.

The guy is using an equation that he derived for a small solid pellet of nuclear fuel, with constant material properties. This equation is not applicable to the Earth at all. I listed several problems with the use of this equation a few posts earlier.

I think Chalko's mechanism is suspect - and being debunked quite handily here. What I wonder is what made him think that planets could explode in the first place?! You don't just wake up one morning thinking your home could be vaporized, do you? (maybe you do...)

To answer the question, let's set aside the mechanism: is there any way we can test empirically for the possibility of planetary explosion?

Suppose the Earth _could_ explode. That means other terrestrial planets might explode too, right? Is there any observational evidence, either within the solar system, or without, that might indicate planets have exploded? Or failing to have found any evidence so far, can one make predictions of what one might find if a planet did explode in the solar system's history?

(For those of you suspecting a rhetorical question: we congratulate you on your perspicacity!)

Here are some suggestions for just within the solar system:

1. remaining explosion debris
2. anomalous cratering histories
3. anomalous planetary geologic history

And outside the solar system?

1. anomalous energetic outbursts? (i.e. ever see a star explode?)
2. ever see a planetary nebula?
(so THAT's where the name comes from ; - )



Are things like this seen?

Perhaps they are...

I know you guys and gals aren't going to simply ignore the mechanism of explosion. The mechanism must exist for the thesis to have any credibililty. My hunch is that the physics to describe planetary explosion might be beyond us at this time... just like the physics to describe Novae was beyond astronomers even as recently as 50 years ago.

Curiously,

Boris

It looks like several of my responses to Dr. Chalko's theory have been indirectly posted at the other forum. It also looks like a couple of these responses were forwarded to Dr. Chalko. He responded to the first but has apparently declined to participate in any further forum discussion. Thus it looks like my request for Dr. Chalko to provide computational evidence to support his claim will go unheeded.

I have suspected for some time now that Dr. Chalko may have no computational evidence. My suspicion is that he obtained or derived an equation and examined the relationship between the variables in that equation, from which he observed "the slightest reduction in the convection cooling of the core, when maintained for a sufficiently long time, leads to extreme thermal conditions in the center of the core". From this observation Dr. Chalko has concluded that the inner core of the Earth will melt with the following consequences: "The most serious consequence of such a "meltdown" could be a gravity-buoyancy based segregation of unstable isotopes in the molten inner core. Such a segregation can "enrich" the nuclear fuel in the core to the point of creating conditions for a chain reaction and a gigantic atomic explosion. Can Earth become another "asteroid belt" in the Solar system?"

It has been suggested earlier in this discussion that Dr. Chalko has misapplied his equation, thus his initial observation is inconclusive. If the initial observation is incorrect then all subsequent conclusions must be rendered invalid. For the sake of argument however, let's assume global warming will result in extreme thermal conditions in the Earth's inner core. If true, there is long sequence of events that must happen before Dr. Chalko's doomsday scenario will occur. It looks to me like Dr. Chalko has gone from one step to the next using intuition only. Unfortunately it is not good enough to simply reason that if the Earth's inner core temperature were to rise that the result would be a core meldown. It is also not good enough to simply reason that if the core did melt that unstable isotopes would segregate resulting in the enrichment of the nuclear fuel. It is likewise not good enough to simply reason that such enrichment will result in an explosive event. Finally, it is not good enough to simply reason that such an explosion will destroy the Earth. These are conclusions that should be demonstrable through science and mathematics, but Dr. Chalko has declined to provide his calculations.

Dr. Chalko has painted a doomsday picture based on what appears to be a thought experiment. He then suggests that the way to prevent this doomsday is to stop global warming. Does Dr. Chalko really believe this scenario possible or is he simply using alarmist tactics to promote an agenda? I'd like to know but Dr. Chalko doesn't seem interested in participating in "forums with suspicious aims".

For this approach to be valid, you have to distinguish between evidence consistent with a wide range of hypotheses and evidence specific to your planetary explosion hypothesis. So considering this list...

Do we see debris that is specifically "explosion debris"? No; we see asteroids, comets, and meteoroids, but these cannot be explained as products of an explosion, and they are well explained by existing hypotheses.

Define "anomalous". Cratering histories and geologic histories are better explained by existing hypotheses.

Stellar phenomena should not be confused with planetary phenomena. The mechanisms of stellar explosions and outbursts are well modeled; planetary explosions are rejected by the same physical understanding underlying these models. Planetary nebulae (named for their planet-like appearance to early visual observers, not for formation mechanisms) result from stellar phenomena.