Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jonesy · 03-21-2002, 05:18 AM

I would like some comments on the following:

<a href="http://bioresonant.com/news.htm" target="_blank">http://bioresonant.com/news.htm</a>

After reading this, and with my limited knowledge of geophysics, can anyone with some knowledge in this area or who knows something about the stuff (in Dr. Chalko's paper) maybe comment/explain to me why what he suggests is false/true?

Please help with some opinions. I've beem puzzling over this a lot and don't know who to believe (from scientists) - on the issue.

MortalWombat · 03-21-2002, 05:52 AM

[CHEEK][TONGUE]Well, it's obvious from this huge sample size of seven years, we can clearly see that the number of active volcanoes is increasing almost exponentially.[/TONGUE][/CHEEK]

Oolon Colluphid · 03-21-2002, 06:06 AM

It would appear from the graph that nobody has been predicting any volcanoes be active.

And what happened in 1999 then? The number went down!? And the number appears to stay the same during 97 and 98. How can that be, if the earth�s core�s nuclear reactor is going critical?

Please answer me honestly, Thiaoouba: has it ever occurred to you that it might, just possibly, be bollocks?

Oolon

Jonesy · 03-21-2002, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
It would appear from the graph that nobody has been predicting any volcanoes be active.

And what happened in 1999 then? The number went down!? And the number appears to stay the same during 97 and 98. How can that be, if the earth?s core?s nuclear reactor is going critical?

Please answer me honestly, Thiaoouba: has it ever occurred to you that it might, just possibly, be bollocks?

Oolon

Well, it just seems to me that someone who has been a senior lecturer at Melbourne University for many years, when such a person makes some radical conslusions - there must be some 'back up'. He presents this 'back up' in the form of his paper (the pdf file link on the website I've given). Now, what ACTUALLY concerns me is the math IN THAT PDF FILE. Can anyone perhaps have a read of it and maybe point out that this and that is bollocks, because, frankly, to me at the moment it looks like some mathematical effort has been done - and a lot of it - so, all I'm asking if for some of you to check out this math and let me know maybe on why it's full of shit or why there is some (if any) correctness in it.

I would love to explain (if I could and if he's paper contained bollocks - which I'm not sure it contains) to Dr. Chalko why he is wrong. Or maybe he's correct? People (and not only) who are willing to have a read of his pdf file, please offer some views.

Flynn McKerrow · 03-21-2002, 07:08 AM

Which peer reviewed scientific journal has this been published in? I'm guessing it hasn't been.

If not, which one(s) was it submitted to? And why wasn't it published? If it hasn't been submitted, why not?

Those are the questions you really need to be asking.

Jonesy · 03-21-2002, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flynn McKerrow:
Which peer reviewed scientific journal has this been published in? I'm guessing it hasn't been.

If not, which one(s) was it submitted to? And why wasn't it published? If it hasn't been submitted, why not?

Those are the questions you really need to be asking.

Your questions are spot on - only I wish, IF, as it may turn out, this paper did not make any journal, then maybe there are some scientific boards/forums where someone can actually read it and comment that "yes, this or that is wrong" etc.? Maybe you can read it and offer any comment? I mean, is the only avenue actually emailing Dr. Chalko about this? Has anyone tried?

scombrid · 03-21-2002, 12:17 PM

Whenever I see that site I get the feeling that it is a parody. They seem to be poking fun at the more alarmist wing of global warming theories. With this in there, how can they be serious.

Quote:

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

Money cannot save the Planet.

Thiaoouba appears to be eating up a joke as fact. If it's not parody the guy needs to be canned from uni.

Amen-Moses · 03-21-2002, 12:39 PM

So why hasn't venus exploded years ago, or Jupiter or Saturn? Am I supposed to accept that the solid central core couldn't remain concentric whilst growing through crystalisation purely on this guys say so? Where is the proof of such a statement. Seeing as the whole rest of the paper is based upon this unproven statement I'll presume it's bollocks.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses · 03-21-2002, 12:49 PM

Well I can't seem to turn up any qualifications in Geology or Planetary cosmology for this Chalko chap and looking at the rest of the garbage he has written ("Natural Self Healing : what you need to Know to do miracles" for example) he sounds like a crackpot.

Could someone please tell him that balloons rise because they are lighter than the surrounding air, he seems to have taken the day off when they covered that part of his physics Phd!

Amen-Moses

Jesse · 03-21-2002, 01:12 PM

This was already debunked a while ago by Tim Thompson on the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000329" target="_blank">Can the Earth explode as a result of global warming???</a> Here was his response:

Quote:

Thiaoouba: Since this seems to be a 'science' forum, I just want anyone's opinion on the following: "<a href="http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html" target="_blank">No second chance: can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?</a>"

Highly unlikely to be worthy of consideration outside of the "lunatic fringe". The author, Tom J. Chalko, is on the staff of the <a href="http://www.mame.mu.oz.au/dynamics/" target="_blank">dynamics and Vibration</a> group in the <a href="http://www.mame.mu.oz.au/" target="_blank">Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering</a>, of the <a href="http://www.unimelb.edu.au/" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</a>. I assume that his background is in mechanical engineering. However, he is also billed as "Head of the Geophysics Division" of "<a href="http://sci-e-research.com/index.html" target="_blank">Scientific Engineering Research P/L</a>, which certainly apears to belong to Chalko in its entirety, and may be nothing more than an extension of himself. It is significant that his position as a "geophysicist" appears to be one invented by himself. He is also evidently the founder of "<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/index.html" target="_blank">Thiaoouba Prophecy and The Freedom of Choice</a>", which lists among Chalko's accomplishments "<a href="http://www.bioresonant.com/cgi-bin/start.cgi/start.html" target="_blank">The Amazing bioresonant Chakra Shirt</a>. You can also explore the mysteries of self healing, astral travel and levitation. It would appear that Chalko may be a less than totally reliable source of scientific arguments over the explodeability of the Earth.

But, of course, we are obliged to consider the argument as well as the source. In this case, the webpage is only a summary or introduction. So I followed the link at the bottom and downloaded the paper in PDF format. The alleged justification is given as a mathematical argument, so that much of the paper will not be accessible to those who don't at least recognize the basics of applied calculus.

As one might expect, it's a bogus argument. The premise is an alleged proof that there is a minimum possible size for the central solid core of the Earth, but it's based on the false premise that the core must remain at all times in equilibrium at the center. Furthermore, the argument that the central equilibrium is unstable is based on the false condition that the pressure gradient and gravitational forces act in opposition, but they do not. A solid core displaced from the center sees only restoring forces, and thus cannot be forced from its position as Chalko tries to show. And, if that weren't enough, the viscosity of the liquid outer core and relatively sold mantle are ignored, which is a fatal flaw in any analysis of the dynamic behavior of the core. And, if even that were not enough, there is no thermodynamic analysis at all. How can one argue that the Earth's interior will "overheat" if one does not even consider basic thermodynamics?

The sun irradiates the Earth's surface to the tune of roughly 1370 Watts per square meter (W/m^2). Climate related changes in radiative forcing are on the order of 1 W/m^2. The average outward geothermal flux is about 0.06 W/m^2. It is hard to see how a change in radiative forcing at the surface, on the order of 1/1000 would seriously affect the already miniscule heat flow from the Earth. In any case, a proper treatment of the thermal conditions at the surface, and throughout the Earth is required to make definitive statements, but there is no attempt at such in Chalko's paper.

The other issue is whether or not a planet can "explode". As is the case for any explosion, one must demonstrate the presence of an energy source, and a process that can generate energy very much faster than it can be dissipated through radiative of hydrodynamic means. No such source has ever been identified for the Earth or any other planet. There are vague references to radioactive material and fission explosions in various "exploding planet" hypotheses (such as Tom van Flandern's), and evidently Chalko makes the same vague argument (or shall we call it "hope"?). It is just "handwaving", as we say in the science biz.

My conclusion is that the argument is very bad, and that the source is not trustworthy.

As a side note, Thiaoouba has started a number of threads on this subject before, but never seems very interested in the responses:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000329" target="_blank">Can the Earth explode as a result of global warming???</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000423" target="_blank">Global Warming - the effects could be more severe than we all could imagine</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000424" target="_blank">Global warming is very serious</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000520" target="_blank">The increase in water level is not the real danger in Global Warming</a>

Since this is the only non-archived thread on the subject I'll leave it open, but if you want to talk about this in the future Thiaoouba, please just bump this thread up to the top instead of starting a new one.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]

03-21-2002, 05:18 AM	#1
Jonesy Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Melbourne Posts: 121	Clarification(s) needed I would like some comments on the following: <a href="http://bioresonant.com/news.htm" target="_blank">http://bioresonant.com/news.htm</a> After reading this, and with my limited knowledge of geophysics, can anyone with some knowledge in this area or who knows something about the stuff (in Dr. Chalko's paper) maybe comment/explain to me why what he suggests is false/true? Please help with some opinions. I've beem puzzling over this a lot and don't know who to believe (from scientists) - on the issue.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2002, 05:52 AM	#2
MortalWombat Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: St Louis area Posts: 3,458	[CHEEK][TONGUE]Well, it's obvious from this huge sample size of seven years, we can clearly see that the number of active volcanoes is increasing almost exponentially.[/TONGUE][/CHEEK]

03-21-2002, 06:06 AM	#3
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	It would appear from the graph that nobody has been predicting any volcanoes be active. And what happened in 1999 then? The number went down!? And the number appears to stay the same during 97 and 98. How can that be, if the earth�s core�s nuclear reactor is going critical? Please answer me honestly, Thiaoouba: has it ever occurred to you that it might, just possibly, be bollocks? Oolon

03-21-2002, 07:08 AM	#5
Flynn McKerrow Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: surrounded by fundies Posts: 768	Which peer reviewed scientific journal has this been published in? I'm guessing it hasn't been. If not, which one(s) was it submitted to? And why wasn't it published? If it hasn't been submitted, why not? Those are the questions you really need to be asking.

03-21-2002, 12:39 PM	#8
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	So why hasn't venus exploded years ago, or Jupiter or Saturn? Am I supposed to accept that the solid central core couldn't remain concentric whilst growing through crystalisation purely on this guys say so? Where is the proof of such a statement. Seeing as the whole rest of the paper is based upon this unproven statement I'll presume it's bollocks. Amen-Moses

03-21-2002, 12:49 PM	#9
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Well I can't seem to turn up any qualifications in Geology or Planetary cosmology for this Chalko chap and looking at the rest of the garbage he has written ("Natural Self Healing : what you need to Know to do miracles" for example) he sounds like a crackpot. Could someone please tell him that balloons rise because they are lighter than the surrounding air, he seems to have taken the day off when they covered that part of his physics Phd! Amen-Moses

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.