Malaclypse the Younger

This deserves to be treated at little bit seriously; it's a good case study in debunking.

The abstract is a good place to start. An abstract attempts to summarize the paper's logical case. Proving the assumptions of the abstract true will occur in the body of the paper, but the connection between the assumptions and the conclusions should be obvious from the abstract. But if the logical case of the abstract is deficient, it is doubtful the body will be more rigorous.

Let's deconstruct the abstract.

The existence of the Earth’s solid inner core in the center of our planet is verified by six decades of seismic measurements.

Ok. I'm no geophysicist, but this is plausible.

This article presents a proof that the very existence of the solid inner core implies the existence of a lower bound for its size and density.

We can presume that we can test the truth of this assumption from the body of the paper. For now, let us simply grant it. It is certainly plausible, if it is solid, we can both calculate its size and density both directly and derive them from first principles from reasonable hypotheses about its composition and the laws of physics.

However, in light of the next sentence, this statement is somewhat equivocal and imprecise. Does he mean that the measurements imply that there is a minimum size of a solid core consistent with measurement? Or does he mean that based on the laws of physics, there is a minimum size and density the core could possibly be? The first interpretation is unobjectionable, the second suspicious.

If the second interpretation were what he means, one would like to see it phrased differently, dependent not on the fact of the existence of the core (which would imply the first meaning), but on the laws of physics and reasonable conjectures about the core's composition.

In general, one doesn't like to see equivocal or vague statements in an abstract.

The fundamental equilibrium conditions prove that Earth’s solid inner core could not have ”grown” to its present size over time, simply because a core any smaller would not remain concentric. The solid core that we detect today could have only decayed from a core of larger size.

Now we start feeling a little weird. This doesn't follow from the first statement and doesn't "sit right" from even a basic understanding of physics: Solid objects, by virtue of being solid, are usually not in dynamic equilibrium. Being counterintuitive, we will want to examine the proof in the body more carefully. But weirder statements have proven true, so we will push on.

The existence of the lower bound for the size and density of the inner core constitutes a proof that virtually all heat generated inside our planet is of radionic origin.

This simply doesn't make logical sense. The conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises. Even if it were demonstrated that there is some sort of lower bound, how does that prove that virtually all the heat generated is of radionic origin?

More importantly, it is commonly accepted that the all the heat generated (i.e. not residual) is of radionic origin. Why does this statement need any kind of new proof? Indeed, no particular statement about the dynamic (!) equilibrium of the solid core is really necessary to prove this statement, as it has been already proven by other means.

Hence, Earth in its entirety can be considered a nuclear reactor with an ”inner core” providing a major contribution to the total energy output.

Hold up now. Again it fails to follow. Nothing about the solidity of the inner core speaks to where the contributions to the generated heat come from: It might come from the mantle, or other places. And it's really irrelevant anyway. It's granted that it's hot under the crust, regardless of where its coming from.

Since radionic heat is generated in the entire volume and cooling can only occur at the surface, it is obvious that the highest temperature inside Earth occurs at the center of the inner core.

Again this does not follow from the the premises. Nor is the truth of this statement necessary for the conclusion, as we shall see. The author is perplexing us, which is a bad sign in an abstract.

Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so-called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion.

After a perplexing string of statements of the obvious mixed with nonsequiturs, we find the conclusion of the author's paper.

But it is a pure nonsequitur. The composition of the interior of the earth is irrelevant. What is relevant is only that the interior of the earth produces heat, which is dissapated by the surface.

But he doesn't explain in his abstract, how he concludes that greenhouse heating (which might raise the temperature of the earth by a few tens of degrees) is relevant to spontaneous nuclear fission which is heating the earth.

Here is the abstract that I would like to have seen, and would give me reason to read the paper.

Note that the conclusion is the same, but the logical case is much stronger. Again, let us deconstruct this hypothetical abstract.

It is known that the interior of the earth is heated by radionic origin, and cooled by conduction of heat through the crust, as well as by convection through volcanoes and other means. The temperature of the crust is therefore is in equilibrium with the heat generated from the interior.

These are (AFAIK) accepted statements about geophysics. One does not need to prove them again; they have been already proven in the scientific literature.

An examination of nuclear physics and the concentration of heat-generation at the core shows that this equilibrium is dynamic: That extrinsic changes to the surface of the earth can change the heat produced by the interior.

This is the assertion which the body of the paper purports to prove: That the equilibrium is dynamic rather than static, therefore changes in the temperature of the surface will change the rate of generation of heat in the interior, because of the distribution and concentration of these radionic heat-generating elements. Obviously, the body of the paper would (or would not) support this assertion, but we would know what we are looking for.

I show that this dynamic equilibrium has the potential for positive feedback...

This assertion is logically possible. It is known that it is possible for a system in dynamic equilibrium to experience positive feedback. Of course, this assertion would have to be proven true in the body of the paper. But again, we can tell what we're looking for.

...thus an increase in the extrinsic heating of the surface through the greenhouse effect can cause an explosive nuclear chain reaction in the interior and the destruction of the earth.

This conclusion logically follows from the premises. If indeed it is true that the surface and the interior are in dynamic equilibrium and it is true that this equilibrium can show positive feedback, it is possible (depending on the facts) to show that extrinsic heating will cause the core to explode. Naturally the proof that this conclusion is actually true will need to be proven in the body, but we can feel confident that, if the body proves the premises are true, we can accept the conclusion.

Additionally, the author would have to overcome two obvious objections in the body of the paper:

• The earth is 4 billion years old, and its surface was at the beginning much hotter (by thousands of degrees) than it is now. Additionally, the chemical constitution of the atmosphere has changed radically even after the cooling of the crust. Why is today's greenhouse effect so much different?
• The atmosphere of Venus is much hotter (by hundreds of degrees) than the Earth's. Why has Venus not exploded?

Neither of these objections are in principle insurmountable, but they would need to be addressed.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

echidna

This one is particularly amusing to me because 16 years ago I studied a vibration subject under Tommy Chalko. I wish I’d known back then he was such a nutter. My contempt for Melbourne University Engineering grows even further.

Back then I strongly suspected that both the theoretical and applied Sciences at Melbourne University were suffering from several individuals creating their own petty bureaucratic empires around some seriously questionable research directions.

QED, I’d say.

Jerry Smith

Hey everybody!! The ICR has something on (something like) this! Are you ready?! The ICR has (partly) something SANE on (something kind of like) this!

<a href="http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r06.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r06.htm</a>

Wonders may never cease..

Jonesy

To Malaclypse the Younger, have you emailed your debunking efforts to Dr. Chalko? I'm sure we would all love (especially myself) to hear his version in light of your debunking efforts.

Malaclypse the Younger

I have better things to do than converse with nutjobs (although this conversation tends to falsify that position).

If you believe it is important that Dr. Chalko read my critique, you are free to bring it to his attention. I would suggest obtaining Tim Thompson's permission as well, as his critique is much more detailed, and addresses the actual science in Dr. Chalko's paper, which is beyond my own competence.

All my comments here are copyable, so long as you attribute them to me, copy them in full, and do not change them without my permission. You may attribute them to Malaclypse the Younger of Internet Infidels, or you may email me to attribute them to my real name.

Secular Pinoy

I'd be willing to get the necessary copyright permissions for all of the critiques against Dr. Chalko as well as retyping them in any format of your choosing. All I ask is a free complimentary T-Shirt. XL, V-neck, short sleeves.