Gravitons and Planetary Heating

The blackbody radiation of the Earth as suggested by Mac is what keeps the surface of Earth and any sphere at a more or less constant range of radiation. wouldn't any excess energy that might be generated in the interior simply radiate at a higher frequency and reduce the surface temperature?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: Core heating by gravity was predicted by UniKEF...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You need a little perspective. In these Internet times, new theories of everything (TOEs) are arriving from all quarters so quickly that the present market value of another new one is less than that of the electrons it takes to mention it. And every single new TOE explains everything elegantly, in the eyes of its author, who is then absolutely convinced of its validity because all those wonders "couldn't possibly be coincidence".

But with a little more experience, one soon sees that even the most absurd of models can be supported on every front by a true believer (such as its author), who sees supporting evidence in every observation and experiment. Consider the Big Bang: It requires a miraculous beginning, continuous creation of new space and time from nothing, invisible "dark matter", undetectible "dark energy", physically impossible singularities inside "black holes", etc., etc. My MRB article "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang" shows the breadth and depth of the failures of this model. Yet smart people all over the world buy into it because they were never taught the part of Scientific Method that requires controls when testing to separate the biases of the experimenter from the outcome of the test. Without controls, we all just confirm our biases in almost every test of them, making us even deeper believers.

In your case, the first step is to complete a coherent, easily followed, easily understood exposition of your model -- so clear that its weaknesses, even its gaping holes, can be plainly seen by all. Then you need feedback from friends and colleagues, then less friendly feedback from the USENET science newsgroups. Finally, once all those unpleasant questions and challenges are answered, you send it for peer review and hopefully get it published someplace. That is when others can be expected to get interested -- not before.

Before you complete this legwork, you are just one of thousands in the wilderness crying "listen to me"; so you will continue to be mostly ignored. Even if you succeed in getting published, it usually takes a champion (Einstein had his Eddington) and a spectacular new experiment (Eddington's measurement of light-bending at the 1918 solar eclipse) before you get serious attention.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I can't say I disagree with Tom without understanding his basis but I find it hard to believe that it could explode a planet unless somehow black body radiation failed.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That story appears in "Planetary explosion mechanisms", <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i>, v. 11, pp. 33-38 (2002). In essence, if a core collapse blocks the normal heat flow (what you call "black body radiation failing"), then the heat build-up in the core is immediate and catastrophic. When the numbers are run, enough heat energy from gravitons to explode a planet builds up in much less than a millisecond. The heat flow formulas and values can be found in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>.

The other thing you need to do to get heard is show how your work connects, or fails to connect, with other work already published and under discussion. Failure to do that marks you as naive, and decreases your chances for finding a receptive audience.

Sorry, there are no shortcuts, even for Einstein, who took only 15 years from first publication of special relativity (1905) to his widely publicized success for the light-bending prediction (1920), which is unusually fast.

I sent you our General Advice letter. Heed that advice. If you don't do the legwork for your own ideas, no one will. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]: The blackbody radiation of the Earth as suggested by Mac is what keeps the surface of Earth and any sphere at a more or less constant range of radiation. Wouldn't any excess energy that might be generated in the interior simply radiate at a higher frequency and reduce the surface temperature?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The Earth does radiate more heat into space than it takes in from the Sun. Lord Kelvin calculated that the Earth should lose all its excess heat and freeze permanently in no more than 40 million years, and much less under most assumptions. But that hasn't happened. So a continuing source for the excess heat is required.

Radioactivity is the heat source most commonly mentioned. But that begs the question -- Where does all the energy to sustain radioactivity come from? This is especially an open question for a planet like Jupiter, which pours more than double the heat into space that it takes in from the Sun.

One possible answer now under consideration as this heat source is Le Sage gravitons. Details are in <i>Pushing Gravity</i>, as I just mentioned to Mac. -|Tom|-

Tom,

I agree with everything you have said. Don't misunderstand my position. If you have looked at my Introduction, I try to make it very clear that what I have to say is not presented as a conclusive, tested verified concept but that it should open the door to those willing to consider alternatives to Relativity which I think were quite intuitive but wrongfully projects "Perceptions" as "Reality".

The only voice I hope gets heard is one of logic vs a religious belief into Relativity.

Also I think you misquoted or misunderstood my comment about earths heat rejection. My point exactly was the blackbody radiation is greater than solar input and that other heat sources such as impacts, latent heat of formation, radioactive decay AND gravity are what maintains the core molten and procuces surface activity.

Lastly my comments about UniKEF are not based on a sinle discovered prediction but numerous ones. For example NASA's findings that space craft aren't where they are supposed to be in deep space.

UniKEF predicted that very problem before there was such things as space craft (at least made by humankind - ha - I'm not a UFO buff just kidding).

I expect to purchase "Pushing Gravity" and as you state perhaps there is a mechanisim that interupts heat flow, in which case I would agree that explosin would result.




Mac

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Lastly my comments about UniKEF are not based on a sinle discovered prediction but numerous ones. For example NASA's findings that space craft aren't where they are supposed to be in deep space.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Bad example. Most folks active in the debate, except the original authors (who didn't use controls and really believe in their own thinking), are now convinced that waste heat dumping from just spacecraft with on-board reactors is responsible for the anomaly. See our "Viewpoint" discussion at [url] metaresearch.org/home/viewpoint/meta-in-news.asp [/url]. -|Tom|-

What ever the cause may be the planets radiate more energy than the sun supplies and this should be accounted for if nothing else. Jupiter is so much different than models propose that I am totally baffled it is not pondered by anyone. The only thing I can figure is as an astronomer told be a while ago;"Who cares about that anyway". "That" meaning anything obstructing a favored model. It is this arrogant detail that any owner of a model has(pride of ownership) that turns me off on the modeling process even if everyone models things.