Unlimited power generation from deuterium fissioning

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Mar 24, 2020, 12:17:06 AM3/24/20

to

Unlimited power generation from deuterium fissioning

The article below proposes that the so-called "cold fusion" was actually deuterium fissioning. If indeed this is true, then the engineering possiblities for unlimited power generation using this phenomenon open up.

Deuterium fissions when high energy electrons (beta rays) strike or come near the deuterium nucleus. The electron holding the two protons snap the bond, releasing two protons at very close range causing enormous force, acceleration, velocity and kinetic energy. This ultimately leads to heat energy from collisions with stationary matter. Usually a nuclear explosion causes this fissioning.

However, the conditions for deuterium fissioning can be done in the laboratory. What is needed is to pass very high energy electrons (even more powerful than beta rays) through matter containing deuterium. It is not possible to use gamma rays; but it is expected that its lack will be compensated by very strongly accelerated electrons.

Doing that is not difficult. A space charge of electrons can be formed by thermionic emission. Then a very high voltage creating a very strong electric field, could be applied to drive the electrons between the electrodes at very high speeds.

Through these electrodes heavy water is passed at high pressure. The electrons hit the deuterium nuclei present there, causing enormous heat which immediately boils the water into superheated steam. This steam can now drive turbines for electricity generation.

Naturally at a power plant there will be many such electrodes, to create energy by a parallel multiplicative process.

This will be the cleanest way to produce unlimited energy, beating even solar power. Maybe the time for this technology will come after a few decades, hopefully earlier. With surplus power converted to hydrogen via electrolysis the need for all fossil fuel should end, with the creation of the Hydrogen Transmission Network. Details for which are at
htnresearch.com

___________________________________

"Cold fusion", an apparently observed exothermic phenomenon is very probably deuterium fission

It is a fact well-known that deuterium (hydrogen nucleus has an extra neutron which can be seen as a neutrally charged proton-electron mass) occurs plentifully in sea-water, naturally. Thus, ever since the forties, efforts have been made to use this deuterium to provide unlimited energy. The reason for this lies in the success of the hydrogen bomb. The extraordinary power there came first from the fission of an atomic bomb which created the temperatures necessary to cause what was supposed to be fusion. Why was it supposed to be fusion? The answer lies in the textbook "nuclear engineering" by Irving Kaplan of MIT (Add. Wes. 1977). On page 668 we have

*****
Atomic mass of 4 hydrogen atoms = 4.13258 amu
Atomic mass of 1 helium atom = 4.00387 amu
Difference in mass = 0.02871 amu
= 26.7 MeV
= 42.7 x 10^-6 et

*****
To put it in words, when as a result of intense temperature (as in the atom bomb or at the core of the Sun due to intense pressure of gravity) four hydrogen atoms merge to form a helium atom. This process involves loss in mass as shown. From the law of conservation of mass and energy which mathematically shows that mass and energy are interchangeable concepts, from e=mcc, that mass is energy released when destroyed as what must happen when four hydrogen atoms turn into one helium atom. This was taken as gospel truth by all the scientists who have for decades tried to create the temperatures required to turn hydrogen into helium in the lab. They have failed so far, despite billions of dollars spent and over 70 years of work.

They have failed so far with "hot fusion" following the solar model. Which incidentally has to be false, for he core of the Sun or any large body like the Earth has to be very cold, if there is a magnetic field around them. But this is another story.

Now in the 80s a phenomenon called "cold fusion" was announced by Fleishman and Pons. These were serious researchers whose work created tremendous attention. However these days one does not hear about them. I wonder why. A senior physicist I knew said that they were honest and diligent people, but they did not get the credit they deserved for their discovery. Most likely such was so as their work did not satisfy the "hot fusion" researchers who failed to see how on Earth repelling protons could fuse together in normal lab conditions.

In the below article, I have shown how a 1 Megaton TNT hydrogen bomb explosion can be explained not by employing the law of conservation of mass and energy, but by pure and simple electrostatic repulsion of protons, that caused by breaking the nuclear bonding of the deuterium nucleus seen as two protons held by a single electron. The analysis shows how it is unnecessary to implement the law of conservation of mass and energy in the explanation for the hydrogen bomb phenomenon.

To turn to cold fusion, now. If indeed there is no fusion of hydrogen to helium, simple disintegration of the deuterium nucleus instead, then such a phenomenon need not be dependent purely on a preceding nuclear blast causing beta and gamma rays. The disintegration of deuterium to form heat could well be done in the lab under certain phenomenon. That is most probably what happened in the experiments of Fleishman and Pons, but as fusion was mentioned, no one thought of deuterium fission. Till your present writer.

______________________________

Analysis of the hydrogen bomb mathematically using internal forces instead of binding energies involving e=mcc

The hydrogen bomb is supposedly the most powerful illustration of e=mcc, as the binding energies are involved somehow in fusing hydrogen and deuterium nuciei into helium.

Let us suppose that is not true, holding e=mcc to be false to begin with.

Further, let us hold that the deuterium nuclei is two protons held together by one electron which acts as a superglue joining two positive charges just about strong enough to make it NOT fly away when the nucleus is hit with a high energy electron along with gamma ray involving strong vibration - the latter typically caused by the normal atom bomb fissioning with strong induced radioactivity.

Let us now see if we can explain the energy of a 1 Megaton TNT H-bomb using known electrostatic forces only, and not binding energies or strong force assumptions.

The assertion now is that the deuterium atom, instead of fusing with a proton to form a tritium atom releasing extraordinary energy (the standard position now held, presented in all books, accepted by all institutions) what is really happening is that the electron can no longer hold the two protons together as a result of collision from a high energy electron (beta ray) along with gamma ray vibrations. In which case the two protons fly away from each other, repelled by their mutual positive charge.

Let us see if this model works to explain the energies involved for a 1 Megaton TNT H-bomb explosion. As per google search, 1 Kg of TNT releases 1.67 x 10^9 joules. 1 Megaton (a million tons) would release 1.67 x 10^15 joules.

Can simple formulas, known for decades, relating to electrostatics be used to show that fission as stated above will create such an energy?

Let us get the basic data first, that is publicly known and found via google searching.

mass of proton 1.67 x 10^-29 Kg
charge of proton 1.602 x 10^-19 coulombs
diameter of proton 10^-15 meter
k value is 8.98 x 10^9 MKAS units

Using the formula for electrostatic attraction and repulsion, and assuming that at rest in the deuterim atom the protons were separated by two proton diameters, we present the age old formula

F = k x q1 x q2/r^2 and putting in the values all in MKAS units
F = 8.98 x 10^9 x 1.602 x 10^-19 x 1.602 x 10^-19/(2 X 10^-15 x 2 x 10^-15)
or
F = 8.98 x 1.602^2 x 10^-29/(4 x 10^-30)
or
F1 = 57.6 Newtons

So the fissioning of a deuterium nucleus leads to at the initial position a repulsive force of 57.6 newtons. This is very important.
We now see what energies are involved as a result of this electrostaic repulsion force.

Let us consider the repulsive for the proton at a distance of 20 proton diameters, that is, when a single proton has moved away by 10 proton diameters or 10^-14m

It is F = 8.98 x 1.602^2 x 10^-29/(20 x 10^-15 * 20 x 10^-15)
or
F2 = 0.576 Newtons

Very roughly, the average force acting on the proton as it moves a distance of 10 proton diameters or 10^-14 m is the mean of these two values.

The F = (F1 + F2)/2 = 29.088 Newtons

The average acceleration of the proton from rest over the distance 10^-14m can be calculated from the formula F = ma or a = F/m,
or
a = 29.088/(1.67 x 10^-27)
or
a = 17.418 x 10^27 or 1.7418 x 10^28 meters per second square.

The velocity of the proton after it has travelled 10^-14 m is obtained from the formula:

V^2 = 2 x a x s where V is the velocity, s is the distance travelled under average acceleration a and the initial velocity is zero.
or
V^2 = 2 x 1.7418 x 10^28 x 10^-14
or
V^2 = 3.4836 x 10^14
and
V = 1.866 x 10^7 meters/second

Now the kinetic energy of the single proton after it has travelled 10^-14m after fission is
0.5 x m x V^2
or
0.5 x 1.67 x 10^-27 x 3.4836 x 10^14
or
2.9088 x 10^-13 joules.

As there are two protons involved, the kinetic energy from a deuterium fission would be
5.8 x 10^-13 joules

Let us consider that in our bomb we have used M=100 Kg of heavy water.
Now 19 gms of deuterium water contain 6.023 x 10^23 molecules of heavy water as per Avogadro's formula.
So 100Kg will contain 100*1000/18 x 6.023 x 10^23 fissionable atoms or 3.17 x 10^27 atoms.

If all these atoms fission in the hydrogen bomb explosion, then the total energy from just that will be:
5.8 x 10^-13 x 3.17 x 10^27
= 18.38 x 10^14
= 1.838 x 10^15 joules.

Now let us go back to see what is the energy yield from a 1 Megaton TNT H bomb.

Its value is
1.67 x 10^15 joules

which is quite close to the value we have got of 1.838 x 10^15 joules and that, let me remind, is obtained by pure electrostatic internal forces caused by the repelled fissioned deuterium protons

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Melbourne, 23/03/2020

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 1:01:55 AM9/16/21

to

Fusion is fission.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
16 Sep 2021

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 1:59:18 PM9/16/21

to

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 10:01:55 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:

> Fusion is fission.

Fusion and fission are 2 very different things...

https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2021/05/27/fission-vs-fusion-whats-the-difference-6843001

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 2:37:55 PM9/16/21

to

Is Higgs for the Big Bang's particle soup?
How did it deliver both positive and negative
energy to the original energy singularity?

Or is it for the particles in the atom...?
If Higgs donates all of its energy to
particles would it not then be the next
empty particle left over?
Did we measure the empty Higgs?
If not science has no proof...

Mitchell Raemsch

Max Moron

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 5:47:51 PM9/16/21

to

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 10:59:18 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

"This was taken as gospel truth by all the scientists who have for decades tried to create the temperatures required to turn hydrogen into helium in the lab. They have failed so far, despite billions of dollars spent and over 70 years of work."

They have failed so far with "hot fusion" following the solar model."

You might need to update that bit, Professor bandarjee

https://energyindustryreview.com/analysis/helium-fuelling-the-future/

'In today’s nuclear reactors, the hydrogen isotopes tritium and deuterium are used as fuel, with atomic energy released when they fuse to create Helium and a neutron. Nuclear fusion is actually duplicating the same energy source that fuels stars (like our Sun), and does not produce the radioactive waste as a by-product of current nuclear fission-generated power.'

"Which incidentally has to be false, for he core of the Sun or any large body like the Earth has to be very cold, if there is a magnetic field around them."

Nope, that's wrong too.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Astronomy/Temperature

'With the mass of a star and its chemical composition is known, astronomers can calculate the temperatures within its core.

Main sequence stars have a core temperature of 10 million Kelvins. Red giants have a core temperature of 100 million Kelvins.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_core

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/star-core-temperatures.558593/

'Temperatures inside a star are of the order of 10-15 million kelvin at least'

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/249/how-do-stellar-temperatures-vary
'The temperature of the surface of the Sun (photosphere) is between 4500° - 6000° Kelvin. Inside the core, it's around 15.7 million degrees Kelvin.'

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Geothermal_gradient
'The interior of the Earth is extremely hot, and reaches temperatures over 5000°C near the core, which is not much colder than the surface of the Sun (the interior of the sun however is much hotter).'

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 6:02:50 PM9/16/21

to

- flush -
Crook physics from scoundrel establishment flushed

whodat

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 6:57:59 PM9/16/21

to

On 9/16/2021 5:02 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman

of Melbourne wrote:

> - flush -
> Crook physics from scoundrel establishment flushed

So someone comes along and is prepared to actually debate your claim
that the center of the sun and the Earth are cold, and all you can do
is flush and curse them? I've said all along that you lack scientific
knowledge and have no logic or math to back up your claims so thank you
for demonstrating my claims about you so very nicely.

Couldn't have shown what a loser you are any better than you just did
yourself. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Max Moron

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 7:07:27 PM9/16/21

to

'Core of the Earth is frozen' - sounds so H. P. Lovecraft

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 7:33:40 PM9/16/21

to

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 08:57:59 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
his usual lies and rubbish
- flush -

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 7:35:24 PM9/16/21

to

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 09:07:27 UTC+10, Max Moron wrote:
- snip -

> 'Core of the Earth is frozen' - sounds so H. P. Lovecraft

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 7:43:01 PM9/16/21

to

Good, nice to hear a squeak from Dormouse Alsing. Still around, managed to escape from the teapot.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:01:23 PM9/16/21

to

On Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 15:17:06 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

The physics aphorisms of Arindam

1.1 While relativity is completely wrong, such cannot be said of quantum theory.

1.2 However it depends upon energy levels of the orbital electrons. It ignores the existence of aether. It is devoid of any geometric basis for electron movement.

1.3 Depending upon energy levels to begin with is perilous. Energy is for business and money-making - the physicist should be interested primarily about forces. And as force unlike power/energy is a vector quantity, and so has direction, the geometrical situation is of paramount importance.

1.4 Using quantum theory, reflection of light may be explained this way - an incoming packet of energy called a photon causes an electron to jump from a lower energy orbital shell to a higher energy orbital shell. This is unstable, so it jumps down from the higher energy orbital shell to the lower energy orbital shell. The difference in energy is emitted now as a photon.

1.5 In 1.4 above the implicit notion is that the electron orbits are circular. It is also implied that the photon must have some mass as it has energy following e=mcc, and this mass with movmentum mc has the energy to kick up the electron to the higher orbit shell.

1.6 Now let us consider the above phenomenon in terms of aether, forces and geometries.

1.7 Aether by definition is a very fine solid through which all protons and electrons and neutrons pass the way bullets may go through grass which does not break but just bends. The photon in the aetheric context is a small burst of radiant energy. It is a disturbance with no mass.

1.8 When this aetheric disturbance caused by the radiation reaches the electron and as it envelops the electron, it changes the orbit of the electron by displacement.

1.9 In the process of displacement the disturbance loses its energy as the force to displace the electron is lost with the movement of the electron. This is for the first quarter cycle of the wave - from zero to peak

1.10 As a result of the energy absorption the orbit of the electron is no longer circular but elliptical, and more "high energy" that way.

1.11 An electric field is created with the dipole effect caused by the elliptic orbit. There was no electric field before the disturbance; now there is; so there has been a change of electric field meaning that has to be a corresponding changing magnetic field. Which will creating another changing electric field and so on till we have a burst of radiation, equivalent to the photon.

1.12 The electron at the higher energy level or greater ellipticity can be returned to the original orbit shell with the next quarter of the wave, from peak to zero. Again, as per 1.11 there will be a electromagnetic wave formation completing the half cycle.

1.13 The electron in this case does not behave as a single orbiting particle but as a thin and elastic rubber band.

1.14 The idea of the electron not as a particle but as a rubber band is of crucial importance in our study of he nucleus of an atom.

2.1 Aether, a solid made of infinitely fine particles, fills the entire
infinite universe.

2.2 The particles can vibrate, that is, oscillate about their mean positions.

2.3 The only force in the universe is electric as matter is made up of positive and negative charges.

2.4 When the electric field changes, it creates a changing magnetic field, which creates a changing electric field and so on. The changing electric fields vibrate the aether.

2.5 If the electric field loops as in a current, there is a steady magnetic field.

2.6 Matter is made up of negative charges called electrons and protons that are positive charges.

2.7 Under mutual attraction, they go through aether as a diver through a wave. When static, they let the wave push them this way and that.

2.8 Aether is a solid but its density cannot be found as aether fills everything including the space within the atom.

2.9 Only the density of protons and electrons can be estimated, for their mass and volume may be known from experiments.

2.10 Aether cannot affect the normal movement of the electrons and protons as they go through aether. There is no drag.

2.11 Aether bends to let electrons and protons squeeze through. No loss of momentum, thus, in the normal situation.

2.11 But with the applies electric field there is aetheric swaying from
vibration about their mean positions according to the frequency of the
changing electric field. This is what moves the electrons from their normal states. In this displacement of the electron the kinetic energy of the electromagnetic wave is absorbed.

2.12 Thus only when there is an electric field causing vibration to the aether there is momentum transfer to the electron.

2.13 Electrons are like rubber bands while protons may be spherical.

3.1 The aether particles are infinitely small by definition.

3.2 As they are infinitely small like points they have as you say no shape nor structure not volume.

3.3 Under the impact of electrical forces they vibrate and this vibration impacts upon the momentum of the electrons.

3.4 Thus the kinetic energy of the vibration transforms to the kinetic energy of the electron.

3.5 The reverse situation happens when the electron loses its kinetic energy. It creates the aetheric vibration.

3.6 This is understood it as water molecules going past a very thin set of wires forming a sieve. Only this time the water molecules stick to each other in their relative positions.

3.7 Aether particles bend aside to let the electrons and protons pass through them.

4.1 The definition of aether follows from a book referred to and quoted from in my 2005 post.'

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.australian/wwQ4LkfM4bc/7uhLA2kLDfQJ

4.2 aether: a solid where infinitely fine, infinitely elastic particles filling the entire infinite universe including the inter-atomic spaces maintain their respective positions. It is the medium for the propagation of energy with electromagnetic waves.

4.3 The 19th century notions of aether are extended to explain the propagation of electromagnetic waves acting upon the electrons in matter; and how matter receives these waves and creates these waves. This is the field approach where forces with their directions are given primary importance.

4.4 This is a far superior and intuitive approach than its alternative, the energy based quantum theory which depends solely upon assumptions piled upon assumptions.

5.1 Consider a firecracker - the amount of gunpowder is small as compared to the amount of packing. When the cracker explodes, the paper or string is blown out. It is supposed that the energy of the firecracker comes from the powder alone. For the string or paper surrounding the powder is chemically inert.

5.2 The above fact, that packing is needed for powerful explosions, was very well known to all those using muzzle loader guns. They had to pack the powder in.

5.3 That loose powder does not explode, merely burns well, is also clearly shown by the behaviour of fuses.

5.4 If we go by the calorie output of fuses and crackers, we should get the same result.

5.4 However firecrackers, bombs, etc. that require a lot of packing (paper or steel casing) produce a lot more kinetic energy than the fuse.

5.5 This kinetic energy is evidently coming from the packing.

5.6 Tighter the packing, greater the energy.

5.7 These are some of the basic issues, observed from Nature, that will be useful to understand the formula of energy creation and destruction, namely 0.5mVVN(N-k).

6.1 Let a mass m in free space have within its geometry an internal energy source that can increase its velocity by an amount v each time an amount of energy k.E from it is utilised. The kinetic increases after each hit increases by E = 0.5mvv. k is an efficiency factor greater than 1 related to the losses involved in converting the internal energy to the kinetic energy. After N hits the velocity will be Nv. With respect to the initial state the kinetic energy of the mass will be 0.5mvvNN. The internal energy used up will be NkE or 0.5mvvNk. Thus the increase in energy e after N hits will be, if N>k, e=0.5mvvN(N-k).

6.2 The most obvious display of internal energy creating internal force
equally in directions is the chemical explosion. A matchstick, a bullet, a chemical bomb - these are all examples of chemical explosion showing the utilisation of internal energy used for creating internal force, that causing heat and kinetic energy to the surroundings.

6.3 Aphorisms 5.1 to 5.7 (given below) elaborate on the nature of the explosion in relation to the energy generated, with respect to packing of the explosive matter.

6.4 The nuclear explosion creates a great deal more destructive kinetic
energy than a chemical explosion. This is because the packing in a nuclear explosion is much more dense than a chemical reaction. In a chemical reaction atoms are involved. In a nuclear reaction the nucleus is involved.

6.5 In quantitative terms, the dimension of an atom is of the order of
10^-10m; the dimension of the nucleus is of the order of 10^-15m or 10^5 times more. This is the linear dimension - in three dimensions the packing of nuclei will be denser by a factor of 10^15. However in a nuclear explosion it is not as if all the atoms are bunched up as nuclei - so the packing factor is in between 10^5 to 10^15. Let us say that a nuclear explosion the active constituents are packed to the order of 10^6 with respect to the chemical explosion to be conservative.

6.6 From the above rough analysis, it is obvious that the nuclear explosion, for the same mass, should be 10^10 times more powerful than the chemical explosion. 1 ton of TNT generates 5*10^9 joules; a nuclear bomb of mass 1 ton of active material (the nuclear material plus the packing surrounds) should thus generate 5*10^15 joules. Now a hydrogen bomb of 1 Megaton generates 5*10^15 joules.

6.7 Thus the simple matter of packing the fissile material explains the vast disparity of energy between the nuclear explosion and the chemical explosion.

6.8 What is happening is that the N factor in the equation e=0.5mvvN(N-k)
is much higher for the nuclear explosion than it is for the chemical. Each atom in m gets hit N times in any explosion - greater the packing, more the N. The outer atoms get hit by inner atoms that are getting out in all directions, again and again. The force is directed in all directions; the non-fissile elements get hit by the fissile atoms that keep on expanding out at a great velocity.

7.0 About the hydrogen bomb, and how the so-called strong nuclear force is actually the familiar electrostatic force operating at the atomic nucleus level.

7.1 The hydrogen atom is composed of a single proton and a single electron circling around it, as per the most established model of the hydrogen atom. There are isotopes of hydrogen occuring naturally - there is a neutron associated with that single proton. It is this isotope - deuterium - of hydrogen that is used in nuclear bombs (called hydrogen bombs, based upon supposed fusion).

7.2 In fusion, the deuterium is supposed to become another isotope - tritium - after intense heat is applied as a result of an earlier fission bomb. There is apparently a drop in mass, that is translated into energy. However, we can propose another alternative explanation for this great energy.

7.3 Consider a neutron to be a close union of a proton and an electron. The bond between them is extraordinarily strong - two charges joined at a zero distance, so the bonding force is very great. However, let us assert that the electron does not lose its identity even in this close union.

7.4 A deuterium atom can thus be seen as the union of two protons joined by an electron. The bonding force here is very strong, but can be broken with enormous impact is caused as a result of nuclear fission.

7.5 Nuclear fission causes the extraordinary aether vibration to break apart the bonding in the deuterium atom. The two protons in the nucleus cannot be held together by the electron. As the electron gives up its hold, the two protons, that are at a very close distance, move apart with extraordinary force.

7.6 The movement of the protons with respect to the electron causes a time varying electric field, which will create a time varying magnetic field, and together they will proceed as a very high energy electromagnetic gamma ray once again causing aetheric vibration. This vibration will dissociate the other deuterium atoms, causing a chain reaction. Being very fast, and very powerful with the most extrordinary electrostatic forces being released, the hydrogen bomb is thus created.

7.7 The hydrogen bomb thus has nothing to do with fusion, but with the fission of the deuterium isotope of hydrogen.

7.8 The deuterium isotope may be considered the fundamental building block for the nuclei of all other elements. Multiples of them, with extra neutrons, constitute the nuclei of the heavier elements. The electrons glue the protons together, while presenting a net positive charge that are balanced by the electrons orbiting the nucleus.

Brian Damage

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:17:30 PM9/16/21

to

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:35:24 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 09:07:27 UTC+10, Max Moron wrote:
> - snip -
> > 'Core of the Earth is frozen' - sounds so H. P. Lovecraft

'Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero, or near zero.'

http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/

'The deeper inside the Earth, the higher the pressure and temperature (Fig. 1). The Earth's center has an ultrahigh pressure of 364 GPa and an ultrahigh temperature of 5,500 °C.'

'Let us assume for the moment that it is so, and that the core of the Earth is iron – very cold iron.'

Don't you need some experimental evidence for such an assumption.

'Because it is so cold, it can support superconductivity, and because it can support superconductivity, there is a very large and steady current flowing through it. Now such a large current will naturally create a magnetic field – can we measure it? Indeed we can! Natural magnets (lodestones) have always existed, and helped mariners by naturally pointing to the North. Looked at from the other side, simply because we have a steady magnetic field that is a fact, we must have a steady electric current permanently “on”, and circulating in planes at right angles to the magnetic N-S axis of the Earth. The superconducting effect is the only physics effect we know that can permit this to happen.'

Aw come on - you can create a magnetic field without superconduction

https://study.com/academy/lesson/how-magnetic-fields-are-created.html

>Superconductivity cannot happen unless the temperature of the conductor of electricity is very low.

Wrong, a room temperature superconductor was discovered recently

>So, the centre of the Earth must have a very low temperature.'

http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/

'The deeper inside the Earth, the higher the pressure and temperature (Fig. 1). The Earth's center has an ultrahigh pressure of 364 GPa and an ultrahigh temperature of 5,500 °C.'

'If we conclude that this is so, then the question immediately arises, why does not the heat from the lava layers reach the core by conduction, and thus make the core equally hot? One answer is – there have to be thousands of kilometers of insulation between the lava layers and the core. As the pressures decrease when we progress to the centre of the Earth,'

No.

http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/

'The deeper inside the Earth, the higher the pressure and temperature (Fig. 1). The Earth's center has an ultrahigh pressure of 364 GPa and an ultrahigh temperature of 5,500 °C.'

'the lava solidifies, and again becomes rock. If this rock is like mica, it will act as an excellent insulator of heat. Thus, the centre of the Earth is kept cold by so much insulation.'

Why don't the insulating layers show up in seismic wave studies?

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:23:50 PM9/16/21

to

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 10:17:30 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:35:24 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 09:07:27 UTC+10, Max Moron wrote:
> > - snip -
> > > 'Core of the Earth is frozen' - sounds so H. P. Lovecraft
> 'Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero, or near zero.'
>
> http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/

rubbish

>
> 'The deeper inside the Earth, the higher the pressure and temperature (Fig. 1).

Rubbish. Pressure and temperature reach a peak and then fall to near zero. Mathematical modelling using the equation for gravity shows that. In the 19th century they knew that and so they believed the Earth was hollow.

> The Earth's center has an ultrahigh pressure of 364 GPa and an ultrahigh temperature of 5,500 °C.'

Who has taken a thermometer and a barometer there.

>
> 'Let us assume for the moment that it is so, and that the core of the Earth is iron – very cold iron.'

And so it is.

>
> Don't you need some experimental evidence for such an assumption.

Yes. There are experiments with a magnet indicating there is a steady magnetic field.
That indicates a steady current in the Earth.
That steady current can only come from superconductivity.
You need cold for that.
So the centre of the Earth, Sun, Jupiter, stars, etc. are cold.

>
> 'Because it is so cold, it can support superconductivity, and because it can support superconductivity, there is a very large and steady current flowing through it. Now such a large current will naturally create a magnetic field – can we measure it? Indeed we can! Natural magnets (lodestones) have always existed, and helped mariners by naturally pointing to the North. Looked at from the other side, simply because we have a steady magnetic field that is a fact, we must have a steady electric current permanently “on”, and circulating in planes at right angles to the magnetic N-S axis of the Earth. The superconducting effect is the only physics effect we know that can permit this to happen.'
>
> Aw come on - you can create a magnetic field without superconduction

No doubt, any current creates a magnetic field.
But for such a current you need a voltage and low resistance.
If the core is hot you do not get a voltage and you get very high resistance.

- snip -
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Brian Damage

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:27:52 PM9/16/21

to

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:01:23 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>The physics aphorisms of Arindam

>1.1 While relativity is completely wrong, such cannot be said of quantum theory.

>1.2 However it depends upon energy levels of the orbital electrons.

>It ignores the existence of aether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

>It is devoid of any geometric basis for electron movement.

I disagree. Check out the position-space Schrodinger's equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

r is a 3D position vector and that triangle squared (Del operator) is a 3D momentum vector.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:32:11 PM9/16/21

to

The fact that you are so proud of being as stupid as a tree stump says a whole lot about you, Banjo-Boy! Clearly, you are too stupid to wipe your own ass... so just who does it for you?

whodat

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:34:14 PM9/16/21

to

Easy to say, as you have, but difficult to argue, as you have failed to
do. All you've done is taken a cheap shot. Got anything worthwhile,
because what you wrote above sure isn't.

whodat

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:34:51 PM9/16/21

to

whodat

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:35:45 PM9/16/21

to

Brian Damage

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 8:52:19 PM9/16/21

to

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:23:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 10:17:30 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:35:24 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 09:07:27 UTC+10, Max Moron wrote:
> > > - snip -
> > > > 'Core of the Earth is frozen' - sounds so H. P. Lovecraft
> > 'Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero, or near zero.'
> >
> > http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/
> rubbish
> >
> > 'The deeper inside the Earth, the higher the pressure and temperature (Fig. 1).
> Rubbish. Pressure and temperature reach a peak and then fall to near zero. Mathematical modelling using the equation for gravity shows that. In the 19th century they knew that and so they believed the Earth was hollow.

I'm sorry - I think that is wrong.

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/22600/what-is-the-pressure-at-the-center-of-the-earth

'It is the pressure gradient that is proportional to the local gravitational force. When that force is integrated over a distance, the pressure gradient is integrated to accumulate a total pressure.

The maximum occurs at the point towards which gravity is directed in a spherical mass, which is the center. True, gravity at that point is zero, but it and therefore the pressure gradient have already been integrated over the whole radius (and mass) of the Earth. Instead of zero, the pressure at the center will be a maximum.

The pressure at the center of Earth is about 360 GPa [1]. Note carefully that, as expected where the gravity is locally zero, the total pressure levels off until its gradient is zero at the center; but the total pressure itself is maximized there instead of dropping to zero.'

Lajos Volgyesi, M Moser; "The Inner Structure of the Earth", Periodica Polytechnica Chemical Engineering (1982) 26(3).

Anyway, thank you for discussing this with me.

whodat

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 9:04:36 PM9/16/21

to

On 9/16/2021 7:52 PM, Brian Damage wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:23:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 10:17:30 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:35:24 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 09:07:27 UTC+10, Max Moron wrote:
>>>> - snip -
>>>>> 'Core of the Earth is frozen' - sounds so H. P. Lovecraft
>>> 'Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero, or near zero.'
>>>
>>> http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/
>> rubbish
>>>
>>> 'The deeper inside the Earth, the higher the pressure and temperature (Fig. 1).
>> Rubbish. Pressure and temperature reach a peak and then fall to near zero. Mathematical modelling using the equation for gravity shows that. In the 19th century they knew that and so they believed the Earth was hollow.
>
> I'm sorry - I think that is wrong.
>
> https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/22600/what-is-the-pressure-at-the-center-of-the-earth

Some long time ago, Uncle Al went through this discussion in this
newsgroup, probably well before banjo boy's time in residence here.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 16, 2021, 10:48:03 PM9/16/21

to

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 10:52:19 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:23:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 10:17:30 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:35:24 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 09:07:27 UTC+10, Max Moron wrote:
> > > > - snip -
> > > > > 'Core of the Earth is frozen' - sounds so H. P. Lovecraft
> > > 'Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero, or near zero.'
> > >
> > > http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/
> > rubbish
> > >
> > > 'The deeper inside the Earth, the higher the pressure and temperature (Fig. 1).
> > Rubbish. Pressure and temperature reach a peak and then fall to near zero. Mathematical modelling using the equation for gravity shows that. In the 19th century they knew that and so they believed the Earth was hollow.
> I'm sorry - I think that is wrong.

I explained why it is right.
>
> https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/22600/what-is-the-pressure-at-the-center-of-the-earth

Nobody has been there with a barometer or a thermometer. We can judge what it is with undisputable facts (magnetic field, superconductivity, and deductive logic as I have done.)

>
> 'It is the pressure gradient that is proportional to the local gravitational force.

Yes, and the local gravitational force varies as the distance to the centre.
At the centre there are masses pulling from all around, so the net force is zero.
Zero force means zero pressure and zero pressure means zero temperature and that leads to superconductivity with constant direct electric current which has to create a magnetic field which we measure on the surface of the Earth. Similarly the Sun, Jupiter etc. have magnetic fields. The stars have magnetic fields, especially the so-called neutron stars which are actually the iron cores of all the stars deprived of their hydrogen atmosphere.

> When that force is integrated over a distance

You get work done, in dimensional terms, highly irrelevant, nothing to do with pressure

,> the pressure gradient is integrated to accumulate a total pressure.

For those with brain damage.

If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.

- snip -

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 12:06:53 AM9/17/21

to

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.

Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure! Your ignorance is huge! High pressure ensures high temperature

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 4:59:13 AM9/17/21

to

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
> Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!

Pressure = Force/Area.
In words, pressure is force divided by area.
When force is zero, what should pressure be?

Calling all the sci.physics resident imbeciles... show me who is the brightest among you all.

- squeak from Dormouse Alsing suppressed -

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 10:06:46 AM9/17/21

to

On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 11:04:36 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 7:52 PM, Brian Damage wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 5:23:50 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 10:17:30 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 4:35:24 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 09:07:27 UTC+10, Max Moron wrote:
> >>>> - snip -
> >>>>> 'Core of the Earth is frozen' - sounds so H. P. Lovecraft
> >>> 'Where the pressure is zero, the temperature is also zero, or near zero.'
> >>>
> >>> http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/
> >> rubbish
> >>>
> >>> 'The deeper inside the Earth, the higher the pressure and temperature (Fig. 1).
> >> Rubbish. Pressure and temperature reach a peak and then fall to near zero. Mathematical modelling using the equation for gravity shows that. In the 19th century they knew that and so they believed the Earth was hollow.
> >
> > I'm sorry - I think that is wrong.
> >
> > https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/22600/what-is-the-pressure-at-the-center-of-the-earth
> Some long time ago, Uncle Al went through this discussion in this
> newsgroup, probably well before banjo boy's time in residence here.

For any medieval theological flat Earth chappie, like whodumbo and Uncle Al, there is no centre of the Earth in the spherical 3D sense. The Earth for them is a pancake and its centre is where they exist. There is pressure upon them to remain stupid and twisted. Or else they will fall off the edge of this pancake and roast in Hell for eternity.

whodat

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 1:17:49 PM9/17/21

to

On 9/17/2021 3:59 AM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman

There is more than one form of force working in
this case, but stupidity like yours cannot be cured.

whodat

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 1:22:43 PM9/17/21

to

On 9/17/2021 9:06 AM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman

of Melbourne wrote:

> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 11:04:36 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
>> On 9/16/2021 7:52 PM, Brian Damage wrote:

[...]

>>> https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/22600/what-is-the-pressure-at-the-center-of-the-earth
>> Some long time ago, Uncle Al went through this discussion in this
>> newsgroup, probably well before banjo boy's time in residence here.

> For any medieval theological flat Earth chappie, like whodumbo and Uncle Al, there is no centre of the Earth in the spherical 3D sense. The Earth for them is a pancake and its centre is where they exist. There is pressure upon them to remain stupid and twisted. Or else they will fall off the edge of this pancake and roast in Hell for eternity.

Well done, Dalit, show them just how crazy you are by putting words into
my mouth that have never been there. Too bad it isn't sarcasm.

[...]

Brian Damage

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 1:24:54 PM9/17/21

to

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 1:59:13 AM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
> > Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!
> Pressure = Force/Area.
> In words, pressure is force divided by area.
> When force is zero, what should pressure be?

Response by Viktor T. Toth, IT pro, part-time physicist

'The gravitational gradient (i.e., the force of gravity) is indeed zero at the
center of any spherically symmetric distribution of matter. As to the
pressure there, it's not caused by gravity at the center; it is caused by
gravity pulling all the other stuff that is NOT at the center, towards the
center. The fact that stuff that's close to the center weighs comparatively
little (because gravity is weak near the center) doesn't cancel out the
weight of all the other stuff further out; it is still added on top, increasing
the pressure.'

Upvoted by Jack Fraser, Masters Physics, University of Oxford (2018) and
Stephen Selipsky, ex-particle theorist; Stanford Ph.D., research at CERN, BU, Yale

Brian Damage

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 4:27:18 PM9/17/21

to

On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 1:59:13 AM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:

I spoke to a mechanical engineer, and he said

'Well, speaking purely from the standpoint of a mechanical engineer doing a static force analysis, forces have to balance. Clearly any column of rock from the surface to the core is supporting the weight of all the rock (or molten material) above it. I would ask how is this force being balanced unless it is a force of a column on the opposite side of the core in an equal and opposite force? While it may be true the forces increases more slowly as you approach the center of the sphere, the absolute force itself is constantly accumulating. Any other conclusion has an unbalanced force, which is clearly not the case. As to a superconductor? Oy. From a heat transfer standpoint, the heat in the core is the result partly from the residual heat of compression when the planet formed (but this would have cooled long ago as it has with the Moon and other smaller worldlets), but almost entirely from the decay heat of radioactive elements. Heat can only flow from hotter to colder without active work performed and heat being dumped (as in a refrigerator condenser coil). In a sphere being internally heated (by decay heat) the center will always be the hottest temperature, subject to convective mixing if any. It CANNOT be colder than the surrounding material. Heat can be lost at the surface ultimately by radiating into the vacuum, but otherwise it will be incrementally hotter going down from just below the surface (subject to the diurnal heating cycle) to the core where it should be a maximum. NEVER a MINIMUM.'

So, good luck with your physics, but I don't think you are right about this.

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 4:31:11 PM9/17/21

to

On 9/16/2021 10:59 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 10:01:55 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Fusion is fission.
>
> Fusion and fission are 2 very different things...

Indeed!

>
> https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2021/05/27/fission-vs-fusion-whats-the-difference-6843001
>

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 5:09:36 PM9/17/21

to

It is wrong. If we have a reasonable model of the density of earth as
you go to the center, it's a matter of adding up the contributions of
each section of mass as you approach the center. In doing this you have
mass from density*volume but each contribution also has to be multiplied
by the decreasing force of gravity when getting closer to the center.
All this has to be added up for the total pressure. (It is this last
which BanjoBoy leaves out. He simply assumes that since gravity is zero,
the pressure is 0, ignoring all the mass outside the center pressing in)

Brian Damage

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 5:57:01 PM9/17/21

to

Thank you Michael!

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 7:21:12 PM9/17/21

to

On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 03:24:54 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 1:59:13 AM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
> > > Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!
> > Pressure = Force/Area.
> > In words, pressure is force divided by area.
> > When force is zero, what should pressure be?
> Response by Viktor T. Toth, IT pro, part-time physicist
>
> 'The gravitational gradient (i.e., the force of gravity) is indeed zero at the
> center of any spherically symmetric distribution of matter.

So force is zero. Good. Pressure is also zero if we go by the formula that pressure is force divided by area.

As to the
> pressure there, it's not caused by gravity at the centre;

Oops, some magic going on here!

it is caused by
> gravity pulling all the other stuff that is NOT at the center, towards the
> center.

The fact that stuff that's close to the center weighs comparatively
> little (because gravity is weak near the center) doesn't cancel out the
> weight of all the other stuff further out; it is still added on top, increasing
> the pressure.'

Rubbish. Force is a vector, and force from masses on opposite sides cancel each other out at the centre, which could be hollow. The pressure maximises at some hundreds of kilometres below the Earth, to form magma, then decreases to zero. At the magma level, the pressure happens as there is enough g value there for the crushing to take place. Much below, the g decreases so no crushing, the forces are now tangential as in any arch.

>
> Upvoted by Jack Fraser, Masters Physics, University of Oxford (2018) and
> Stephen Selipsky, ex-particle theorist; Stanford Ph.D., research at CERN, BU, Yale

Learned fools, if not anything more sinister. Hope for their sakes they recant and repent for all the lies they have propagated. For all the black hole rubbish comes from these types who insist upon a hot core from gravity.

I explained such matters in detail last year in my articles on the cause of gravity, novas and Supernovas, in this newsgroup; when I elaborated upon my past discoveries relating to internal forces creating energies getting destroyed or rather diminished with distance in the infinite universe.

The racist bigots controlling the establishmentscan ignore them for only so long.
Looks like I should repost last year's essays, with some edits.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 7:26:40 PM9/17/21

to

On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 06:31:11 UTC+10, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 10:59 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 10:01:55 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Fusion is fission.
> >
> > Fusion and fission are 2 very different things...
> Indeed!

Fusion of hydrogen is imaginary and fission of nuclei is not.
The Dormouse Alsing misses the point I had made, in the op, out of his cussed stupidity, likely.
I had written a long article indicating that what was considered fusion is actually fission.
So my brief conclusion, naturally misinterpreted from reductionism.
That new idea went over the heads of these piddlingtons.

>
> >
> > https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2021/05/27/fission-vs-fusion-whats-the-difference-6843001
> >

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 8:26:51 PM9/17/21

to

On 9/17/2021 4:59 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
>> Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!
>
> Pressure = Force/Area.
> In words, pressure is force divided by area.
> When force is zero, what should pressure be?

Except the force is obviously not zero, of course. There is the force
of all the rock/magma/iron all the way to the surface, cumulative.

Maybe this will help: (I doubt it). Take a sheet of thin paper which
weighs almost nothing, place it flat on a table. What is the pressure
of the sheet of paper on the table? Very small, correct? Now take a
heavy brick with the same dimensions as the paper, and place it on top
of the paper. What is the pressure on the table at the bottom of the
paper? Quite a bit higher, right? How can that be since the paper weighs
almost nothing? I think even you can figure out why.

>
> Calling all the sci.physics resident imbeciles...

Plutonium? Mitch? Yourself?

> show me who is the brightest among you all.

The three of you, at least, are almost black hole "bright".

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 10:09:26 PM9/17/21

to

Please, don't repost anything, it belongs in the sewer with the rest of your crap. You should really just flush yourself!

https://tinyurl.com/3ch5m3tf

There appears to be zero support for your really stupid claims that there is no pressure or high temperatures at the centers of the Earth and the Sun. ZERO evidence. Your assertions are far from being evidence.

Your job is to provide evidence for your claims, Banjo-Boy, and if you cannot do so, please just STFU and go away, you're a waste of good air...

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 17, 2021, 11:31:50 PM9/17/21

to

Corrected link...

http://www.spring8.or.jp/en/news_publications/research_highlights/no_57/

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 2:54:35 PM9/18/21

to

If an Hydrogen 2 isotope emits a neutron
where does that neutron go?

Mitchell Raemsch

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 4:53:33 PM9/18/21

to

On 9/17/2021 4:26 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 06:31:11 UTC+10, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/16/2021 10:59 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 10:01:55 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fusion is fission.
>>>
>>> Fusion and fission are 2 very different things...
>> Indeed!
> Fusion of hydrogen is imaginary and fission of nuclei is not.
> The Dormouse Alsing misses the point I had made, in the op, out of his cussed stupidity, likely.
> I had written a long article indicating that what was considered fusion is actually fission.
> So my brief conclusion, naturally misinterpreted from reductionism.
> That new idea went over the heads of these piddlingtons.

Are you familiar with fission fusion nuclear weapons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon

>
>>
>>>
>>> https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2021/05/27/fission-vs-fusion-whats-the-difference-6843001
>>>

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 6:38:23 PM9/18/21

to

On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 06:53:33 UTC+10, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/17/2021 4:26 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 06:31:11 UTC+10, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 9/16/2021 10:59 AM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 10:01:55 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Fusion is fission.
> >>>
> >>> Fusion and fission are 2 very different things...
> >> Indeed!
> > Fusion of hydrogen is imaginary and fission of nuclei is not.
> > The Dormouse Alsing misses the point I had made, in the op, out of his cussed stupidity, likely.
> > I had written a long article indicating that what was considered fusion is actually fission.
> > So my brief conclusion, naturally misinterpreted from reductionism.
> > That new idea went over the heads of these piddlingtons.
> Are you familiar with fission fusion nuclear weapons?

Check out op.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2021/05/27/fission-vs-fusion-whats-the-difference-6843001
> >>>

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 8:29:17 PM9/18/21

to

On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 06:27:18 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:
> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 1:59:13 AM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
> > > Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!
> > Pressure = Force/Area.
> > In words, pressure is force divided by area.
> > When force is zero, what should pressure be?
> >
> > Calling all the sci.physics resident imbeciles... show me who is the brightest among you all.
> >
> > - squeak from Dormouse Alsing suppressed -
> I spoke to a mechanical engineer, and he said
>
> 'Well, speaking purely from the standpoint of a mechanical engineer doing a static force analysis, forces have to balance.

Yes.

> Clearly any column of rock from the surface to the core is supporting the weight of all the rock (or molten material) above

No. The core could be hollow. This mechanical engineer has no clue about how domes and arches work.

it. I would ask how is this force being balanced unless it is a force of a column on the opposite side of the core in an equal and opposite force? While it may be true the forces increases more slowly as you approach the center of the sphere, the absolute force itself is constantly accumulating. Any other conclusion has an unbalanced force, which is clearly not the case. As to a superconductor? Oy. From a heat transfer standpoint, the heat in the core is the result partly from the residual heat of compression when the planet formed (but this would have cooled long ago as it has with the Moon and other smaller worldlets), but almost entirely from the decay heat of radioactive elements. Heat can only flow from hotter to colder without active work performed and heat being dumped (as in a refrigerator condenser coil). In a sphere being internally heated (by decay heat) the center will always be the hottest temperature, subject to convective mixing if any. It CANNOT be colder than the surrounding material. Heat can be lost at the surface ultimately by radiating into the vacuum, but otherwise it will be incrementally hotter going down from just below the surface (subject to the diurnal heating cycle) to the core where it should be a maximum. NEVER a MINIMUM.'
>
> So, good luck with your physics, but I don't think you are right about this.

Talk to a civil engineer.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 8:52:16 PM9/18/21

to

Banjo-Boy is stump-stupid and proud of it! Unfortunately, he remains clueless and a waste of good air...

whodat

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 9:23:10 PM9/18/21

to

On 9/18/2021 7:29 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 06:27:18 UTC+10, Brian Damage wrote:

>> Clearly any column of rock from the surface to the core is supporting the weight of all the rock (or molten material) above
>
> No. The core could be hollow. This mechanical engineer has no clue about how domes and arches work.

[...]

> it. I would ask how is this force being balanced unless it is a force of a column on the opposite side of the core in an equal and opposite force? While it may be true the forces increases more slowly as you approach the center of the sphere, the absolute force itself is constantly accumulating. Any other conclusion has an unbalanced force, which is clearly not the case. As to a superconductor? Oy. From a heat transfer standpoint, the heat in the core is the result partly from the residual heat of compression when the planet formed (but this would have cooled long ago as it has with the Moon and other smaller worldlets), but almost entirely from the decay heat of radioactive elements. Heat can only flow from hotter to colder without active work performed and heat being dumped (as in a refrigerator condenser coil). In a sphere being internally heated (by decay heat) the center will always be the hottest temperature, subject to convective mixing if any. It CANNOT be colder than the surrounding material. Heat can be lost at the surface ultimately by radiating into the vacuum, but otherwise it will be incrementally hotter going down from just below the surface (subject to the diurnal heating cycle) to the core where it should be a maximum. NEVER a MINIMUM.'
>>
>> So, good luck with your physics, but I don't think you are right about this.
>
> Talk to a civil engineer.

You must mean any sane engineer. I urge you to do the same.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 9:30:44 PM9/18/21

to

Heh-heh.
Whodumbo can be a hoot when he is being plain ignorant.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 9:36:38 PM9/18/21

to

Dormouse Alsing's indignant squeaks lack the volume and range of the dumbo whodumbo.
Still, one takes what one gets.
Abuse from the bad is more constructive than the praise from the good.

whodat

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 9:38:52 PM9/18/21

to

Perhaps I can, or perhaps not, but that does not alter the validity of
the advice I have given here. You, sir are insane, and need the help of
a sane engineer.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 9:51:00 PM9/18/21

to

On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 10:26:51 UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/17/2021 4:59 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
> >> Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!
> >
> > Pressure = Force/Area.
> > In words, pressure is force divided by area.
> > When force is zero, what should pressure be?
> Except the force is obviously not zero, of course. There is the force
> of all the rock/magma/iron all the way to the surface, cumulative.

Talking maths here, above.
What is pressure when force is zero?
Moroney is such a moron, he cannot give an answer.

>
> Maybe this will help: (I doubt it).

No it won't, you evasive moron.

Take a sheet of thin paper which
> weighs almost nothing, place it flat on a table. What is the pressure
> of the sheet of paper on the table? Very small, correct?

Zero if it is at the core of a star or any heavenly body or in very deep space.

> Now take a
> heavy brick with the same dimensions as the paper, and place it on top
> of the paper. What is the pressure on the table at the bottom of the
> paper? Quite a bit higher, right?

No if it is at the core of a star or any heavenly body or in deep outer space.

How can that be since the paper weighs
> almost nothing? I think even you can figure out why.>

All I figure is that you are an ultra-moronic moron, Moroney.
With just enough wits left for taking slimy evasive action.

> >
> > Calling all the sci.physics resident imbeciles...
> Plutonium? Mitch? Yourself?

You have responded in your full, glorious imbecility.
Along with the dormouse Alsing and the March Hare Whodumbo.

Quite a trinity of imbeciles, you three.

> > show me who is the brightest among you all.
> The three of you, at least, are almost black hole "bright".

Black holes are silly notions created for the imbeciles by scoundrels to maintain the status quo for corrupted physics.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 9:52:23 PM9/18/21

to

What Banjo-Boy cannot explain is why virtually every scientist and every textbook in the entire world, in every language imaginable, disagrees with his incredible claim that at the center of the Earth, and at the center of the Sun, there is zero pressure and the temperature is also nil. This flys in the face of logic and reason.

What, pray tell us, is causing the creation of heavy elements from light elements in the Sun, Banjo-Boy? Elements that can ONLY be synthesized by the application of very high pressures and temperatures? There is no other way that this can happen! NONE!

Without evidence, you've got nothing... and you have zero evidence, whereas mainstream science has an incomprehensible amount of evidence!

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 10:20:52 PM9/18/21

to

On 9/18/2021 2:54 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> If an Hydrogen 2 isotope emits a neutron
> where does that neutron go?
>

Smitch, you'll have to give it a kick of energy to knock the neutron
out, but once you do so, it goes wherever it wants.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 10:32:14 PM9/18/21

to

On 9/18/2021 9:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 10:26:51 UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 9/17/2021 4:59 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
>>>> Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!
>>>
>>> Pressure = Force/Area.
>>> In words, pressure is force divided by area.
>>> When force is zero, what should pressure be?
>> Except the force is obviously not zero, of course. There is the force
>> of all the rock/magma/iron all the way to the surface, cumulative.
>
> Talking maths here, above.
> What is pressure when force is zero?

Except, as I just said, the force is not zero since it is supporting the
weight of all the rock/magma above it.

>>
>> Maybe this will help: (I doubt it).
>
> No it won't,

Banjo is correct for the first time in his life!

> you evasive moron.

But then he makes his sentence wrong overall.

>
>
> Take a sheet of thin paper which
>> weighs almost nothing, place it flat on a table. What is the pressure
>> of the sheet of paper on the table? Very small, correct?
>
>
> Zero if it is at the core of a star or any heavenly body or in very deep space.

I said it was on a table, Banjo. Your incorrect answer doesn't apply here.

>
>
>> Now take a
>> heavy brick with the same dimensions as the paper, and place it on top
>> of the paper. What is the pressure on the table at the bottom of the
>> paper? Quite a bit higher, right?
>
> No if it is at the core of a star or any heavenly body or in deep outer space.

I said it was on a table.

>
> How can that be since the paper weighs
>> almost nothing? I think even you can figure out why.>
>

<snip evasion>

Why can't you answer such a simple question?

>>>
>>> Calling all the sci.physics resident imbeciles...
>> Plutonium? Mitch? Yourself?

> Quite a trinity of imbeciles, you three.

The trinity of imbeciles, Plutonium, Mitch and Banjo. Quite the trinity
of imbeciles!

>
>>> show me who is the brightest among you all.
>> The three of you, at least, are almost black hole "bright".
>
> Black holes are silly notions created for the imbeciles by scoundrels to maintain the status quo for corrupted physics.

Not even bright enough to understand a black hole. Just like Mitch. I
think imbecile Plutonium can't understand them, either.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 10:52:08 PM9/18/21

to

> What Banjo-Boy cannot explain is why virtually every scientist and every textbook in the entire world, in every language imaginable, disagrees with his incredible claim that at the center of the Earth, and at the center of the Sun, there is zero pressure and the temperature is also nil. This flys in the face of logic and reason. F

Easy to explain. They are all careerist beta apes following the lead of alpha ape Einstein.

Before alpha ape Einstein , they thought and rightly so that the core of the Earth could be hollow.
Books and films are there to prove this.

Then Einstein came up with e=mcc, to out the aether or sum concapt in an antiHindu initiative, for the West was getting hinduized thanks to British rule and the discovery of radio waves by Shri Jagadish Bose, and that e=mcc crap along with quantum nonsense screwed up physics totally, what with the public wrongly thinking it had everything to do with atom bombs and nuclear power. Hence public funding and huge brainwashing by media and academia, creating near universal acceptance of pure bullshit.

E=mcc bolsters the Jewish metaphysical worldview, what with creation and destruction of the Earth, Aristotle model, etc, so gets the support of Christians, Muslims and their atheists as well. Huge base here. Billions!

Nowadays all physics is fully institutionalised and anyone who opposes the dogma must lose all and
starve to death, hounded and stalked by attack dogs like the trinity ofyou three imbeciles.
It is easy to see why the nonsense continues. Who dares to oppose the dogma? Much better to repeat the lies and pocket the salary. I was and am a victim, so I know.

> What, pray tell us, is causing the creation of heavy elements from light elements in the Sun, Banjo-Boy?

Why believe liars unless you are one of them or their wannabe? No point asking me this, Dormouse Alsing. They are lying and calling it theorising.
As things are, I explained all that last year with my new and far superior physics.
Those with honesty can find out.

> Elements that can ONLY be synthesized by the application of very high pressures and temperatures? There is no other way that this can happen! NONE!

Sadly for those fools who are the dupes of the deeply entrenched scoundrels, there is no pressure at the core or aroundfor that; those keen may Check out what I wrote about Supernovas and how the universe works.

>
> Without evidence, you've got nothing... and you have zero evidence, whereas mainstream science has an incomprehensible amount of evidence!

Moronic strategy. To ignore what I say and repeat lies. But then, you are an imbecile and a racist plus bigoted one as is the normal case for the privileged scum, or in your case, a wannabe of such. You are blinded by your considerable limitations, so being an attack dog for the establishment suits you.

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 18, 2021, 11:05:23 PM9/18/21

to

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 7:52:08 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 11:52:23 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

> > What Banjo-Boy cannot explain is why virtually every scientist and every textbook in the entire world, in every language imaginable, disagrees with his incredible claim that at the center of the Earth, and at the center of the Sun, there is zero pressure and the temperature is also nil. This flys in the face of logic and reason.

What, pray tell us, is causing the creation of heavy elements from light elements in the Sun, Banjo-Boy? Elements that can ONLY be synthesized by the application of very high pressures and temperatures? There is no other way that this can happen! NONE!

Without evidence, you've got nothing... and you have zero evidence, whereas mainstream science has an incomprehensible amount of evidence!

> Easy to explain. They are all careerist beta apes following the lead of alpha ape Einstein.

So, you now equate yourself with the dumbfuck McGinn, who ALSO claims that every scientist in the entire world is wrong, and you are the only one who is correct... all without a scintilla of evidence to support your silly claims.

This is called delusion, Banjo-Boy, and only exposes, yet again, your infinitely small brain. I am amazed that you can both breathe and type at the same time, it must be quite a chore for you!

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 20, 2021, 5:35:11 AM9/20/21

to

On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 12:32:14 UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/18/2021 9:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 10:26:51 UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 9/17/2021 4:59 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
> >>>> Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!
> >>>
> >>> Pressure = Force/Area.
> >>> In words, pressure is force divided by area.
> >>> When force is zero, what should pressure be?
> >> Except the force is obviously not zero, of course. There is the force
> >> of all the rock/magma/iron all the way to the surface, cumulative.
> >
> > Talking maths here, above.
> > What is pressure when force is zero?
> Except, as I just said, the force is not zero since it is supporting the
> weight of all the rock/magma above it.

This beats Harry Potter with his broomstick and other piddling magic.
With metaphorical swish of piggy tail, Moroney conjures up force from nothing! Not that he is being original here, he is merely parroting the establishment's stand, dutiful moron that he is.
The only force around is gravity, and as per the maths and logic and 19th century wisdom the gravitational force is zero at the core.
But no, the force is not zero, it is near infinite going by Super Harry Potter Physics!
Super-infinite really, for it creates black holes, neutron stars, etc.

Believe it, or else!

High time this "modern physics" racket was busted.

> >>
> >> Maybe this will help: (I doubt it).
> >
> > No it won't,
> Banjo is correct for the first time in his life!
>
> > you evasive moron.
>
> But then he makes his sentence wrong overall.

Moroney becomes ultra-moroni; chap has lost his powers of comprehension, babbles.

> >
> >
> > Take a sheet of thin paper which
> >> weighs almost nothing, place it flat on a table. What is the pressure
> >> of the sheet of paper on the table? Very small, correct?
> >
> >
> > Zero if it is at the core of a star or any heavenly body or in very deep space.
> I said it was on a table, Banjo. Your incorrect answer doesn't apply here.

Moron Moroney, we are talking about the force near the core of the Earth, Sun, etc. where the pressure and temperature I have stated to be very low - zero at the absolute centre - and very cold, respectively.
Not anywhere else.
Certainly not the table at your mad tea party.
Try if you can gather all the wits you ever possessed to follow the discussion.

> >
> >
> >> Now take a
> >> heavy brick with the same dimensions as the paper, and place it on top
> >> of the paper. What is the pressure on the table at the bottom of the
> >> paper? Quite a bit higher, right?
> >
> > No if it is at the core of a star or any heavenly body or in deep outer space.
> I said it was on a table.

In the context the paper on the table only makes sense if both were at the centre of the Earth, Sun, etc.
Try to be a bit less of a moron, Moroney.
Look at it this way.
Put something on the table (two pencils say) and rest the brick on them with the paper below it.
Now what is the pressure on the paper?
What is the pressure on the table just below the paper?
There will be pressure on the table just under the pencils but not on the paper nor on the part of the table under the paper.

This is what is happening in every heavenly body.
The forces are splitting up tangentially and balancing each other that way.

Consider a heavy arch.
The weight does not bother you as you go under it.
Consider another arch, just the same.
Turn it 180 degrees, so that it rests with two "legs" up!
Put the first arch on top of it.
What pressure is there at the centre?
Now, make many such arch-sets and make a sphere out of it.

It will be a hollow sphere. Well, there could be matter inside it, but it wont get any pressure.

Ring some bells, now?

Try doing this experiment.
Take a solid rubber ball, but it in two halves.
Scoop out matter at the centre on both halves.
Put something delicate in the hollows, like a feather say.
Now join the halves with glue or something.

Now squeeze away with all your might on the whole rubber ball, with all you have got. Vices, etc.
Now break it up again into the two halves and see what has happened to the feather.

Has it got ruffled?

If not, do conclude that all the forces applied (mimicking the gravitational forces of the Earth) went around in circles before reaching the core. Just as they do for the arches, domes. etc.

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Sep 20, 2021, 5:37:30 AM9/20/21

to

On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 13:05:23 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 7:52:08 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 11:52:23 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > What Banjo-Boy cannot explain is why virtually every scientist and every textbook in the entire world, in every language imaginable, disagrees with his incredible claim that at the center of the Earth, and at the center of the Sun, there is zero pressure and the temperature is also nil. This flys in the face of logic and reason.

Dormouse Alsing ignores my detailed reply. Well, his wits are very low, even lower than Moroney.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 20, 2021, 10:20:49 AM9/20/21

to

On 9/20/2021 5:37 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 13:05:23 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 7:52:08 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 11:52:23 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> What Banjo-Boy cannot explain is why virtually every scientist and every textbook in the entire world, in every language imaginable, disagrees with his incredible claim that at the center of the Earth, and at the center of the Sun, there is zero pressure and the temperature is also nil. This flys in the face of logic and reason.
>
> Dormouse Alsing ignores my detailed reply. Well, his wits are very low, even lower than Moroney.

Paul likely ignored your garbage because it had no evidence and was
simply wrong.

>
>> What, pray tell us, is causing the creation of heavy elements from light elements in the Sun, Banjo-Boy? Elements that can ONLY be synthesized by the application of very high pressures and temperatures? There is no other way that this can happen! NONE!
>> Without evidence, you've got nothing... and you have zero evidence, whereas mainstream science has an incomprehensible amount of evidence!
>>> Easy to explain. They are all careerist beta apes following the lead of alpha ape Einstein.
>> So, you now equate yourself with the dumbfuck McGinn, who ALSO claims that every scientist in the entire world is wrong, and you are the only one who is correct... all without a scintilla of evidence to support your silly claims.
>>
>> This is called delusion, Banjo-Boy, and only exposes, yet again, your infinitely small brain. I am amazed that you can both breathe and type at the same time, it must be quite a chore for you!

No answer?

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 20, 2021, 10:48:25 AM9/20/21

to

On 9/20/2021 5:35 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 12:32:14 UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 9/18/2021 9:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 10:26:51 UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2021 4:59 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 14:06:53 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you do just that you will get a zero net pressure/force/temperature at the core of any planet, star, etc.
>>>>>> Zero net gravitational force is not the same as zero net pressure!
>>>>>
>>>>> Pressure = Force/Area.
>>>>> In words, pressure is force divided by area.
>>>>> When force is zero, what should pressure be?
>>>> Except the force is obviously not zero, of course. There is the force
>>>> of all the rock/magma/iron all the way to the surface, cumulative.
>>>
>>> Talking maths here, above.
>>> What is pressure when force is zero?
>> Except, as I just said, the force is not zero since it is supporting the
>> weight of all the rock/magma above it.
>
> This beats Harry Potter with his broomstick and other piddling magic.

Gravity is magic? OK, toss out all of Newton, and general relativity!
Gravity isn't curvature of spacetime or anything, gravity is pure magic!
Maybe I was right, the planets orbit the sun because invisible pink
fairies push them around!

> With metaphorical swish of piggy tail, Moroney conjures up force from nothing!

Gravity is nothing now?

> Not that he is being original here, he is merely parroting the establishment's stand, dutiful moron that he is.
> The only force around is gravity, and as per the maths and logic and 19th century wisdom the gravitational force is zero at the core.

oops! You forgot the gravitational force is not zero when not at the
core! All that force divided by area accumulates as pressure!

> But no, the force is not zero, it is near infinite going by Super Harry Potter Physics!

According to Banjo gravity really is magic!

>>> Take a sheet of thin paper which
>>>> weighs almost nothing, place it flat on a table. What is the pressure
>>>> of the sheet of paper on the table? Very small, correct?
>>>
>>>
>>> Zero if it is at the core of a star or any heavenly body or in very deep space.
>> I said it was on a table, Banjo. Your incorrect answer doesn't apply here.
>
> Moron Moroney, we are talking about the force near the core of the Earth, Sun, etc. where

And I am talking about the pressure on the tabletop by the sheet of
paper which produces by itself almost none of the pressure. Until you
understand this concept, you'll be completely unable to understand what
happens at the center of the earth.

> the pressure and temperature I have stated to be very low - zero at the absolute centre - and very cold, respectively.

It's low pressure and cold because you stated it? It's very cold and low
pressure because you say so? You really are just like Plutonium. Make
up crap and proclaim it to be true because you say so! NPD galore!

>>>> Now take a
>>>> heavy brick with the same dimensions as the paper, and place it on top
>>>> of the paper. What is the pressure on the table at the bottom of the
>>>> paper? Quite a bit higher, right?
>>>
>>> No if it is at the core of a star or any heavenly body or in deep outer space.
>> I said it was on a table.
> In the context the paper on the table only makes sense if both were at the centre of the Earth, Sun, etc.

You need to understand the concept that the pressure on the table isn't
caused by the sheet of paper on the table, the pressure is caused by the
force/pressure ABOVE the paper. Until you understand this trivial
concept, you'll be unable to understand the fact that the pressure at
the center of the earth isn't caused by the mass at/just outside the
center of the earth, but from all the mass AWAY from the center where
the gravitational force is NOT zero, ADDING to the pressure at the
center! Since the pressure from the mass near the center can be
considered to be essentially zero, it's simply adding to zero? Hey
Banjo, what is 0+x in your bizarre world view?

> Try to be a bit less of a moron, Moroney.
> Look at it this way.
> Put something on the table (two pencils say) and rest the brick on them with the paper below it.
> Now what is the pressure on the paper?
> What is the pressure on the table just below the paper?

Now you are introducing some bizarre diversion of the gravity force, for
some unexplained reason.

> This is what is happening in every heavenly body.
> The forces are splitting up tangentially and balancing each other that way.

Yes! The mass to the left of the center is trying to move to the right
while the mass to the right of the center is trying to move left! They
do balance by symmetry and produce a substantial but balanced force.
>
> Consider a heavy arch.

Why? Is there a civilization at the center of the earth building
ultra-strong arches?

<snip rest of crap as irrelevant, I am not going to consider
arch-building Romans at the center of every planet and star!>

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 20, 2021, 11:03:34 AM9/20/21

to

On 9/18/2021 10:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 11:52:23 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 6:36:38 PM UTC-7, banerjee...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 19 September 2021 at 10:52:16 UTC+10, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> Banjo-Boy is stump-stupid and proud of it! Unfortunately, he remains clueless and a waste of good air...
>>
>>> Dormouse Alsing's indignant squeaks lack the volume and range of the dumbo whodumbo.
>>> Still, one takes what one gets.
>>
>>> Abuse from the bad is more constructive than the praise from the good.
>> What Banjo-Boy cannot explain is why virtually every scientist and every textbook in the entire world, in every language imaginable, disagrees with his incredible claim that at the center of the Earth, and at the center of the Sun, there is zero pressure and the temperature is also nil. This flys in the face of logic and reason. F
>
> Easy to explain. They are all careerist beta apes following the lead of alpha ape Einstein.
>
> Before alpha ape Einstein , they thought and rightly so that the core of the Earth could be hollow.
> Books and films are there to prove this.
>
> Then Einstein came up with e=mcc, to out the aether or sum concapt in an antiHindu initiative, for the West was getting hinduized thanks to British rule and the discovery of radio waves by Shri Jagadish Bose, and that e=mcc crap along with quantum nonsense screwed up physics totally, what with the public wrongly thinking it had everything to do with atom bombs and nuclear power. Hence public funding and huge brainwashing by media and academia, creating near universal acceptance of pure bullshit.
>
> E=mcc bolsters the Jewish metaphysical worldview, what with creation and destruction of the Earth, Aristotle model, etc, so gets the support of Christians, Muslims and their atheists as well. Huge base here. Billions!
>

Now the racist Banerjee lets his racism shine!

Paul Alsing

unread,

Sep 20, 2021, 3:46:51 PM9/20/21

to

Congratulations, Arindam, you are now the frontrunner in the race to the bottom in this forum! It will not be too long before you have an insurmountable lead to ignominy, and I can think of few who deserve it more than you do.

Your family will be so proud! Keep up the good work!

Arindam Banerjee

unread,

Dec 15, 2022, 6:00:11 PM12/15/22

to

On Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 15:17:06 UTC+11, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Unlimited power generation from deuterium fissioning
>
> The article below proposes that the so-called "cold fusion" was actually deuterium fissioning. If indeed this is true, then the engineering possiblities for unlimited power generation using this phenomenon open up.
>
> Deuterium fissions when high energy electrons (beta rays) strike or come near the deuterium nucleus. The electron holding the two protons snap the bond, releasing two protons at very close range causing enormous force, acceleration, velocity and kinetic energy. This ultimately leads to heat energy from collisions with stationary matter. Usually a nuclear explosion causes this fissioning.
>
> However, the conditions for deuterium fissioning can be done in the laboratory. What is needed is to pass very high energy electrons (even more powerful than beta rays) through matter containing deuterium. It is not possible to use gamma rays; but it is expected that its lack will be compensated by very strongly accelerated electrons.
>
> Doing that is not difficult. A space charge of electrons can be formed by thermionic emission. Then a very high voltage creating a very strong electric field, could be applied to drive the electrons between the electrodes at very high speeds.
>
> Through these electrodes heavy water is passed at high pressure. The electrons hit the deuterium nuclei present there, causing enormous heat which immediately boils the water into superheated steam. This steam can now drive turbines for electricity generation.
>
> Naturally at a power plant there will be many such electrodes, to create energy by a parallel multiplicative process.
>
> This will be the cleanest way to produce unlimited energy, beating even solar power. Maybe the time for this technology will come after a few decades, hopefully earlier. With surplus power converted to hydrogen via electrolysis the need for all fossil fuel should end, with the creation of the Hydrogen Transmission Network. Details for which are at
> htnresearch.com
>
> ___________________________________
>
> "Cold fusion", an apparently observed exothermic phenomenon is very probably deuterium fission
>
> It is a fact well-known that deuterium (hydrogen nucleus has an extra neutron which can be seen as a neutrally charged proton-electron mass) occurs plentifully in sea-water, naturally. Thus, ever since the forties, efforts have been made to use this deuterium to provide unlimited energy. The reason for this lies in the success of the hydrogen bomb. The extraordinary power there came first from the fission of an atomic bomb which created the temperatures necessary to cause what was supposed to be fusion. Why was it supposed to be fusion? The answer lies in the textbook "nuclear engineering" by Irving Kaplan of MIT (Add. Wes. 1977). On page 668 we have
>
> *****
> Atomic mass of 4 hydrogen atoms = 4.13258 amu
> Atomic mass of 1 helium atom = 4.00387 amu
> Difference in mass = 0.02871 amu
> = 26.7 MeV
> = 42.7 x 10^-6 et
>
> *****
> To put it in words, when as a result of intense temperature (as in the atom bomb or at the core of the Sun due to intense pressure of gravity) four hydrogen atoms merge to form a helium atom. This process involves loss in mass as shown. From the law of conservation of mass and energy which mathematically shows that mass and energy are interchangeable concepts, from e=mcc, that mass is energy released when destroyed as what must happen when four hydrogen atoms turn into one helium atom. This was taken as gospel truth by all the scientists who have for decades tried to create the temperatures required to turn hydrogen into helium in the lab. They have failed so far, despite billions of dollars spent and over 70 years of work.
>
> They have failed so far with "hot fusion" following the solar model. Which incidentally has to be false, for he core of the Sun or any large body like the Earth has to be very cold, if there is a magnetic field around them. But this is another story.
>
> Now in the 80s a phenomenon called "cold fusion" was announced by Fleishman and Pons. These were serious researchers whose work created tremendous attention. However these days one does not hear about them. I wonder why. A senior physicist I knew said that they were honest and diligent people, but they did not get the credit they deserved for their discovery. Most likely such was so as their work did not satisfy the "hot fusion" researchers who failed to see how on Earth repelling protons could fuse together in normal lab conditions.
>
> In the below article, I have shown how a 1 Megaton TNT hydrogen bomb explosion can be explained not by employing the law of conservation of mass and energy, but by pure and simple electrostatic repulsion of protons, that caused by breaking the nuclear bonding of the deuterium nucleus seen as two protons held by a single electron. The analysis shows how it is unnecessary to implement the law of conservation of mass and energy in the explanation for the hydrogen bomb phenomenon.
>
> To turn to cold fusion, now. If indeed there is no fusion of hydrogen to helium, simple disintegration of the deuterium nucleus instead, then such a phenomenon need not be dependent purely on a preceding nuclear blast causing beta and gamma rays. The disintegration of deuterium to form heat could well be done in the lab under certain phenomenon. That is most probably what happened in the experiments of Fleishman and Pons, but as fusion was mentioned, no one thought of deuterium fission. Till your present writer.
>
> ______________________________
>
> Analysis of the hydrogen bomb mathematically using internal forces instead of binding energies involving e=mcc
>
> The hydrogen bomb is supposedly the most powerful illustration of e=mcc, as the binding energies are involved somehow in fusing hydrogen and deuterium nuciei into helium.
>
> Let us suppose that is not true, holding e=mcc to be false to begin with.
>
> Further, let us hold that the deuterium nuclei is two protons held together by one electron which acts as a superglue joining two positive charges just about strong enough to make it NOT fly away when the nucleus is hit with a high energy electron along with gamma ray involving strong vibration - the latter typically caused by the normal atom bomb fissioning with strong induced radioactivity.
>
> Let us now see if we can explain the energy of a 1 Megaton TNT H-bomb using known electrostatic forces only, and not binding energies or strong force assumptions.
>
> The assertion now is that the deuterium atom, instead of fusing with a proton to form a tritium atom releasing extraordinary energy (the standard position now held, presented in all books, accepted by all institutions) what is really happening is that the electron can no longer hold the two protons together as a result of collision from a high energy electron (beta ray) along with gamma ray vibrations. In which case the two protons fly away from each other, repelled by their mutual positive charge.
>
> Let us see if this model works to explain the energies involved for a 1 Megaton TNT H-bomb explosion. As per google search, 1 Kg of TNT releases 1.67 x 10^9 joules. 1 Megaton (a million tons) would release 1.67 x 10^15 joules.
>
> Can simple formulas, known for decades, relating to electrostatics be used to show that fission as stated above will create such an energy?
>
> Let us get the basic data first, that is publicly known and found via google searching.
>
> mass of proton 1.67 x 10^-29 Kg
> charge of proton 1.602 x 10^-19 coulombs
> diameter of proton 10^-15 meter
> k value is 8.98 x 10^9 MKAS units
>
> Using the formula for electrostatic attraction and repulsion, and assuming that at rest in the deuterim atom the protons were separated by two proton diameters, we present the age old formula
>
> F = k x q1 x q2/r^2 and putting in the values all in MKAS units
> F = 8.98 x 10^9 x 1.602 x 10^-19 x 1.602 x 10^-19/(2 X 10^-15 x 2 x 10^-15)
> or
> F = 8.98 x 1.602^2 x 10^-29/(4 x 10^-30)
> or
> F1 = 57.6 Newtons
>
> So the fissioning of a deuterium nucleus leads to at the initial position a repulsive force of 57.6 newtons. This is very important.
> We now see what energies are involved as a result of this electrostaic repulsion force.
>
> Let us consider the repulsive for the proton at a distance of 20 proton diameters, that is, when a single proton has moved away by 10 proton diameters or 10^-14m
>
> It is F = 8.98 x 1.602^2 x 10^-29/(20 x 10^-15 * 20 x 10^-15)
> or
> F2 = 0.576 Newtons
>
> Very roughly, the average force acting on the proton as it moves a distance of 10 proton diameters or 10^-14 m is the mean of these two values.
>
> The F = (F1 + F2)/2 = 29.088 Newtons
>
> The average acceleration of the proton from rest over the distance 10^-14m can be calculated from the formula F = ma or a = F/m,
> or
> a = 29.088/(1.67 x 10^-27)
> or
> a = 17.418 x 10^27 or 1.7418 x 10^28 meters per second square.
>
> The velocity of the proton after it has travelled 10^-14 m is obtained from the formula:
>
> V^2 = 2 x a x s where V is the velocity, s is the distance travelled under average acceleration a and the initial velocity is zero.
> or
> V^2 = 2 x 1.7418 x 10^28 x 10^-14
> or
> V^2 = 3.4836 x 10^14
> and
> V = 1.866 x 10^7 meters/second
>
> Now the kinetic energy of the single proton after it has travelled 10^-14m after fission is
> 0.5 x m x V^2
> or
> 0.5 x 1.67 x 10^-27 x 3.4836 x 10^14
> or
> 2.9088 x 10^-13 joules.
>
> As there are two protons involved, the kinetic energy from a deuterium fission would be
> 5.8 x 10^-13 joules
>
> Let us consider that in our bomb we have used M=100 Kg of heavy water.
> Now 19 gms of deuterium water contain 6.023 x 10^23 molecules of heavy water as per Avogadro's formula.
> So 100Kg will contain 100*1000/18 x 6.023 x 10^23 fissionable atoms or 3.17 x 10^27 atoms.
>
> If all these atoms fission in the hydrogen bomb explosion, then the total energy from just that will be:
> 5.8 x 10^-13 x 3.17 x 10^27
> = 18.38 x 10^14
> = 1.838 x 10^15 joules.
>
> Now let us go back to see what is the energy yield from a 1 Megaton TNT H bomb.
>
> Its value is
> 1.67 x 10^15 joules
>
> which is quite close to the value we have got of 1.838 x 10^15 joules and that, let me remind, is obtained by pure electrostatic internal forces caused by the repelled fissioned deuterium protons
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
> Melbourne, 23/03/2020

Looks like they got it, at last. It will take time to make proper power generators, to bolster the renewables.
Then convert to hydrogen, and put it in the global HTN to solve all energy problems for all for all time.