Deuterium and the challenges to the Big Bang
Image: BBC
The Earth and all planets stratify to greater density from the surface down, with minerals altering form to a more compact structure at greater depths. As described by J.M. Herndon, the core of the Earth is formed by the neutron-heavy Transuranics as an active Soliton Breeder Reactor.
K.P. Lin and colleagues calculate that the GeoReactor’s breeder action should last another 2 billion years, but in a little over 1 billion years the Sun will expand out in its Red Giant phase and we’ll have to get off this rock. The Warmists will finally get it right.
Stratification within the Sun is the opposite, with lighter elements fusing deep within and the heavy elements stratifying above with the neutron-heavy Transuranics at the surface. Following stellar ignition by a fission trigger ( a big Hydrogen bomb), the remaining Transuranics were dispersed into miniscule droplets. R.J. Tuttle and M.a. Padmanabha Rao describe that at the conditions of the Sun’s surface (5,800 C ) , if as little as one (1) gram of these fissiles coalesce, you have a fission event which yields a solar flare. Thus the Sun’s corona is millions of degrees vs. 5,800 C at the Sun’s surface.
With no deuterium escaping the fusion zone of stars, this absence justifies the premise that deuterium only comes from the Big Bang. No. Deuterium is produced as a fragment of fission, both on the surface of the Sun as well as the terracentric GeoReactor. The dense neutron flux of the GeoReactor shifts a greater portion of deuterium into Helium-3 so the Earth’s oceans differ from the proportion observed by the Rosetta Mission.
Thus, a central premise of the Big Bang is kicked to the curb.
Fred Hoyle described the Universe as having always been infinite. J.M. Herndon tweaks Hoyle a bit in that, like Kurt Gödel’s Theorem of Incompleteness, the Universe at any point is finite, but it is unbounded as it continues to expand. An asymptote approaches infinity but never reaches it.
Read more here: nuclearplanet.com
and here: iosrjournals.org
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
JaKo
| #
Well,
Good to hear that the religion of big bang is getting kicked aside from more perspectives and with it that its microwave “echo” blunder, yet the infinite universe (time-space-wise) is still not taken seriously. The “expansion” is still being pushed as the “only correct” explanation of a red-shift etc.
Overall, good to read about something else than the “pressing issues of the daily life.”
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard,
What is a testable prediction of J.M. Herndon,’s Soliton Breeder Reactor.theory?
Now a historical fact is a group of physicists demonstrated the validity of their understanding of fundamental ‘nuclear’ reactions by designing a fission bomb and a fusion bomb which worked the first time they were tested. One of these physicists was Richard Feynman.
In 1974 Feynman gave a commencement address tp tje Caltech graduating class titled Cargo Cult Science. And this address was published in Feynman’s best seller—“Surely Your Joking, Mr. Feynman!”. The following is a paragraph from this address.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given. If you know them. You must do the best you can—if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong—to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what if fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.”
Now, I understand that this ‘something else’ is commonly considered to be a testable prediction of something not yet studied (known, observed).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Richard Cronin
| #
Jerry –
Good to hear from you again. Perhaps I should have been a bit more careful about the wording. Looking into the past, we may never know. I should have used Herndon’s term “unbounded”, both for past as well as the future.
As to proof around the GeoReactor, I have two (2) references taken from geoneutrino observations (Antineutrinos from within the Earth). Antineutrinos with energy levels between 3MeV and 10MeV are signature to fission. Antineutrinos from radioactive decay range lower. Also, Hollenbach and Herndon (2001) predicted that the GeoReactor power output varied from 3 to 5 TW. See conclusions of the two (2) papers.
AGM15 —> 3.7 TW @ 95 % Confidence
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13945
Borexino —> See Chart 18 of 24: “Is there a georeactor at the center of the Earth?” Four data points stated, at 95 % Confidence = < 3 TW, <4.1 TW , <6.7 TW, <3.9 TW.
http://www.taup-conference.to.infn.it/2011/day2/smirnov.pdf
Signature isotopes of nuclear fission are Carbon 14, Chlorine 36, Iodine 129.
C-14 has been found in deep earth diamonds, coal beds, and methane. These are used by Young Earth Biblical Creationists to justify their stance. Their findings are dismissed out of hand for their religious claims, but nobody wants to evaluate nor replicate their findings. Concentrations of C-14 in mollusks & mussels around hydrothermal vents inside the Mariana Trench are dubiously attributed to open air atomic bomb testing, which ended in 1980.
C-14 has been found buried in marine sediments taken from the eastern equatorial Pacific which date to the end of the last major glaciation. These observations are even more dubiously attributed to a great gully-wash of water flooding out from the west coast of South America, carrying along C-14 in organic matter. Say, what ??
https://chaamjamal.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/stott2019pdf.pdf
Arizona University has found multiple eras with broad swings in C-14 and Be-10 which they really can’t explain.
Chlorine 36 has been observed in Antarctic ice cores and in greater concentrations lower down. They attribute this to Chlorine 36 somehow having “greater mobility”.
“The chlorine was not only spreading to the atmosphere from the firn surface of the snowpack, but moving up from the snowpack’s depths, meaning the chlorine is more mobile scientists previously thought.“
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-radioactive-chlorine-nuclear-antarctica.html
Iodine 129 has been found in algae taken from the English Channel and the Brits blame French nuke plants as the source. Bloody Frogs.
All best. Dick Cronin
Reply