The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[Mushroom]

It's been awhile since I looked into it but that range isn't what I remember seeing.

It is constantly shifting as more things are discovered. Including most recently a new understanding of Large low-shear-velocity provinces in the deep mantle and where they likely came from.

But we do know that we have an exceptionally large core, far larger than what would have developed naturally during traditional planetary formation. And it is why our planet is still dynamic where as on other planets almost all geological activity has ended and they are simply in a slow death.

And I have also seen reports that the core on the planet will be active for "as little" of a period of time as 10 billion years. And to be honest, at any time that this estimate goes past 8 billion it really becomes insignificant. Because past about 7.5 billion years the planet will no longer even exist no matter what. It will be swallowed by the sun, and become yet more materials for our star to cook and compress until it is emitted as yet more heavy materials from the cosmic forge.

 

[the other mike]

One of my neighbors is pretty tight with God, and he said He said "After the Big Bang, I created 840,582 Earth-like planets...some make it , some don't. You guys got one of my best ones and it pisses me off that you're fucking it up."

My neighbor and I are spreading the word musically.

 

[Flash]

It is constantly shifting as more things are discovered. Including most recently a new understanding of Large low-shear-velocity provinces in the deep mantle and where they likely came from.

But we do know that we have an exceptionally large core, far larger than what would have developed naturally during traditional planetary formation. And it is why our planet is still dynamic where as on other planets almost all geological activity has ended and they are simply in a slow death.

And I have also seen reports that the core on the planet will be active for "as little" of a period of time as 10 billion years. And to be honest, at any time that this estimate goes past 8 billion it really becomes insignificant. Because past about 7.5 billion years the planet will no longer even exist no matter what. It will be swallowed by the sun, and become yet more materials for our star to cook and compress until it is emitted as yet more heavy materials from the cosmic forge.

Excellent point.

The earth had a collision with Theia that created the Moon. A very happenstance event.

The collision did not only tear off enough mantle to create the Moon that stabilized the earth but it caused the merging of two iron cores.

Earth has a very large molten iron core. This not only produces the dynamic forces that you cited but also a large magnetic field that shields us from radiation.

Earth is a very unique planet. Maybe being unique enough to be the only one in the universe to have life.

If the universe is finite then it will have unique things in it. It could be that life is unique to earth because of several happenstance events like the merging of two planets at the right angle at the right time in the development of the solar system.

 

[Mushroom]

 

[ding]

It is constantly shifting as more things are discovered. Including most recently a new understanding of Large low-shear-velocity provinces in the deep mantle and where they likely came from.

But we do know that we have an exceptionally large core, far larger than what would have developed naturally during traditional planetary formation. And it is why our planet is still dynamic where as on other planets almost all geological activity has ended and they are simply in a slow death.

And I have also seen reports that the core on the planet will be active for "as little" of a period of time as 10 billion years. And to be honest, at any time that this estimate goes past 8 billion it really becomes insignificant. Because past about 7.5 billion years the planet will no longer even exist no matter what. It will be swallowed by the sun, and become yet more materials for our star to cook and compress until it is emitted as yet more heavy materials from the cosmic forge.

That's the general consensus.

But...

Is Earth’s magnetic field powered by a ‘nuclear reactor’?

In August 2002, a cover article appeared in Discover magazine on the “Nuclear Planet.”

www.oakridger.com

 

[sealybobo]

People don't know that there is other life out there. No one does.

Why are you telling me this captain obvious? I said people who think there is no other life out there.

Why are you stating the obvious? Is that all you had to say? Piss off krunt.

 

[sealybobo]

Like Sealybobo.

Mushroom, he's obsessed with me.

 

[Mushroom]

But...

The article introduced lay readers to a new fringe theory that deep in Earth is a “five-mile wide ball of uranium” that “burns, churns, and reacts, creating the planet's magnetic field, as well as the heat that powers volcanoes and continental-plate movements.”

"Fringe Theory", it says so right in your very own citation.

Might as well be moon fairies and happy thoughts. This is a science area, and I discuss science. What is current consensus and understanding, not quack theories.

And no, it is not a "nuclear reactor", as it is neither fission or fusion but radioactive decay that is fueling it. Not unlike an RTG

 

[Mushroom]

Mushroom, he's obsessed with me.

Actually, I could not care less about you.

However, I will always try to correct wrong or sloppy information. So if you think I am "obsessed", realize that is likely because you repeatedly post incorrect information. Or things that simply do not apply to a topic.

To be honest, you really do not matter to me at all.

 

[the other mike]

Here's something new, Flash ...

 

[ding]

"Fringe Theory", it says so right in your very own citation.

Maybe. Maybe not. Time will tell. I bet you stopped reading right there.

It explains polarity switches instead of arm waving and it explains why He-3 and He-4 isotopes are found in basalt extruded from volcanic lava.

I believe the scenario of many reactors over a single reactor is more likely though.

 

[Mushroom]

I bet you stopped reading right there.

Actually, no. I did actually read through it, and this also jumped right out.

The “nuclear planet” theory was proposed in 1993 by J. Marvin Herndon, now president of the Transdyne Corp. in San Diego, Calif., who published a paper titled, “Feasibility of a Nuclear Fission Reactor at the Center of the Earth as the Energy Source for the Geomagnetic Field.”

Hmmm, proposed in 1993. Discussed in a magazine in 2002. And from then, seems like nobody really cares.

And I know other things that it kind of skips around. Like their trying to link helium to nuclear fission and fusion. Meanwhile, it is also a component of radioactive decay that is not linked to fission or fusion.

I mentioned in another thread not all that long ago about tritium. That one of the things that required maintenance in our nuclear weapons is that many are enhanced with tritium. And a natural byproduct of tritium decay is helium-3. In fact, one of the reasons the country has had a "helium shortage" over the past decade or so is because there is less helium being vented from our tritium stockpile as the number of nuclear weapons we have has decreased greatly over the decades.

So taking a leap and just jumping at an idea that the helium is coming from some nuclear reaction instead of the natural decay which is in the current accepted theory is just the kind of fringe junk science I regularly examine, then dismiss. And as this is still only a fringe theory after almost 30 years, it is even more so. Even the idea that Yellowstone was a supervolcano that started life in California got accepted quicker than that.

However, once again notice that your very own reference called this a "fringe theory".

 

[Mushroom]

I believe the scenario of many reactors over a single reactor is more likely though.

It is not any kind of "reactor" at all. It is radioactive decay. Just like what powers an RTG.

 

[ding]

Actually, no. I did actually read through it, and this also jumped right out.

I knew you hadn't.

Then when you did finally read it you looked for things you could argue against it, right?

That's a quite a scientific mind you have there.

 

[ding]

It is not any kind of "reactor" at all. It is radioactive decay. Just like what powers an RTG.

Ummmm... no, it's not just radioactive decay. Again... did you read the whole article?

Do you need for me to point out where he uses the term fission and nuclear reactors in the article? Or maybe you can get a clue from the title of the paper they published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Deep-Earth Reactor: Nuclear Fission, Helium, and the Geomagnetic Field.”

I think I'm going to go with the nuclear engineer from Oak Ridge National Laboratory on this one.

 

[ding]

Mushroom, he's obsessed with me.

I bet I'm looking pretty good to you right about now

 

[Ringtone]

Where did I say humans? Nowhere, actually. But we know the timeline of life, and it took about 2-3 billion years for life to go from single cells to more complex multi-cellular life. And I doubt most planets had that long.

False.

 

[james bond]

Your common sense is laughably stupid. This is why we invented science.

You mean your atheist science. I never heard of real science ignoring valid data. Thus, evolution is lmao stupid as science does not back up evolution. All evolution is is a bunch of papers written by atheist scientists in order to continue getting their funding.

Do you get funding? If not, then LMAO. Where's your payoff?

 

[Ringtone]

No, is thinking small and ignorant. The numbers suggest Youre wrong. Jus an ignorant stupid human on the 3rd rock from the sun.

Small and ignorant is naturalist speak. Numbers? Please elaborate.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually, I could not care less about you.

However, I will always try to correct wrong or sloppy information. So if you think I am "obsessed", realize that is likely because you repeatedly post incorrect information. Or things that simply do not apply to a topic.

To be honest, you really do not matter to me at all.

You're going to be embarrassed. I was talking about Unkotare. I like you, dick.