What keeps the Earth cooking?

Jul 17, 2011
What keeps the Earth cooking?
A main source of the 44 trillion watts of heat that flows from the interior of the Earth is the decay of radioactive isotopes in the mantle and crust. Scientists using the KamLAND neutrino detector in Japan have measured how much heat is generated this way by capturing geoneutrinos released during radioactive decay. Credit: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

What spreads the sea floors and moves the continents? What melts iron in the outer core and enables the Earth's magnetic field? Heat. Geologists have used temperature measurements from more than 20,000 boreholes around the world to estimate that some 44 terawatts (44 trillion watts) of heat continually flow from Earth's interior into space. Where does it come from?

Radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth's crust and mantle is a principal source, and in 2005 in the KamLAND collaboration, based in Japan, first showed that there was a way to measure the contribution directly. The trick was to catch what Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Antineutrino Detector (KamLAND) dubbed geoneutrinos – more precisely, geo-antineutrinos – emitted when radioactive isotopes decay.

"As a detector of geoneutrinos, KamLAND has distinct advantages," says Stuart Freedman of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), which is a major contributor to KamLAND. Freedman, a member of Berkeley Lab's Nuclear Science Division and a professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, leads U.S. participation. "KamLAND was specifically designed to study antineutrinos. We are able to discriminate them from background noise and detect them with very high sensitivity."

KamLAND scientists have now published new figures for heat energy from radioactive decay in the journal Nature Geoscience. Based on the improved sensitivity of the KamLAND detector, plus several years' worth of additional data, the new estimate is not merely "consistent" with the predictions of accepted geophysical models but is precise enough to aid in refining those models.

One thing that's at least 97-percent certain is that radioactive decay supplies only about half the Earth's heat. Other sources – primordial heat left over from the planet's formation, and possibly others as well – must account for the rest.

Hunting for neutrinos from deep in the Earth

Antineutrinos are produced not only in the decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium isotopes but in a variety of others, including fission products in nuclear power reactors. In fact, reactor-produced antineutrinos were the first neutrinos to be directly detected (neutrinos and antineutrinos are distinguished from each other by the interactions in which they appear).

What keeps the Earth cooking?
The KamLAND anti-neutrino detector is a vessel filled with scintillating mineral oil and lined with photomultiplier tubes (inset), the largest scintillation detector ever constructed, buried deep underground near Toyama, Japan. Credit: KamLAND Collaboration

Because neutrinos interact only by way of the weak force – and gravity, insignificant except on the scale of the cosmos – they stream through the Earth as if it were transparent. This makes them hard to spot, but on the very rare occasions when an antineutrino collides with a proton inside the KamLAND detector – a sphere filled with a thousand metric tons of scintillating mineral oil – it produces an unmistakable double signal.

The first signal comes when the antineutrino converts the proton to a neutron plus a positron (an anti-electron), which quickly annihilates when it hits an ordinary electron – a process called inverse beta decay. The faint flash of light from the ionizing positron and the annihilation process is picked up by the more than 1,800 photomultiplier tubes within the KamLAND vessel. A couple of hundred millionths of a second later the neutron from the decay is captured by a proton in the hydrogen-rich fluid and emits a gamma ray, the second signal. This "delayed coincidence" allows antineutrino interactions to be distinguished from background events such as hits from cosmic rays penetrating the kilometer of rock that overlies the detector.

Says Freedman, "It's like looking for a spy in a crowd of people on the street. You can't pick out one spy, but if there's a second spy following the first one around, the signal is still small but it's easy to spot."

KamLAND was originally designed to detect antineutrinos from more than 50 reactors in Japan, some close and some far away, in order to study the phenomenon of neutrino oscillation. Reactors produce electron neutrinos, but as they travel they oscillate into muon neutrinos and tau neutrinos; the three "flavors" are associated with the electron and its heavier cousins.

Being surrounded by nuclear reactors means KamLAND's background events from reactor antineutrinos must also be accounted for in identifying geoneutrino events. This is done by identifying the nuclear-plant antineutrinos by their characteristic energies and other factors, such as their varying rates of production versus the steady arrival of geoneutrinos. Reactor antineutrinos are calculated and subtracted from the total. What's left are the geoneutrinos.

Tracking the heat

All models of the inner Earth depend on indirect evidence. Leading models of the kind known as bulk silicate Earth (BSE) assume that the mantle and crust contain only lithophiles ("rock-loving" elements) and the core contains only siderophiles (elements that "like to be with iron"). Thus all the heat from radioactive decay comes from the crust and mantle – about eight terawatts from uranium 238 (238U), another eight terawatts from thorium 232 (232Th), and four terawatts from potassium 40 (40K).

KamLAND's double-coincidence detection method is insensitive to the low-energy part of the geoneutrino signal from 238U and 232Th and completely insensitive to 40K antineutrinos. Other kinds of radioactive decay are also missed by the detector, but compared to uranium, thorium, and are negligible contributors to Earth's heat.

Additional factors that have to be taken into account include how the radioactive elements are distributed (whether uniformly or concentrated in a "sunken layer" at the core-mantle boundary), variations due to radioactive elements in the local geology (in KamLAND's case, less than 10 percent of the expected flux), antineutrinos from fission products, and how neutrinos oscillate as they travel through the crust and . Alternate theories were also considered, including the speculative idea that there may be a natural nuclear reactor somewhere deep inside the Earth, where fissile elements have accumulated and initiated a sustained fission reaction.

KamLAND detected 841 candidate antineutrino events between March of 2002 and November of 2009, of which about 730 were reactor events or other background. The rest, about 111, were from radioactive decays of uranium and thorium in the . These results were combined with data from the Borexino experiment at Gran Sasso in Italy to calculate the contribution of uranium and thorium to Earth's heat production. The answer was about 20 terawatts; based on models, another three terawatts were estimated to come from other isotope decays.

This is more heat energy than the most popular BSE model suggests, but still far less than Earth's total. Says Freedman, "One thing we can say with near certainty is that alone is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy. Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question."

Better models are likely to result when many more geoneutrino detectors are located in different places around the globe, including midocean islands where the crust is thin and local concentrations of radioactivity (not to mention nuclear reactors) are at a minimum.

Says Freedman, "This is what's called an inverse problem, where you have a lot of information but also a lot of complicated inputs and variables. Sorting those out to arrive at the best explanation among many requires multiple sources of data."

Explore further: Detecting neutrinos, physicists look into the heart of the Sun

More information: "Partial radiogenic heat model for Earth revealed by geoneutrino measurements," Nature Geoscience

Provided by DOE/Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

4.6 /5 (24 votes)

Related Stories

Borexino experiment detects geo-neutrinos

Mar 16, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Borexino collaboration of about 80 scientists from six countries, who have been working with a detector buried 1.5 km beneath the Gran Sasso mountain near l'Aquila in Italy have detected ...

Recommended for you

Awakening the potential of plasma acceleration

11 hours ago

Civil engineering has begun for the new Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment (AWAKE) at CERN. This proof-of-principle experiment will harness the power of wakefields generated by proton ...

Magnetic memories on the right track

11 hours ago

Computer hard drives store data by writing magnetic information onto their surfaces. In the future, magnetic effects may also be used to improve active memory in computers, potentially eliminating the need ...

When an exciton acts like a hole

13 hours ago

(Phys.org) —When is an electron hole like a quasiparticle (QP)? More specifically, what happens when a single electron hole is doped into a two-dimensional quantum antiferromagnet? Quasiparticle phenomena ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hush1
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2011
Rossi managed to put his product in the core.

Seriously though:
"One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy. Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question." - Stuart Freedman

A complete theory can undoubtedly contribute to researchers researching climate. I can see a well founded Geoscience theory as part of any climate model.
Callippo
1 / 5 (18) Jul 17, 2011
In my theory the Earth passed through dense cloud of antineutrinos, which initiated the global warming at both Earth, both the another planets of solar system. These particles are supposed to both accelerate radioactive decay, both annihilate directly with matter of Eearth (do you remember the 2012 movie? You should do...).

Another, rather conspirative theory

http://beforeitsn...ore.html
xznofile
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2011
how is scintillating mineral oil different from the non-scintillating kind?
Callippo
5 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2011
The liquid scintillator used at KamLAND consists of 1,000 metric tons of 80v% of n-dodecane and 20v% of pseudocumene (1,2,4-trimethylbenzene) and 1.52g/liter of 2,5-diphenyloxazole scintillator

http://arxiv.org/...4071.pdf
lexington
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2011
A gap in our knowledge! It's the devil! He's heating up our planet.
Doc_aymz
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 17, 2011
I would have thought tidal forces from the Sun and Moon would also create heat in the interior of the Earth as it does in Moons.
FrankHerbert
2.9 / 5 (17) Jul 17, 2011
A gap in our knowledge! It's the devil! He's heating up our planet.


Except there can never be any test for the devil. We can however come up with tests to search for theoretical kinds of dark matter. Also skeptics conveniently define dark matter as "something that doesn't exist." It's a circular definition.

Neutrinos were considered dark matter until they were actually discovered. They still are dark though; they don't interact with electromagnetic radiation. That's all "dark" means. Neutrinos are real so at least one variety of dark matter has panned out. It would stand to reason that a form of matter that interacts exclusively through gravity would be even more difficult than neutrinos to verify and it really shouldn't come as a shock that there isn't any conclusive proof yet.

Some day all the various dark matter theories will be proved or disproved but not the devil. It's a poorly constructed analogy.
Graeme
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2011
Could rates of decay be changed under high pressure in the Earth? It seems unlikely as the 1S orbitals would hardly change under pressure compared to the outer orbitals that would be squashed. At most this could lead to a small increase in electron capture rates.

However perhaps there is more low energy decay going on that is not being noticed by the detector.

A dense cloud of antineutrinos intense enough to warm the earth would probably have been detected by this machine too!

Other possibilities are that heat loss from the earth varies over time and at the current era is running at higher rates than production. Some other gravity effect such as tidal heating or absorption of high frequency gravitational waves is heating the interior. A slow recrystallization is releasing heat. Density segregation is still occurring releasing potential energy.
Cave_Man
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2011
I wasn't even aware they had actually observed antineutrinos. Geeze am I behind or what.

Next you guys will be telling me higgs is old news and we have gravimetric sensors.
typicalguy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2011
I have always read the earth has an iron core but perhaps there is a great deal of uranium there as well? Thats what this article seems to suggest and it actually makes sense that most uranium would settle in the core as well since it is heavier than iron.
omatumr
2.1 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2011
Says Freedman, "One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy. Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question."


Thanks for the report.

Dr. J. Marvin Herndon has pursued this issue for years.

http://nuclearplanet.com/

Excess heat in the outer planets, like Jupiter, probably comes from high levels of Th, U, Pu in their cores. The r-process (rapid neutron capture) that made Th, U, Pu also produced excess Xe-136 in Jupiter [1].

But Earth's iron core accumulated from iron meteorites made by the e-process (equilibrium) near the supernova core. The e-process does not make Th, U, Pu and iron meteorites have little of these [2].

1. Meteoritics 33, A97, 5011 (1998)

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf

2. Geochemical Journal 15, 247-267 (1981)

www.omatumr.com/a...eGas.pdf

Best wishes,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
comendant
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
I always thought all the earthquakes and rotation/heat of the earths core was just an ongoing effect of the impact between Earth and another planetary object that created Earth and the Moon.
ggg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
Can someone estimate how long the Earth would stay warm if the Sun weren't around?
yempski
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
I would have thought tidal forces from the Sun and Moon would also create heat in the interior of the Earth as it does in Moons.


you would be right... about 3 terawatts

http://en.wikiped...y_budget
yempski
5 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
Can someone estimate how long the Earth would stay warm if the Sun weren't around?

about to week to reach -32 deg.C

http://www.popsci...de/24698
ggg
not rated yet Jul 18, 2011
Thanks yempski. Millions of years is quite a while for our Earth to cool to -400°C. The Earth has certainly been around a lot longer than that. If that is correct it would show that the Earth can't produce enough heat to warm itself. In that case, we are heavily dependent upon the Sun for the Earth to stay warm at all.
What actual percent does the Sun contribute to us staying warm?
robatk
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2011
A gap in our knowledge! It's the devil! He's heating up our planet.


Some day all the various dark matter theories will be proved or disproved but not the devil./q]

This jab at views that fail the scientific 'standard' wasn't worth the reply, but someone thought to elaborate on it. So now, I can't help but wonder how much self-reflection is actually being expressed here. It is common knowledge that that physics is increasingly built upon mathematical elegance than upon any empirical evidence. So the difference between physics and meta-physics is increasingly academic. True, someday it may all be falsifiable, assuming our innate capacity to comprehend it. Even so, if one concedes the point, and I don't, it begs the question: Why would evolution endow us with such capabilities? I emphatically support the pursuit of knowledge, but must it come at the expense of wisdom? Must we stereo-type the error of a minority upon an entire world view and embrace anthropocentric arrogance?
Bonkers
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2011
Thanks yempski. Millions of years is quite a while for our Earth to cool to -400C. The Earth has certainly been around a lot longer than that. If that is correct it would show that the Earth can't produce enough heat to warm itself. In that case, we are heavily dependent upon the Sun for the Earth to stay warm at all.
What actual percent does the Sun contribute to us staying warm?

It would take a lot longer than a million years to reach minus 400'C, or minus 27 Kelvin as I would call it.
The sun contributes 100% to us staying warm, without it we would not be warm at all.
Bonkers
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2011
ggg
it would take a lot longer than a million years to reach minus 400'C - or minus 27 Kelvin as i would call it.
the sun contributes 100% to our staying warm , without it we would not be warm at all.
Gross solar input is about 1kW per sq meter, about 100 petawatts, using pi R squared.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2011
It would take a lot longer than a million years to reach minus 400'C, or minus 27 Kelvin as I would call it.

minus 400°C would be -127°K IF such a temperature were at all possible, but it isn't.
The definition of temperature is a quantity that is reliant on the motion of atoms. At 0°K (absolute zero, -273°C) we are already at a full stop.

In that case, we are heavily dependent upon the Sun for the Earth to stay warm at all.

That depends on what you call 'warm'. Would the water on the earth's surface freeze of the sun weren't there? Yes. Would it grow ever colder? Only slowly because as long as the radioactive decay within the earth's mantle/core is fairly constant an equilibrium would be reached which is substantially above absolute zero. So in relation the rest of the universe it would be pretty warm. With relation to human comfort zones it would be pretty cold.
st1d
not rated yet Jul 18, 2011
I would have thought tidal forces from the Sun and Moon would also create heat in the interior of the Earth as it does in Moons.


Agreed. The surface of the Earth flexes by dozens of cm each day as it rotates, from the effects of both rotation in relation to sun/moon and movement of the oceans over the surface.

Much of this heat would reflect back and forth inside the earth, greatly reducing the amount of heat lost by the core, very similar to how a tire generates heat, a little by friction with the road, but the vast majority by the flexing of the tire as it rotates.

Ionizing radiation is a poor heat generator (nuclear reactors have very specific properties to collect heat).

As for the sun "shutting off", I'd bet that the Earth's temperature would be survivable for a while (assuming you had food and standard winter heating). However, if the sun were to disappear, and Earth shot off in a straight line, I'm guessing survivability would drop to a matter of hours or days.
st1d
not rated yet Jul 18, 2011
Impatient double post, my apologies.
NotAsleep
not rated yet Jul 18, 2011
How would heat reflect back and forth inside the earth?

And, in regards to the more mysterious statement, why would it affect our survival if the earth shot off in a straight line as opposed to maintaining its current orbit?

If the sun turned off, the entire LAND SURFACE of the earth would reach the temperatures of Antarctica within a day. Coastal areas would take several days due to the warming effects of the oceans. Survivability in both circumstances is a very relative term. Antarctic temperatures in Mexico City would be more catastrophic than those temperatures in Toronto.
st1d
not rated yet Jul 18, 2011
Fair point with the temperatures, they're very dependent on localized assumptions. Clearly, most folks vacationing in the Caymans are hosed.

As for heat reflecting, the flexing of the crust and a portion of the mantle generate heat, which will reflect inside the earth, as does any energy source when it hits a phase change, of which there would be several inside the earth, reflecting from mantle to core, to mantle to core, multiple times.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
As for heat reflecting, the flexing of the crust and a portion of the mantle generate heat, which will reflect inside the earth,

This, too, will reach an equilibrium. If reflection heats the inner part up then it will get hotter. But a hotter inner part means more heat transmission through the crust (because of increased heat differential)...which in turn will lower the inner temperature because of the increased heat loss, etc., etc.

Tidal forces alone won't keep us warm, either. Basically without the sun human life is screwed. The polar zones don't see the sun for up to half a year, but still benefits from the sun shining elswhere and the heat getting transferred via the atmosphere and the oceans.

I don't know _how_ cold it will get without the sun. But temperatures around liquid carbon dioxide or even liquid oxygen might be the equilibrium point.
So: Bye Bye atmosphere.
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
I don't know _how_ cold it will get without the sun. But temperatures around liquid carbon dioxide or even liquid oxygen might be the equilibrium point.
So: Bye Bye atmosphere.
Ah yes! Another great debate on how long we could survive if the sun went out. (If it completely disapeard you would even loose a little tidal heating...not that it wuold matter much.)

I love these, and they always seem to crop up when the Earth's internal heat is the topic. Makes sense, it's the only heat source we'd have left.

But no, it wouldn't save us. if you take that 44 TW and spread it over the surface of the Earth, you'll get somewhere between 40K and 60K after you take into account that the Earth's crust is such a good insulator.

Heck, Antarctica routinly sees temps of -85C in winter, and that's with a free ocean and atm moderating temps.

Take the Sun away and you start losing about 12C/day on land. Much less out in the open ocean, but it ends the same anyway.

See "A Pale of Air".
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2011
BTW, I'm not suggesting that the Nest in Leiber's shrot story would actually work (it wouldn't among other things because he doesn't describe a credible way to keep air in and put cumbustion residue out), but it's still a neat story about how the Earth would look without the Sun.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2011
Isn't it interesting, the people like barakn, lengould100, thermodynamics, frajo, Nik_2213, NotAsleep, Zed123, Deesky, Gawad or wwqq downvoted my idea unanimously in the same way, like before few months, when I predicted the heating of Earth from the bottom of oceans as the only person here?

Jonathan Swift: "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him".

I'm not saying, I'm genius in any way - but who predicted this observation here before months? Why just the people, who are predicting correctly, what will happen there are considered at the very end?
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2011
when I predicted the heating of Earth from the bottom of oceans as the only person here?


What a crafty, lying crackpot you are. You stated Earth was being heated by Dark Matter on that thread. Since the nature of DM is unknown, but is even less interactive than anti/neutrinos you get a one. Now you're sying it was anti-neutrinos, contradicting yourself. So you get a one. And the article doesn't suggest it's the anti-neutrinos that cause the heating, they're a by-product. So you get a one. Oh, and BTW, anti-neutrinos don't form clouds, no more than light does. A one AGAIN. See, if you could have earned four ones for that post, I would have given them to you. Heck, you have such a backlog of unassignable ones that you should be given ones even for your blue moon posts that merit a two.
NotAsleep
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011
Callippo, you got downvoted in that particular post for your poor writing skill and your reference to one of the most ridiculous movies of all time, 2012. I'm sure you had a very interesting point about antineutrinos, one that I'd like you to expand on, but the post itself was unreadable.

Now you can either continue to complain about getting downvoted or you can put on your big boy pants and ask for constructive criticism in the future. Well written comments that don't cite absurd movies as reference make for good conversation
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2011
We have three facts here: A) I predicted the heating disbalance many times as the only poster here. B) I always got the most negative rating for it from all posters. C) The movie 2012 was labelled as worst SciFi movie ever. For the record, the list of science failures, in order, is: 1. 2012; 2. The Core; 3. Armageddon; 4. Volcano; 5. Chain Reaction; 6. The 6th Day; 7. What the Bleep Do We Know!?
You stated Earth was being heated by Dark Matter on that thread. Since the nature of DM is unknown, but is even less interactive than anti/neutrinos you get a one.
I do agree with it. I'm the only poster here, who says, the dark matter is formed with missing antimatter. The other scientists are seeking for WIMPS and another particles.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
Well written comments that don't cite absurd movies as reference make for good conversation
Negative. I supported my theory with dozens of links in previous threads and it was downvoted the more. The haters gonna hate. For the record, I'm linking the evidence here again. You can find it in the discussion bellow this article:

http://physicswor...ws/45005

Well written comments
My English is inherently bad, but I'm sure, my comments are perfectly understandable for most of yours. The problem is somewhere else - in deep pathological skepticism of contemporary people against specific sort of information and way of thinking.
Callippo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2011
This article is particular interesting in this context: NASA geophysicists find natural cycles to Earth's warming that correlate to movement of liquid iron in Earth's outer core -- up until 1930

http://news.disco...310.html
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2011
By what process does antimatter form dark matter?

Neither of the articles you cited really had anything to do with this article or your particular views on how antineutrinos are heating the earth. I didn't actually read the discussion in that first article but citing a discussion is like citing a fictional movie: it's not credible. I want to try and understand your thoughts here but you need to cite relevant scholarly articles to help you.

Also, in your "up until 1930" comment, they actually continued to see the correlation after factoring human-related warming. That's straight from the article... I'm not sure what you're trying to point out in that comment
Arkaleus
2.2 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
If Rossi can ever get his ECat system into the mainstream we might find the establishment more willing to investigate Low Energy Nuclear Reactions occurring within cosmic bodies like Earth and Jupiter where metal cores and pressurized hydrogen may be creating huge amounts of heat from this poorly understood catalyzed fusion process.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
but citing a discussion is like citing a fictional movie: it's not credible
You can copy all thirty links right here, if you want. You'll be banned for it with PO spam filter soon.

Anyway - the people, who are whining, they cannot understand my English, or that the links to the original publications aren't relevant enough, when they're posted at some discussion, are religious trolls and not worth of further discussion anyway. The form of information is more important, than the content for such people. Such people are lazy or they're not interested about such info anyway. If you require a fluent English and perfect matter-of-fact references at the end of every sentence, you should consider the reading of Bible.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
I was damn near sure Johannes414 got banned after not seeing him post in topics of interest to him since 7/7. After seeing this:
This jab at views that fail the scientific 'standard' wasn't worth the reply, but someone thought to elaborate on it. So now, I can't help but wonder how much self-reflection is actually being expressed here. It is common knowledge that that physics is increasingly built upon mathematical elegance than upon any empirical evidence. So the difference between physics and meta-physics is increasingly academic. True, someday it may all be falsifiable, assuming our innate capacity to comprehend it. Even so, if one concedes the point, and I don't, it begs the question: Why would evolution endow us with such capabilities? I emphatically support the pursuit of knowledge, but must it come at the expense of wisdom? Must we stereo-type the error of a minority upon an entire world view and embrace anthropocentric arrogance?

I'm fairly sure Johan is back :(
NotAsleep
not rated yet Jul 18, 2011
Callippo... are you "Ragtime" in the PhysicsWorld website? I'm looking through the comments in the articles now and nearly fell out of my chair reading the responses to "Ragtime"s first post...

Anyway, just didn't want you to feel like I didn't care! I'm reading through the links now but as you stated there are a lot
frajo
4.5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
Isn't it interesting, the people like barakn, lengould100, thermodynamics, frajo, Nik_2213, NotAsleep, Zed123, Deesky, Gawad or wwqq downvoted my idea unanimously in the same way, like before few months, when I predicted the heating of Earth from the bottom of oceans as the only person here?

Maybe your soul will find its peace by understanding that everybody uses his own set of evaluation parameters when rating another user's comment. You don't have the power to change this fact.
So you'll have to learn to live with some users rating your bad habit of posting with different nicks.
And, btw, I don't mind bad English; its identifiability is quite charming.
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2011
you'll have to learn to live with some users rating your bad habit of posting with different nicks
I don't think so.

These users downrate only the posts, which are predicting something new in original way, in accordance to famous proverb "After Pythagoras discovered his fundamental theorem he sacrificed a hecatomb of oxen. Since that time all dunces tremble whenever a new truth is discovered."

These readers don't bother to downvote another posts of the same author. It's the foresight, which actually upsets these people.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2011
Rawa, it's quite ignorant of you to insult people you don't know. While I can't speak for everyone, I certainly don't downvote intriguing ideas. I haven't downvoted Callippo a single time for his ideas on antineutrino heating, nor have I downvoted Dr. Manuel for his ideas of neutron repulsion at the core of stars. In fact, I tend to NOT vote on things that I don't have an absolute grasp of.

You can whine about the dunces of the world not liking your ideas or you can continue sharing your ideas with the understanding that there are intelligent people listening and willing to debate. Do you also cry when they present counter arguments to your ideas and call them dunces? I hope not. I can't stand hypocrites
Callippo
2 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
I haven't downvoted Callippo a single time for his ideas on antineutrino heating
I indeed cannot know, who are my opponents in discussion, but I can recognize liars easily, because I've all voting states logged. You were between voters of my post from July 17, 2011, 3:11 pm, too. Because this vote results in pure 1.0 average, it's evident, nobody of them voted differently.

Do you also cry when they present counter arguments to your ideas and call them dunces? I hope not. I can't stand hypocrites..
Your speech implies on background, I could be a hypocrite. Doesn't it appeal to readers, "how disgusting I could really be"?

The Straw Man fallacy is a rhetorical technique that exaggerates or caricatures the opponents position to make it easier to attack. A popular form of this ruse is the fallacy of negation, i.e. the notion that if we discredit one side of an opponent or his arguments, the observer is forced to accept the other arguments.
NotAsleep
not rated yet Jul 20, 2011
Callippo, yes, I downvoted you and told you exactly why. It had nothing to do with your views on antineutrinos, a view I (at least partially) share and have shared for some time. I've poured through most of the articles in the other forum and have discovered I've already read a lot of them. I was already aware of the apparent seasonal fluctuations of certain radioactive isotopes and the theory that antineutrinos from the sun cause this. It's extremely fascinating and I hope theory becomes law.

"Doesn't it appeal to readers, "how disgusting I could really be"?"

I wish you wouldn't go to extremes. If I've offended, it wasn't my intent. This started with a single post that was mostly unreadable and referenced a ridiculous movie. It deserved to be downvoted. Your response (and rawa's above) was unnecessary and proved nothing other than you're more interested in proving yourself right than finding the truth. Now please stop taking offense and get back to spreading your ideas!
frajo
5 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2011
Your response (and rawa's above) was unnecessary and proved nothing other than you're more interested in proving yourself right than finding the truth.

Callippo = rawa1 = Zephyr = ...
As he continues to use more than one nick in the same forum I continue to rate him accordingly. He knows this but prefers to stage "The Genius Underestimated by the Mainstream". He misuses this forum as a stage for his vanity.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
Oh man. The crackpot throws a hissy fit. Now that's entertainment. Looking good. Keep it up. (Ah, uh...no, forget that last one, it's too distrubing a mental image. Sorry.)

@NotAsleep:
Now please stop taking offense and get back to spreading your ideas!

Yeah, kind of like athletes foot. We're going to have to start snorting zinc powder.

NotAsleep, you haven't seen the tenth of his out-of-his-ass (as another post put it) ideas. The light and neutrino cloud one is kind of, you know, pretty. About all that can be said for them is that when properly broken down and arranged they do come off soundly like mildly charming oriental poetry.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2011
About all that can be said for them is that when properly broken down and arranged they do come off soundly like mildly charming oriental poetry.

Yea, I can totally see that... some of his previous posts could probably go in the "engrish funny" website

Since I'm an engineer, not a quantum physicist, I'll let the bigger brains duke it out over what's "right", "wrong", and "downright ridiculous". You're right, I haven't seen anything about neutrino clouds in the comments over the 4-5 years I've been surfing this website... sounds pretty, though!

I just can't stand whiners. It drives me nuts when anyone on here takes things personally
poof
not rated yet Jul 21, 2011
So, we will eventually need global warming to keep the heat in?
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2011
He misuses this forum as a stage for his vanity.
Adalbert Chamisso (1781 - 1838): "Pythagoras made one sacrifice to the Gods who sent him this enlightenment; one hundred oxen, slaughtered and burned, professed his gratitude. The oxen, since that day when they scented that a new truth divulged itself, roared inhumanely."

You needn't take it personally...;-)
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2011
..I haven't seen anything about neutrino clouds in the comments over the 4-5 years I've been surfing this website..

We discussed it for example here.

http://www.physor...wed.html
macsglen
not rated yet Jul 23, 2011
What part of the heat contribution comes from convection currents in the Earth's mantle and core? There must be considerable friction there, I'd think . . .