EPH Opposition Backed by What?

My understanding is that many experts estimate that Earth has a uranium core that is about 5 to 10 kilometers in radius.

How certain is this estimate? I'm not sure. But since uranium is one of the heaviest elements, it will be concentrated near the core.

Critical mass for a small uranium bomb is around 3 to 5 kilograms. A ball maybe 10 to 15 centimeters in diameter.

But if that bomb went pop near the core, we would not even notice it. If hundreds of them went pop every day, we would not notice. And at that rate it would take a long time to use up a ball 5 or 10 kilometers in radius.

***

On the other hand, if the entire core went pop all at once we probably would notice it. Most astronomers within ten thousand light years would probably notice it. After ten thousand years.

***

My intuition tells me that planets can explode. So is this (a uranium core) a candidate for the cause?

Of course. But I do not know if it is <u>the</u> cause.

LB

OK, thanks for that, that's very helpful. I don't think ther's any compelling reason for the idea planets don't explode. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I calculate the explosive force that destroyed Bellatrix, assuming it was about 2 n a half times the mass of Earth, was about a million trillion trillion megatons, based on the energy given off by a nova and the number of joules or ergs in a megaton.

Everyone is free to believe anything they want but, real events are not related to those beliefs. Exploding planets are a part of your belief system and there is absolutely nothing to indicate this idea is anything other than fiction. The force of gravity will not allow a structure like you describe to form although you can be forgiven for not knowing about that.

Can you explain to us how we're supposed to be in error?

<b>[Solar Patroller] "... but I calculate the explosive force that destroyed Bellatrix, assuming it was about 2 n a half times the mass of Earth, was about ..."</b>

There are a lot of assumptions that go into an assertion like that. Assumptions come from theories (AKA models), and you will have to provide such details before others can pass judgment on this calculation.

<b>[Jim] "The force of gravity will not allow a structure like you describe to form ...]"</b>

The same is true for your "assertion".

***

But let us not get into a 'battle of theories'. Rather, I present the following contest:

<center>***</center>
<u>Solar Patroller:</u> The number of mechanisms that are KNOWN to cause planets to explode is zero.

I challenge you, Solar Patroller, to provide even the tiniest evidence to the contrary.

***

<u>Jim:</u> The number of mechanisms that CAN, BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO, cause planets to explode is infinite.<ul>Now, that is a mathematical claim rater than a physical claim. Since it is a postulate of DRP that the finite cannot become infinite in the physical part of reality, I will amend that claim as follows:</ul>
The number of mechanisms that CAN, BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO, cause planets to explode is greater than one million. Or <u>any</u> other specific positive integer.

I challenge you, Jim, to provide even the tiniest evidence to the contrary.

Larry Burford,

Actually, if we are objective about the evidence for planetary explosions, which is very compelling at the very least, which leads ineluctibly to planetary explosions (by natural means), we must conclude that they can n do occur, which means there must be a mechanism for them. So your statement that the number of mechanisms known for planetary explosions is 0 is false or requires qualification, i.e., no specific mechanism is known for them.