Geo-LENR

Interesting paper, puts forth a very pondered analysis of what keeps the Earth warm from inside, and many of us will probably agree with the general idea if not with the exact proposed mechanism.

The venue of publication is, unfortunately, one of those accused of predatory behavior.

A number of papers have described tritium from deep water lakes. For example:

Observation of 3He and 3H in the volcanic crater lakes: possible evidence for natural nuclear fusion in deep Earth

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JiangSobservatio.pdf

Actually my theory most of climatic changes have geothermal origin and they're caused by nuclear reactions catalyzed with dark matter. The same effect is responsible for relatively fast shift of geomagnetic poles. The magma beneath Earth crust may be indeed charged and its motion would generate geomagnetic field, but this mechanism doesn't explain why the distribution of geomagnetic field changes so rapidly in recent decades. The neutrino/dark matter catalyzed nuclear reactions would solve this question: it's not motion of magma - but the distribution of its charge, what changes here. And this distribution can be driven by dark matter distribution rather easily. The funny part is, I'm collecting evidence for this hypothesis rather effortlessly, because it's literally everywhere 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

Quote

Also what source(s) drives massive earthquakes. such as Valdivia,1960 magnitude 9.5

There is apparent connection to solar flares, which may generate neutrino bursts in narrow streamers. Once they hit the Earth surface (at both sides of globe, BTW) they induce burst of heat due to accelerated nuclear fusion or fission. IMO what primarily drives earthquakes is not heat released though - but charged particles formed during nuclear reactions, which remain trapped inside of rocks and induce tension there.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

the distribution of its charge, what changes here. And this distribution can be driven by dark matter distribution rather easily.

I never realized dark matter was understood so well as to calculate the effects of its distribution. And easily, at that.

Question to ChatGPT:

Hi, does the person who posted the quote below scientifically seem to know what they are talking about?
"Actually my theory most of climatic changes have geothermal origin and they're caused by nuclear reactions catalyzed with dark matter. The same effect is responsible for relatively fast shift of geomagnetic poles. The magma beneath Earth crust may be indeed charged and its motion would generate geomagnetic field, but this mechanism doesn't explain why the distribution of geomagnetic field changes so rapidly in recent decades. The neutrino/dark matter catalyzed nuclear reactions would solve this question: it's not motion of magma - but the distribution of its charge, what changes here. And this distribution can be driven by dark matter distribution rather easily. The funny part is, I'm collecting evidence for this hypothesis rather effortlessly, because it's literally everywhere"

ChatGPT said:

The quote you provided seems to be a mix of ideas that don't align with current scientific understanding, and the person making the claim doesn't seem to be grounding their ideas in established scientific principles.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points and why they are problematic from a scientific perspective:

1. Geothermal origin of climatic changes: While geothermal activity (like volcanic eruptions) can influence local climate, it is not considered a significant driver of global climate change. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the primary driver of recent climate change is the increase in greenhouse gases, particularly CO₂, due to human activity (such as burning fossil fuels).

2. Nuclear reactions catalyzed by dark matter: There is no scientific evidence to suggest that dark matter interacts in such a way that it can catalyze nuclear reactions on Earth. Dark matter is thought to interact primarily through gravity, and possibly weakly via other forces, but not in a way that would catalyze nuclear processes in the Earth's interior. Dark matter’s role in the universe is still not fully understood, but its interactions are largely assumed to be extremely weak with regular matter.

3. Geothermal effects on geomagnetic shifts: While Earth's geomagnetic field can change over time (through processes like pole reversals), this is due to complex dynamics in the Earth's liquid outer core, primarily driven by the motion of molten iron and other materials (the geodynamo). The quote suggests that this is happening too rapidly in recent decades to be explained by motion of the molten rock beneath the crust, but there's no evidence to support that claim. Geomagnetic reversals occur over long timescales (thousands to millions of years), not in the span of a few decades.

4. Neutrino/dark matter catalyzed nuclear reactions: Again, this combines speculative ideas that do not have a foundation in current physics. Neutrinos are extremely weakly interacting particles, and there is no mechanism by which they would catalyze nuclear reactions on Earth in the manner suggested. Similarly, the relationship between dark matter and nuclear reactions, as described here, is speculative and not supported by scientific evidence.

5. Evidence being "literally everywhere": The claim that evidence for such a hypothesis is "literally everywhere" sounds more like pseudoscience. In established science, evidence must be gathered through controlled experiments and peer-reviewed research. The claim of finding effortless evidence for such a complex idea without clear, scientifically rigorous methods is a red flag.

Conclusion:

The ideas expressed in this quote are highly speculative and don't align with mainstream scientific understanding. The person is combining concepts like dark matter, nuclear reactions, and geomagnetic shifts in ways that are not supported by current research or evidence. The mention of collecting evidence "effortlessly" is also a sign of pseudoscientific thinking, where the individual might be misinterpreting data or creating hypotheses without adhering to the scientific method.

Quote

I never realized dark matter was understood so well as to calculate the effects of its distribution. And easily, at that.

Yes, it's possible. Dark matter tends to concentrate in dodecahedron-like structures, which stimulate the formation of magma plumes (check "dodecahedron Earth" for geological hypothesis of this effect). This structure is fragile and every dark matter cloud from outside would disrupt it. Check for example: Our Solar System is Entering a Potentially Dangerous Interstellar Energy Cloud, Earth may be crashing through dark matter walls, Is Earth Weighed Down By Dark Matter?, Is the dark matter behind climatic changes on the Earth? etc.

According to many theories the dark matter concentrates at the galactic equator which our solar system crosses every 12.000 years or so. Go figure, where Ice Ages come from... Dark matter outweighs the Earth, so it eliminates nudge of Earth precession for cycles of Mayan calendar. The simples way how to monitor dark matter concentration in real time is the measuring length of day: the more dark matter, the more lightweight the Earth globe gets, the shorter the astronomical day is. These connections works well even with Moon and Jupiter planets, which also alternate the dark matter density around Earth (you may want to check massive gravity theory in this regard). Now we can for example compare the length of day and the speed of shift of geomagnetic pole, which can be both measured precisely.

Quote

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the primary driver of recent climate change is the increase in greenhouse gases, particularly CO₂

Most of carbon dioxide in nature is generated by oxidation of methane, which gets released in large quantities from arctic soil and seabeds. Their heating would release greenhouse gases into an atmosphere, which explains why the carbon dioxide concentration lag behind temperature changes during climatic cycle. So yes, the carbon dioxide levels are undoubtedly correlated with climatic changes, but the causality is reversed here: the Earth heats first, just after then carbon dioxide levels rise. The scientific consensus here is solely driven by money released into "fight with climate changes" in many areas: from development of batteries, e-cars over carbon tax for "renewables" to climatic research itself.

Quote

Evidence being "literally everywhere": The claim that evidence for such a hypothesis is "literally everywhere" sounds more like pseudoscience

It may sound or it may not - but the fact remains, I'm collecting evidence for this hypothesis rather effortlessly. You can find hundreds of links there 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Read for example "The structure of scientific revolutions" book by Thomas Kuhn for to realize, how paradigm shift in science actually looks like. The indicia for it behave also like dark matter reversing climatic cycles: they're noisy and subtle, but omnipresent. At the moment, when you can get them in form of reproducible easily to follow observations/experiments, then it's usually all over and the tipping point was already reached.

Quote

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that dark matter interacts in such a way that it can catalyze nuclear reactions on Earth

This is the problem of A.I. tools, that they just enforce groupthink in the most dull way, being based on interpolations of large datasets. Some rare anomalies are thus nothing worth mentioning for large language models. But the phenomenology is actually already quite extensive for this subject - it's just nothing what mainstream physics should be particularly motivated to research, as it violates Standard model.

Quote

The quote suggests that this is happening too rapidly in recent decades to be explained by motion of the molten rock beneath the crust, but there's no evidence to support that claim. Geomagnetic reversals occur over long timescales (thousands to millions of years), not in the span of a few decades.

One can clearly see a logical contradiction in GPT's own claim: just because the geomagnetic field changes rather rapidly during last century, it would be hard to explain by motion of molten rock beneath the crust, because this motion may change over long timescales only. The GPT may look smart, but in reality it can not imagine left-hand people and/or streamlined logical arguing, as it didn't have it in its training datasets. It just piles most probable words one after another into a coherent sentence.

Quote

Neutrinos are extremely weakly interacting particles, and there is no mechanism by which they would catalyze nuclear reactions on Earth in the manner suggested.

Neutrinos interact rather intensively by their magnetism: they're small flying magnets, magnetic monopoles of sort. One such a mechanism was proposed in this study: the neutrino may be trapped inside of atom nucleus like photon trapped into a spherical resonator (where total reflection mechanism applies) and it bounces there multiple-times. The atom nuclei behave like metal droplets which defy their mutual merging by surface tension: for to achieve their coalescence, the poking of their surface and temporal forming a thin neck of negative space-time curvature is required. Well, and the neutrinos are just that: a magnetic vortex creating a dimple within space-time, i.e. a tiny bubble of vacuum of negative space-time curvature. But one can also see, that this effect is based on rare coincidence of multiple factors: the energy of neutrino, the mass/size of atom nuclei, it's willingness to decay or fuse in presence of another atoms and so on.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

. Dark matter tends to concentrate in dodecahedron-like structures,

You do know that a dodecahedron on itself is a UN-stable structure and would reorganize into a different polyhedron shape.... just saying

I have given a presentation or 2 about the possibility that the MOHO layer for example is a LENR active region where O16 could fuse onto a C12 creating Si28 for example. Or perhaps even the metals we see concentrated in certain intrusions like Cu and Fe?
Anyhow the reactions would explain the magma creation / volcanic activity and the metal (certain elements) that are found in specific geological formations. LENR activity could in turn be regulat4ed by telluric current who are driven by our solar weather etc.

It be so good if a topic like geo LENR, which is a fascinating topic) would for a change NOT be polluted by things like "dark matter' this "neutrino" that and other non-sensical concepts. And then on top of that book long explanations about how that would work that convince exactly 0 people here or get them interested.

Quote

You do know that a dodecahedron on itself is a UN-stable structure and would reorganize into a different polyhedron shape.... just saying

Yes, I think that we even can estimate the order of these shapes and their priority. Titius-Bode law indicated, that the planets were formed from Weaire-Phelan foam of plasma/dark matter fluctuations formed during condensation of protoplanetary disk.

Quote

It be so good if a topic like geo LENR, which is a fascinating topic) would for a change NOT be polluted by things like "dark matter' this "neutrino" that

The OP study has it sorta opposite: I suggest that LENR's are often sources of quakes but the study suggests that earthquakes are source of LENR instead. In this connection Dr. Palmer suggested that rock, lava, or crystals in the Earth might help to catalyze the fusion reaction. Steven Jones coined the term "piezonuclear fusion" in analogy to the term "thermonuclear fusion" (the prefix "piezo-" implies squeezing or compression) and we really observed neutron production during crushing of rocks. Of course this way of reasoning is more palatable for physicists, who really fear of every indicia of cosmological origin of warming.

So I'am well versed in semi-classical explanations of this effect - but these explanations don't explain the link of Moon/Jupiter/Solar activity to earthquakes, namely the fact that this link may be well directional and localized one. The situation when mainstream arrives to the alternative physics from opposite/dual perspective of reality is nothing exceptional in history of science. The mainstream physics always tries more straightforward and socioeconomically palatable explanation first, despite it has causality arrow reversed often. For instance McCulloch's theory is sorta epicycle model of dark matter - it also works formally well, just from different reasons than McCulloch believes, and so on.

That is an old purely theoretical model of nested geometry. Here is a picture of geometry causally connected to physics. In fact we wrote a whole book on it, from neutron drip lines, to Oxidation values and even an explanation for fission products. So here is a picture of lead-208 in SAM and it shows the top and side view of that nucleus with all the underlying geometry of the proton structure. This overall shape which is pretty much round in the top view and an oval from the side has recently been experimentally confirmed to be that shape! That is a point for SAM as this was predicted years ago now and it indicates (experiment data) that indeed the nucleus is structured, otherwise it would not be in that shape.

A good starting point for studying the nucleus is the book by Norman Cook, Models of Atomic Nuclei. very enlightening!

Quote

That is an old purely theoretical model of nested geometry.

Not at all: imagine you've charged particles which are mutually repelling at distance (i.e. classical plasma or interstellar gas in essence) and you're gradually compressing them with gravity. Such a situation would undoubtedly happen within every protoplanetary disk. These particles would form some density fluctuations first, which will get increasingly more dense and compact, until they would also behave like nested heavier independent "particles" capable of repelling at distance and so on - this condensation process may repeat itself multiple times..

After then we can just ask, which geometry these particles would have? Their locations will be just the place where first planets will start to form in geometric patterns. Of course the protoplanets at the same distance from Sun will occasionally collide & merge - so that only few of them will remain as the remnant of their original nested structure. It turns out it's the geometry of nested kissing hyperspheres described by compact Lie gauge group. It's pretty physical model actually, which reproduces itself at multiple distance scales.