The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

There is evidence that what amounts to 'open hearth' fission
reactors have existed naturally (without actually making china) in
the past.
http://knol.google.com/k/j-marvin-he...8elf7fue7ro/4#

for an interesting read.

But as Wikipedia says in its article on 'georeactor':

"Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the scientific community".

So, another myth then that you choose to believe, contrary to all
the evidence.

But t is you who said that wikipedia was a bunch of crap when it
refuted your other arguments.

I don't think so. Where was that then?

No answer then.

As I clearly said, fission is clearly taking place.

Well, you said it, but only cited the discredited Herndon's
hypothesis in support which is 'not accepted by the scientific
community'. I would conclude from that that it isn't taking place
at all.

So, lets get this straight.

I say that radioactive elements decay, which is fission, and its
taking place.

In another sentence I point out that it may also be taking place in a
chain reaction (reactor) and point you to a link, that posits a
mechanism that demonstrates some evidence to support that.

You find a wiki article, and cite the ONLY line that is in fact
contrary to that propsoition, and use it as CERTAIN evidence of
REFUTATION.,

It's a very good one. After all, you don't very often come across a
statement as categoric as "Herndon's concepts are not accepted by the
scientific community" do you? If anyone refuted that, it's free for them to
edit the page and remove it. That's how Wikipedia works in case you didn't
know.

So, since no-one has, I take it at face value. Herndon's concepts are not
accepted by the scientific community.


And THEN further extrapolate that to include ALL fission, including
natural radioactive decay.

Since then, if you'd kept up, you'd have seen that I actually accepted
natural radioactive decay, which I'd previously overlooked, as fission. I
even corrected someone else here in order to say so.

No wonder you never could make a career in a technical subject.

Already have.


And the earth is warmer than it should be
core wise.

It's as warm as it is. There's no such thing as warm as it should
be.

Oh dear.

So the jury ion actual 'recators' is still out, but nuclear fission
is taking place all around us, and gives off SOME heat.

Only in nuclear power stations, my friend. Not in cuckoo clocks,
not in batteries whether charging or discharging, not in springs,
not anywhere else in fact.

Oh dear. Plenty of fission takes place in radioactive elements outside
reactors. Go to Dartmoor with a geiger counter. By a factor of several
thousand to one at least.

That'd be why Dartmoor's so warm then.

Radioactive decay is only one specific measurable example of mass
energy equivalence: It happens to be easiest to measure, because the
energy is vast

Well, nuclear reactions are. Natural radioactive decay much less so.

but if a charged batteruy is NOT heavier than a flat
one, then you have refuted relativity, well worth a Nobel prize.

I have not refuted relativity at all in saying just that. It does not
require a refutation of relativity because no conversion of mass to energy
at all is occurring, nor is it required by relativity.

Just as an analogy that might make it a bit more understandable for you,
consider the pound-dollar continuum, or 'money' as we call it. Now this can
exist at any one time either in the form of 'pounds' or in the form of
'dollars', but they're interconvertible.

Some very clever, highly paid people have worked very hard on this over the
years, and have come up with this wonderful relativity equation that 1 pound
is equivalent to 1.63 dollars, or, as mathematicians would put it:

p = 1.63d

This shows how dollars and pounds are related.

Some people think, simply because of this equation, that there is free
exchange between pounds and dollars. You rattle around some pounds (or
dollars) in your pocket and what you get is a mixture of pounds and dollars.
Sadly, however, no-one has been able to demonstrate this effect. Try as
they might, pounds resolutely remain pounds and dollars resolutely remain
dollars. "Ah", they say, "but that's only because the change is so slight,
you can't measure it. It's still occurring though, the formula tells us
that."

Others, who may admittedly be a bit more cynical, say "Sod off, sunshine,
nothing of the sort's happening at all", adding that the only known way of
converting pounds into dollars is by passing them over a complicated bit of
equipment boffins call a 'counter' and then subjecting them to an enormously
complicated scientific process called 'forex exchange' which then results in
a number of dollars which amazingly fits the above formula. They say,
unless you do this, you're stuck with the pounds or dollars you started
with, and that no matter how much you play with them you won't alter that.
They also say that's exactly what happens with mass and energy.