Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Did NASA Accidentally Nuke Jupiter?

  1. Nov 8, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did NASA Accidentally “Nuke” Jupiter?

    If you're not familiar with Richard Hoagland, famed for his claims of alien bases on the moon, Egyptian looking structures on Mars, and many familiar stories from the wild side, in fact, as I understand, he was once considered a highly respected scientist. Obviously his claims are amoung the most radical and absurd - yet it is claimed they have a bust of the guy in the lobby at NASA Houston. I haven't really sorted out where the facts end and the BS begins. Often he sounds very reasonable, other times...how do you say...lunar?



    An interesting character at least.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2003 #2


    User Avatar

    Possibly where the dartboard used to be.

    The Fat man bomb was a fission bomb, with a mechanism designed to bring sufficient amounts of the plutonium metal together to go over the critical mass limit. In the Galieo probe, there was not only insufficient plutonium at the start, the plutonium is of thw rong type, and the pellets almost certainly will not cluster together as they fell, but that the probe was ordered to plunge into Jupiter because it had run out of fuel. Even additionally, it is highly doubtful that any such small nuclear explosions will trigger a fusion reaction - one does not just stick a nuke in the middle of alot of hydrogen to make a H-bomb work.

    We might wonder now why if it is so easy, Jupiter is not a star already from all the fissile material that fell from asteroid impacts...

  4. Nov 8, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hoagland can be judged a lot by the claims he makes about himself.

    The "Angstrom Medal" he claims is so "prestigious" was awarded by a private foundation whose only claim to renown is the fact that they gave him the medal. There is no evidence that any qualified inquiry was made into his work before the award was given.
    Also, the actual medal he was given is the same as another award given by a Swedish Academy of Science, and the academy did not give the foundation permission to use their design. So while the medal looks like the bonifide award, it has no connection to it.

    Hoagland's sole contribution to the Pioneer plaque was suggesting that maybe we should add a plaque for anyone who might find the probe in the future. He had nothing further to do with its design or implementation. This hardly makes him a "co-creator".
  5. Nov 21, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  6. Nov 22, 2003 #5
    As time goes by in the distant future, baring the possibility that our solar system may be consumed by a singularity or another large star, Jup has no choice but to keep consuming material. I would suspect at this time that the planet does not have enough material to create enough presure and heat to sustain a solar fusion. I am willing to bet that as the pressure increases by the addition of more mass, the physical make up of more complex elements will begin to break down into lighter element until the planet contains large amounts of hydrogen and will then go nuclear. I just made this up but it is something which I have thought about before and it seems sound.
  7. Nov 22, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    Except that is utter BS.

    Jupiter, as far as I know, follows the laws of thermodynamics. And the laws of thermodynamics state that things do not tend towards hydrogen. Much the opposite, in fact. That's why stars work.

    How much did you bet?
  8. Nov 22, 2003 #7
    I don't know if it is BS. Tell me, do you think you will find much heavy metal on the sun? How much lead was there in the formation of a new galaxy? How about none. How about hydrogen is the byproduct of high energy entropy and can form only beyond certain thresolds as heavier elements cannot exist beyond certain presures and temperatures. You do know hydrogen is composed of of things smaller than itself. When I said I figured out what gravity and matter is I wasn't joking. It does not mean I understand all aspects at other points because I don't because I havn't questioned them and for the most part do not care to unless I find interest in them.

    I see some barriers here FZ, you accept to much from what you read and what is said. I have seen some of your words and even asked your opion on one occasion. You have the capcity to figure this out for yourself. If you don't it is because I believe you are afraid to. It is quite scary to know you can ask a question of yourself and actually get an answer. Most human beings hide from it. It is as scary as it is cool.
  9. Nov 23, 2003 #8
    TENYEARS, what is this about? If you know what matter and gravity are, then prove it and go get your Nobel prize; don't sit around on the internet psychoanalysing FZ+.
  10. Nov 23, 2003 #9
    I am not established in the field, people protect their area. Do you think they would care for an answer from someone outside themselves or hell even from within if it does not come from them. You are talking dollars and egos here wake up this is the world you are talking about. People don't want the truth, they want what they want. If this is not obvious to you, don't go past go and you don't collect 200.

    FZ, I got this off the web:

    The gas planets do not have solid surfaces, their gaseous material simply gets denser with depth (the radii and diameters quoted for the planets are for levels corresponding to a pressure of 1 atmosphere). What we see when looking at these planets is the tops of clouds high in their atmospheres (slightly above the 1 atmosphere level).

    I searched out the other planets and the other giants are close to each other in composition. All were extremely high in hydrogen. y Venus, Earth, Mars and Pulto fall in line with what you would think. The one question I would have of venus is why the high CO2? Mars is high in oxegen, actually 21% higher than earth relatively speaking.
  11. Nov 23, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    Depends on your definition of "much".

    Depends on the age of the galaxy. Simple calculations of nucleon binding energies show that lead etc are eventual products of events such as supernovae. I don't see the point here.

    No, hydrogen cannot exist beyond certain pressures and temperatures. Consider an h-bomb.

    A h-bomb is an example of entropy in action. A volume of heavy hydrogen is compressed and heated by a priliminary nuclear explosion, and this causes it to fuse together in a chain reaction, outputting massive amounts of energy, reducing its own potential and so greatly increasing entropy. Products? Some helium and heavier compounds. Think of it as an experimental disproof.

    Clearly you figured it out wrong if you get the opposite conclusion from what experiments shown.

    So I should just shut up and accept what you believe? Which as far as I know is utterly wrong?

    No they don't. You build your fish tank, and pretend everybody is in it. Look inside now and then. Try to find mistakes. That is science, the finding of mistakes. Find one, get a nobel prize. This much is obvious to me. Community chest?

    That is correct, but that is from the original planetary nebula. Hydrogen is a very lightweight element, (The most lightweight, in fact) and it takes a huge gravitational field to boil it off. The gas giants were probably vortices in the original gas cloud that sucked up hydrogen - Mars, Earth et al lost theirs ages ago, as we just don't have enough mass, or much of it just reacted. (Looking at our oceans, for example.) The hydrogen had of course to go somewhere - most ended up with the sun, some in the gas giants.

    Venus high co2? What evidence we have from the probes we sent suggests vulcanism to be a key. The surface shows massive crustal plateaus thought to be from humongus volcanic eruptions eons ago. As f ar mars, mars had the misfortune of forming small and cold, leaving most of the atmosphere to just get boiled away. As gases go, oxygen is pretty heavy (rmm 16, unlike nitrogen's 14), which means that less of it disappeared than the other stuff. Not having a lot of hydrogen to react with to form water also helped.

    This answer any questions?
  12. Nov 23, 2003 #11
    FZ, all your statements disprove nothing. The fact that lead is a byproduct of a supernova which I did not know still don't and can choose to belive or not belive that statement, actually suports the premeise that the more massive an object is, the internal pressure and heat actually can break the bonds of more complex elements and possibly form enough hydrogen to form a sun. There may have been amounts of gas that were taken in the initial creation of the solar system, but that does not dismiss the possibility of my theory being correct. There is no way for any scientist to project the size of the plantet at the 100,000,000 year mark and have followed it's progression in size at any point. In fact I think such projection as people do and then blindly accept mark it in their brain and go on to something else is not learning. Real learning is when you place the problem before youself, and attack it until there is nothing left. When you get there, you have your answer and not until. The last few thousand years of human history is infintesimal compared the the life of our solar system. They cycles or things that have happened and will happen are unknown to us for the most part. We can only observe what we see, but to say that that is all there is becuase that is the range of your sight is like saying the world is flat 500 years ago.

    As for my personal discovery of what gravity and matter is, I give you no hints whatsoever. I could not bet on it because it would be stealing if I did.
  13. Nov 23, 2003 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    TENYEARS, that is complete gibberish. It bears no relation to what is actually known about physics. You REALLY should learn some real physics - and a good way to start is by listening to guys like FZ+, who was pointing you in the right direction.

    Regarding the Jupiter thing - even IF there were enough Plutonium there and IF it somehow arranged itself in a fission bomb, it would be about as noticeable from earth as a pebble dropped in the ocean from space. Jupiter is big. Really big.
  14. Nov 23, 2003 #13
    There is no way for any scientist to project the size of the plantet at the 100,000,000 year mark and have followed it's progression in size at any point.

    And yet you claim to know what is going on....*cough*

    We can only observe what we see, but to say that that is all there is becuase that is the range of your sight is like saying the world is flat 500 years ago.

    But you are all great and all knowing and this logic doesn't apply to you.

    As for my personal discovery of what gravity and matter is, I give you no hints whatsoever. I could not bet on it because it would be stealing if I did.

    And hundreds of years of real science are wrong. Maybe this computer I'm on now isn't even working! Maybe my tv shouldn't have a picture. And those poor satellites in space should be falling out of the sky! And those poor nukes can no longer hurt us now that they are useless! All because science is wrong and you and only are right!

    In my time on this forum you are the biggest idiot I've come across. Not just for the sake of your lack of evidence but also for the fact that you are too flipping arrogant to see the truth. It's exactly the opposite of what you are trying to preech. Guess what? You're not only a fake but a hypocrite.
  15. Nov 24, 2003 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    lets keep this civil.
  16. Nov 24, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Food for thought...

    Jupiter would need to obtain about 80 times its current mass in hydrogen in order to become a star. (more mass is needed in order to provide enough pressure in the core to start a fusion reaction)

    At the moment, I don't see 80 other Jupiters nearby that could contribute this mass.
  17. Nov 24, 2003 #16
    in relation to your response, you should read before you speak.
    My comments were not realated to a bomb even though the thread was on that. I was commenting on Jupiters possibility of becomming a star if it accquired enough mass.

    Logic does apply, but what FZ was speaking of was a tanget. He described the explosion of a theromonuclear bomb. It was little or nothing to do with what I was speaking of. It is out of context to the system I was describing. The fact that the breaking of bonds of matter occurs and the transformation of "matter" into high frequency radition only supports what I say. Science has no idea on the possibility of consumption over the period of a planets life. The ever so small period of human history yeilds us such a small snapshot of the history of the universe, it is like having a child in the womb not even born yet and saying yea I know. This is arrogance. Arrogance is belief without knowlege. If you want to know what knowelege is figure it out for yourself. You have no choice anyway.

    Like I said, human history is a dustparticle to the totality of time in the creation of our solar system. Like I said, if jupiter is not consumed by a sun or a singularity, it will keep consuming and eventually enough material will create the preasure and heat required to trigger a fusion reaction. It has all time it needs.

    I am not saying this is the norm for a creation of a sun to be a planet first, I consider it to be a possibility for a sun. It would be an aberation to some degree, to what degree I don't know I am not an asrophysi, so I don't know the frequency of two star systems, or of star systems which have a sun which seem to be circling a singularity or a semi dark object.

    Wake up people.
  18. Nov 25, 2003 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The second paragraph of my post was not connected to the first. The first was simply a general comment on your situation.
  19. Nov 25, 2003 #18
    While under pressure (and heat), molecules can breakdown into it's constitute elements. However, you state that elements breakdown into hydrogen. Why do you say this? What information source do you have to support such a statement/belief. Even under the intense pressure and heat at the heart of a nuclear explosion, the breakdown products of the fissionable material do not proceed to hydrogen.

    From an energy standpoint this doesn't make sense either. If, under pressure, matter is attempting to attain the lowest energy state, then iron would be the logical end point. If it's trying to get to a higher energy state, then the transuranic element would be the target.
    Both of the above energy end-points are why fusion and fission explosives work - they both tap into the higher energy content of the elements involved.

    Just to reiterate and considering your statements contradict much of what I know: what is the source of information backing up your statements/beliefs?
  20. Nov 25, 2003 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you hear yourself?

    That aside, ok, it's possible that Jupiter could gain enough mass to start fusion (perhaps even less mass than I mentioned...but that would be some brown dwarf star instead of a Sol-like star). But it is not readily apparent where this mass would come from. I have not run the numbers, but I don't think this much free mass is available in our solar system. Sure, our solar system can gain mass as it plows through the galaxy and as our galaxy plows through other galaxies, but those opportunities, especially in acquiring free hydrogen, become smaller over time.

    So, yes, it's possible, but at the moment it does not seem probable.

    And yes, human history is a brief point in Time, but we have the benefit of intelligence, science, and a finite speed of light that allows us to inspect evidence from past times and figure out how such processes work.

    In short, it's possible, but not a given.
  21. Nov 25, 2003 #20
    Phobos, I leave this as a possibility which through out history has had the potential for happening a googooplex of times, but relatively a small ratio of happenings compared to the number of solar systems and suns. Like I said, if Jupiter is not decimated by something, it will continue to consume. Not only is there the possiblity of unknown mass in our own galaxy, but there is the possibility of collsion with another gallaxy in which if our solar system is not destroyed, there is much poetential matter to be consumed.

    There are stars we have not seen. Has hydrogen always been hydrogen? Nada. It is the energy formation it is while it is and that is all. In the intial phase of what we call this universe, the high energy frequencies may not ever have been witnessed before by man.

    The key lies in gravity and what matter is, and from there and only there a whole universe is built.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Did NASA Accidentally Nuke Jupiter?
  1. Idealist Accidentalism (Replies: 1)