MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313135734 · doi:10.56431/p-t84wz4

The Planetary Vaporization Event Hypothesis: Supercharging Earth’s Geothermal Core, Identifying Side Effects Blast Patterns, and Inferring how to Find Earth-Like Planets or Identifying Super Charged Geothermal Cores and their Byproduct Blast Patterns

2021· article· en· W4313135734 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron R. Hurst

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Letters of Chemistry Physics and Astronomy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrobiologyGeologyAsteroidPlanetMars Exploration ProgramSolar SystemMeteoriteTerrestrial planetEarly EarthAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The supercharged nature of the Earth’s geothermal core can be demonstrated by three thought experiments exhibiting it is tremendously more powerful than any other terrestrial object in the solar system (planet or moon). Identifying a minimum of four byproduct asteroid blast patterns linked to the formation of Earth’s supercharged geothermal core is critical to properly identifying stars that also have these four byproduct asteroid blast patterns. These stars are the most likely to host an Earth-like planet qualified by having a supercharged geothermal core. The Planetary Vaporization-Event (PVE) Hypothesis provides a basis for correlation between the supercharged nature of Earth’s geothermal core and at least 14 listed side effects: (1) the asteroid-wide/planet-scale homogenization and lack thereof of 182W ε for Earth, the Moon, Mars and meteors, (2) the primary and secondary shifting of Earth’s tectonic plates, (3) the solar system wide displacement of Earth’s wayward moons (including Ceres, Pluto, Charon and Orcus) outgassing identical samples of ammoniated phyllosilicates, (4) the formation of asteroids at 100+ times the expected density of a nebular cloud vs. pre-solar grains formation density at the expected density of a nebular cloud, (5) three distinct formation timestamps for all known asteroids within a 5 million year window 4.55+ billion years ago, (6) the estimated formation temperature of CAI at 0.86 billion Kelvin and (7) the remaining chondritic meteorite matrix flash vaporizing at 1,200–1,900 °C, (8) followed by rapid freezing near 0 K, (9) the development of exactly 2 asteroid belts and a swarm of non-moon satellites, (10) particulate size distinction between the 2 asteroid belts of small/inner, large/outer, (11) the proximity of the Trojan Asteroid Groups to the Main Asteroid Belt, (12) observation of a past or present LHB, (13) the development of annual meteor showers for Earth proximal to apogee and/or perigee, (14) the Sun being the most-likely object struck by an asteroid in the inner solar system. Through better understanding of the relevant data at hand and reclassification of the byproducts of supercharging the core of a planet, at least 5 new insights can be inferred and are listed as: (1) the original mass, (2) distance and (3) speed of Earth Mark One, (4) the original order of Earth’s multi-moon formation and (5) the high probability of finding detectable signs of life on a planet orbiting the stars Epsilon Eridani and Eta Corvi. There are at least 6 popular hypothesis that the PVE Hypothesis is in conflict with, listed they are: (1) a giant impact forming the Moon, (2) asteroids being the building blocks of the solar system, (3) the Main Asteroid Belt being the result of a planet that never formed, (4) the LHB being a part of the accretion disk process, (5) the heat in Earth’s core coming primarily from the decay of radioactive elements, (6) the Oort Cloud being the source of ice comets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Letters of Chemistry Physics and AstronomySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207