It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The missing link, when it comes to evolution of life (Expanding earth)

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Not proven from your side



Proof? that is the easy part.

Have you ever seen lava? when the magma inside the earth, rises to the surface it takes with it stuff from the mantle and this is called lava. When the lava reaches the surface, something very important happens ... the lavea is filled with microscopic holes ... because the plasmatic stuff, becomes gas and goes into the atmosphere.
Then it should be detectable around vulcanoes, right? Oh, yes, it was detected - in the same volumes as expected by the observed lightnings, which produce plasma on their own.


However, inside the earth ... the magma is not in a a "gaseous" state, it is in a much denser state, far denser than the mantle ... meaning, that the magma must "expand".

Then it's not a plasma. Plasma per definitionem is in a gaseous state. Could you describe the features of your magma?


You are just ignoring the obvious ... first you ignore the obvious of the continents connecting. Then you ignore the obvious of the magma reaching gaseous state ... cooling magma will expand. Dense plasma, that cools ... will expand. This is an obvious truth ...

"Obvious" is a word used by those who can't prove something, either by lazyness or by the impossibility of doing so.

It is NOT obvious that magma reaches gaseous state. Do you even know how plasma is created and maintains its state? Its not like electricity stored in a battery, plasma recombines as soon as the energy which departed it in ions and electrons is gone. What kind of energy holds the earths core plasma in its state?

In fact, why should cooling magma expand? Name one kind of matter (in plasmatic or any other state) which expands when cooling, besides water (which has a well known and well understood anomaly by 4°C).


You are denying facts ...

You are living on another plane of existence, I guess. I'm not denying facts, tell me one and give me proove and justification for that fact.
* I state that there is no measurable amount of plasma in lava or magma.
* I state that magma consist of molten rocks and elements.
* I state that your magma-plasma with its features, which are highly contradictionary to any observed volcanoe-eruption or geological perceptions (like seismic waves etc.) are NOT a fact.




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by St Udio

your idea would fit with the old notion that the pre-flood sky was a dense canopy of water
and the oceans only came about after the rains fell big time & remained 99% in the sea floors and only 1% recycling into the sky or icesheets on a daily basis...



This part fits many scenarios, but only one scenario makes berth for evolution ... what you are stating is "creationism".

Why should a fish, want to walk onto land? preposterous really ... because are we seeing fish walking onto land now? no.
..


Mudskipper.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by St Udio

your idea would fit with the old notion that the pre-flood sky was a dense canopy of water
and the oceans only came about after the rains fell big time & remained 99% in the sea floors and only 1% recycling into the sky or icesheets on a daily basis...



..
You are not going to give birth to a jellyfish, so it can slip away from the cops in a slippery sense ... but, the plasmatic body of the earth and it's changes, can trigger genetic changes ... and the changes in environment, can change the altered species chances of survival ... it's called evolution.
..


Proposition? Check.
Prove? Uhm, no check..
You can't go around and state that some "plasmatic body of the earth" (which is completely unproven) triggers genetic changes (which is also completely unproven).
Normal plasma won't do that, its not radiating or altering your dna in any other way.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


David Wilcock says that tourtion waves or something like that creates new dna and changes dna in an organized form.... just saying .. I call it the unknown for sure but like many others I don't say that it is God.... just because I don't know...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns
 

Wow. Okay, we are on ATS, not on a respected scientific journal, so I will give you the advantage of doubt.
But on the other hand, I am STRONGLY suspicious. And I will not orientate my bedroom towards the galactic center, as Wilcock proposes..



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Then it should be detectable around vulcanoes, right? Oh, yes, it was detected - in the same volumes as expected by the observed lightnings, which produce plasma on their own.



Now you're just being silly ... the lava comes afterwards ... you are talking about events you don't know about.



Then it's not a plasma. Plasma per definitionem is in a gaseous state. Could you describe the features of your magma?


Again, now you are grasping at straws ... plasma is not a gaseous state. Plasma is the state of the electron ... which describes the electron being in a free states between atoms. The plasma itself, can be gaseous, solid or liquid state ... but the plasma state of matter, is very similar to a magnet.



"Obvious" is a word used by those who can't prove something, either by lazyness or by the impossibility of doing so.



No, obvious is used for things that can be observed.




It is NOT obvious that magma reaches gaseous state. Do you even know how plasma is created and maintains its state? Its not like electricity stored in a battery, plasma recombines as soon as the energy which departed it in ions and electrons is gone. What kind of energy holds the earths core plasma in its state?



What sort of energy keeps the sun intact? one might ask? The density of it? it's made of plasma ... and still the plasma is enormously dense 150g/cm^3. The heat? That is circular arguement ... the density makes it hot, and the heat keeps it together ...

Ok, ok ... I am sidetracking with parallel observation ...

We observe the earths magnetic properties. The magma inside the earth reveals electromagnetism as it travels inside the earth. It is an obvious plasmatic state of matter, which can be observed in the flimatation when it reaches the surface. The gases inside the lava, can also be observed from the microscopic holes in it. When you "measure" the lava, it's density is low on the surface, but great underneath ... the difference is the plasma within the lava. The lightning, that is induced, is proof of the electromagnetism that is within the magma itself ... so huge, that it creates tens of thousands of lightning strikes per minute.

The lightning you see, is the spike of charge between two charged entities ... the spark you see, is also the ionisation that is created within the air, also called plasma.

However, plasma although often referred to as gas ... is not a gas. It's the fourth state of matter, than can exist in all densities and variety of range of heat. It can also exist in super cooled matter ... you referring to plasma as gas, is bogus. However, because of the state of plasma ... it will revert to gas, when touching upon matter ... because our laboratory elements of plasma, are made through heat to reach ionisation and as the matter cools down suddenly it will return to the gaseous state. However plasma is not limited through ionisation of gas.

The sun, when cooled ... will expand ... as the density of the plasma inside it, will decrease ...

The earth itself, has inevocably magnetised plasma within it ... called magma. That the core is also plasma, is something that is still argued.

Why is the core plasma? Because the enormous magnetic field, that surrounds the earth ... it is proof of the enormous magnetism of the core. The suggestion that it's an iron-nickel core, really doesn't hold ... because it isn't the size of the core, that makes larger magnet ... but free flow of electrones in the matter, and in the case of iron ... free flow with same direction. A hot iron-nickel core, would be less stable ... nor more ... however, a plasma state, that is constantly being charged ... is the right answer.

www.scribd.com...


edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Proposition? Check.
Prove? Uhm, no check..
You can't go around and state that some "plasmatic body of the earth" (which is completely unproven) triggers genetic changes (which is also completely unproven).
Normal plasma won't do that, its not radiating or altering your dna in any other way.


www.scribd.com...

plasmauniverse.info...

magma as plasma


That should clear the matter on magma and plasma.

edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Proposition? Check.
Prove? Uhm, no check..
You can't go around and state that some "plasmatic body of the earth" (which is completely unproven) triggers genetic changes (which is also completely unproven).
Normal plasma won't do that, its not radiating or altering your dna in any other way.


www.scribd.com...

plasmauniverse.info...

magma as plasma


That should clear the matter on magma and plasma.

edit on 5/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



- In your links is no explanation of anything like "plasma changes the dna". Wrong links.
- The word "Magma" does not derive from "MAGnetized plasMA", but from Greek μάγμα "paste".
- Your own link to plasmauniverse defines plasma as having its "Ions and Electrons move independently, large spacing" (Source. That is not possible in a solidous state and even implausible in a fluidous state.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Then it should be detectable around vulcanoes, right? Oh, yes, it was detected - in the same volumes as expected by the observed lightnings, which produce plasma on their own.



Now you're just being silly ... the lava comes afterwards ... you are talking about events you don't know about.

The lava comes after what?




Then it's not a plasma. Plasma per definitionem is in a gaseous state. Could you describe the features of your magma?


Again, now you are grasping at straws ... plasma is not a gaseous state. Plasma is the state of the electron ... which describes the electron being in a free states between atoms. The plasma itself, can be gaseous, solid or liquid state ... but the plasma state of matter, is very similar to a magnet.

Give an example for solid plasma (incl. sources). There is no such thing. Plasmas particles are moving independently.




"Obvious" is a word used by those who can't prove something, either by lazyness or by the impossibility of doing so.



No, obvious is used for things that can be observed.

The word you are looking for is "observable", I think..





It is NOT obvious that magma reaches gaseous state. Do you even know how plasma is created and maintains its state? Its not like electricity stored in a battery, plasma recombines as soon as the energy which departed it in ions and electrons is gone. What kind of energy holds the earths core plasma in its state?



What sort of energy keeps the sun intact? one might ask? The density of it? it's made of plasma ... and still the plasma is enormously dense 150g/cm^3. The heat? That is circular arguement ... the density makes it hot, and the heat keeps it together ...

How about gravitation? That keeps the sun together.



Ok, ok ... I am sidetracking with parallel observation ...

We observe the earths magnetic properties. The magma inside the earth reveals electromagnetism as it travels inside the earth. It is an obvious plasmatic state of matter, which can be observed in the flimatation when it reaches the surface. The gases inside the lava, can also be observed from the microscopic holes in it. When you "measure" the lava, it's density is low on the surface, but great underneath ... the difference is the plasma within the lava. The lightning, that is induced, is proof of the electromagnetism that is within the magma itself ... so huge, that it creates tens of thousands of lightning strikes per minute.


You are obscuring your ideas. Magma reveals electromagnetism? How does it do this?

There is gas in magma, but its not plasma, just gas as the temperature is about 1200° C - enough to evaporate many elements. Electric discharges by lightning are produced by the huge mass of granules, as a lightning in a sandstorm does. 10.000 discharges per minute seems a little too high.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 




The lightning you see, is the spike of charge between two charged entities ... the spark you see, is also the ionisation that is created within the air, also called plasma.


A lightning CREATES plasma as it superheats the air on its way. The hot air is ionized, as the energies are ripping the electrons apart from the nuclei, thus a plasma is created. You did confound cause and effect.


However, plasma although often referred to as gas ... is not a gas. It's the fourth state of matter, than can exist in all densities and variety of range of heat.

True


It can also exist in super cooled matter ... you referring to plasma as gas, is bogus.
It is? Present proof for your statement. Plasma consists of independantly moving particles, which solids don't do. Fluids are bound to a shape, too. Plasma is gasous, not a gas - but completely different from solids and fluids.


However, because of the state of plasma ... it will revert to gas, when touching upon matter ... because our laboratory elements of plasma, are made through heat to reach ionisation and as the matter cools down suddenly it will return to the gaseous state. However plasma is not limited through ionisation of gas.

The sun, when cooled ... will expand ... as the density of the plasma inside it, will decrease ...

Okay, here you are just silly - why will it expand? Why will the density decrease? Do you know anything about the energysources of a star? Thermonuclear fusion and fission? Its balance with gravitation to keep the star together? You completely neglect anything wellknown and matching about celestial bodies.



The earth itself, has inevocably magnetised plasma within it ... called magma. That the core is also plasma, is something that is still argued.

Why is the core plasma? Because the enormous magnetic field, that surrounds the earth ... it is proof of the enormous magnetism of the core. The suggestion that it's an iron-nickel core, really doesn't hold
Why not?


... because it isn't the size of the core, that makes larger magnet ... but free flow of electrones in the matter, and in the case of iron ... free flow with same direction. A hot iron-nickel core, would be less stable ... nor more
That explains nothing. Iron-nickel core instable? Why? Iron is a highly stable element, the last stage in the fusion-chain in any star. You can't have an exothermal fusion with iron, you always have to put more energy into the fusion than you would get out of it.


... however, a plasma state, that is constantly being charged ... is the right answer.

Oh come on - how is it constantly being charged?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


First of all, your notion of plasma is wrong.



In physics and chemistry, plasma is a state of matter similar to gas in which a certain portion of the particles are ionized. Heating a gas may ionize its molecules or atoms (reduce or increase the number of electrons in them), thus turning it into a plasma, which contains charged particles: positive ions and negative electrons or ions.[1] Ionization can be induced by other means, such as strong electromagnetic field applied with a laser or microwave generator, and is accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds, if present.[2]


This is the definition of plasma from wikipedia.



The central element in a fluorescent light is a plasma, a gas made up of free-flowing ions (electrically charged atoms) and electrons (negatively charged particles)


And this is the definition you are sticking to, it's the use of plasma in a plasma TV.

However, the following should give you a clue ...



The sun and almost all stars are almost entirely plasma (i.e., over 99%) both by mass and by volume. This plasma consists mainly of electrons and protons (which would form hydrogen gas if the particles recombined), and also some heavier ions derived from other elements that have lost one or more of their electrons.


The sun is entirely plasma, not merely the corona ... and the density of the sun ... 140g/cm^3. It's denser than water, so it most certainly is not a gas.

Plasma is an entirely different state of matter, and is NOT a gas. In the core of the sun, it is heavier than led. There are no molecular bonds in a plasma, and thinking it's it's a gas because it's roams free is incorrect.

In fact, plasma has more in common with magnetised iron ... than with gas.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Okay, plasma in the sun is in a compacted state - true. Whether its more like magnetised iron than a gas (why not both?) is a question for fulltime physic scientists.

But where is the plasma in earths core? There is none. There has never been found any, nore are there any clues indicating them. The earths core is molten rock, consisting mainly of iron and nickel. This is indicated by measures of gravity (indicating a compacted mass of near-iron-like matter in earths core) and seismic waves which were detected by specific seismographs around the earthquakes center indicating fracturing and reflecting processes in specific dephts of earth.

Both are incosistent and incompatible to a theory of earths core containing a homogenous mass of flowing plasma.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Both are incosistent and incompatible to a theory of earths core containing a homogenous mass of flowing plasma.



No, you are being inconsistant ...

The universe is 99,9% plasma .... that the earths crust is made from accretion, granted. But the core of the earth, must ... and I insist it must, be made from the abundant matter of the universe.

You say, there is no proof ... I dare to disagree. Whenever there is a vulcanic activity, and magma is below the earth ... there is an enormous surge in gravity at that particular place. Not only is there enormous surge of gravity, but also an enormous surge of magnetic anomalies.

There is only one explanation to that, and that is magneticed plasma, or magma. Which is why, it's called magma.

And you have tons of visible proof ... as I pointed out, lava, which is magma when it reaches the surface, is filled with microscopic holes. As you pointed out earlier, stating that plasma is gas ... plasma, because of it's energetic state, will revert to gas form, when it loses its energetic state (cools down). Which is why, you often have large pores of gases, in lava.

It's all quite visible, and all there ...

edit on 11/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join