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.
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.
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.
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".
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 ...
You are denying facts ...
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.
..
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.
..
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.
Then it's not a plasma. Plasma per definitionem is in a gaseous state. Could you describe the features of your magma?
"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?
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.
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)
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.
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 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.
It can also exist in super cooled matter ... you referring to plasma as gas, is bogus.
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.
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 ...
Why not?
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
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.
... 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.
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]
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)
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.
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.