Astrophysicist says our solar system is entering an interstellar energy cloud that will bring global

page: 7
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


really? then how come spikes happen in ionosphere before quakes?




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


And the gravity system realies on neutron stars ,strangelets,black holes,dark matter which cannot be physically observed or inspected. EU stands better in terms of occam's razor compared to the gravity pseudoscience system.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



Iron loses magnetism when molten or subjected to high temperature.Which calls for alternative explanations.To me Plasma core hypothesis seems to be a good start ,though flawed it explains many things which the high temperature Plasma is magnetic in nature too.If the sun's core is hydrogen plasma,the earth core could be highly compressed plasma too.

Like I said before when the fundamental assumptions are wrong ,the conclusions will be wrong too

Which is the problem with EU.

It makes no sense at all. Look up Curie point and realize that a plasma has the same problem as molten iron.

The magnetic field of the Earth is not from the iron. It is from convection currents in the liquid part of the core. And we know it is liquid because of seismic evidence. We know that there isn't plasma there because of seismic evidence and density issues and energy issues.

So when people don't understand the fundamentals they get everything wrong such as belief in EU.


Has the earth's core been observed in direct experimentation ?Not.Which is why useless theortical pseudoscience explanations are given that Earth has an high temperature iron core,considering that iron loses its magnetism at high temperatures.

The universe is 99 % plasma.

Again you argue from ignorance about the source of the magnetic field.

Your final statement is meaningless in the context of planets. Another idiotic claim along those lines would be that we are rocks because >99.999% of the Earth is rock.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


And is it not even more ridiculous listening to mainstream govt propaganda science ministry that you spout?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



Enough said.The earth's core is believed to be high density hydrogen by many physicists.

Can you name a half dozen? I think you are not telling the truth. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are making this up.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 






Fig.5. The Earth’s Induction Radius-Vector

This particular model of the Earth’s internal structure solves the paradox related to the heating pattern of the Earth’s mantle. It was originally thought that the heating occurred through mere diffusion of the heat coming from the terrestrial core which had remained there since the Earth’s formation. That idea had to be abandoned, however, because of the small mantle heat diffusion ratio. A new, convective, model presumed the heating of the mantle by way of heat local mixing. If true, those convective heat streams would have provoked continual major earthquakes which was not the case. Then followed a model of the mantle heated through radioactive decay of long-living U238, U235, Th232, K40 isotopes. That approach would have yeilded a mantle and core heating temperature three times as little as the prevailing one. In addition, that kind of heating would have triggered the Earth’s radioactive contamination through volcanic activity, which isn’t the case either [10].
The model being suggested is focused on the heating through electromagnetic induction triggering the mantle’s thermal heating all across the board. This rules out diffusion, convection and surface radioactive contamination.
Moreover, a small hydrogen diffusion from the Earth’s outer core through the mantle provides an answer as to how the water on our planet was originated. The Earth’s hydrogen core model has been used before to account for water origins on the Earth. It didn’t, however, consider the hydrogen core as a power source [11, p.90].
Considering the model suggested above, we might look into how the Earth’s bipole magnetic field is formed. Let us assume that an electron ring wave is moving along the outer core’s inner surface in a specific direction at a speed of (1). A similar wave, different in power from the former one, is heading in the opposite direction. The axes of these two ring currents are not parallel. In this case, the aggregate magnetic field of these currents might be shifted against the Earth’s center. This shift, as current experiments testify, is 462 km. The bipole axis’ north pole and the south pole would also be shifted against the Earth’s axis. The Earth’s magnetic fields are known to be slowly drifting as far as to change their polarity. This may be accounted for by the movement of the ring currents along the outer core’s inner surface.
The above approach provides general answers to the paradoxes related to the Earth’s magnetic field and identifies the true power source that creates it.
A paper [5] says that the kinetic anisotropic energy of the terrestrial outer core’s gravitational compression is transformed into the energy of the electric currents movement in quasiplasma, into the Earth’s temperature, into the kinetic energy of the Earth’s rotation, etc. The anisotropic component of the gravitational compression in the outer core’s shell is about 500 times as powerful as the regular gravitational compression. It is this anisotropy of the gravitational compression that is the main energy source in the Earth’s core. That amount of energy should be quite sufficient for hydrogen transmutation into heavier elements that form the mantle.
metagalactic.net...

Next....



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



again you base your theory on the fallacy that solid iron at ultra high temperature remains magnetic which it does not.

When the fundamental assumption is wrong you get the wrong conclusion.

Exactly why you are wrong. You don't understand how the Earth's field is formed. Now go learn.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Физические величины: Справочник. Ф.П. Бабичев и др. М.: Энергоатомиздат. 1991. 1232 с.
New Scientist. 1998. N2163. P.4
К. Я. Кондратьев, К. С. Демирчян. Климат Земли и «протокол Киото». Вестник Российской академии наук. 2001. Т. 71, № 11, с. 1002-1009.
Allen C.W. Astrophysical Quantities. The Athlone Press, 1973
А.М. Ильянок. Макроквантовые законы в астрономии. Часть 2. Вести института современных знаний. 1999. N. 2-3. С. 71-101; Ilyanok, A.M. Quantum astronomy II, Macroquantum laws in astronomy J. New Energy, USA, 6, No1, 55-79 (2001); http:/xxx.lanl.gov Ilyanok A. QUANTUM ASTRONOMY. PART 1 (astro-ph 99 12 537),QUANTUM ASTRONOMY. PART II (astro-ph 00 01 059).
Монахов Ф.И. Низкочастотный сейсмический шум Земли. М.: Наука, 1977. С.96.
Jacobs J.A. Geomaghetic micropulsations. Springer. Verlay, Berlin, 1970.
Физика океана Под. ред. Каменкович В.М., Монина А.С. М.: Наука, 1978.
The Solar Output and its Variation Edited by Oran R White Colorado Ass. University Press Boulder. 1980.
Jacobs J.A. The Earth’s Core. Academic Press Inc. London. 1975.
Почтарев В.И. Нормальное магнитное поле Земли. М.: Наука, 1984.
Altven H., Arrhenius G. Structure and Evolutionary History of the Solar System. Boston. US. 1975. Reidel Publishing Company.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


hmm...where is the proof?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


and provide proof which can be physcially inspected and observed not mainstream theory bs



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


seismic data leads to only 10% success in oil well drilling.enough said.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



It has been considered, since Newton’s times, that tides and ebbs on the Earth are triggered by the Moon: the kinetic energy of the Moon’s rotation turns into the kinetic energy of the water movement on the Earth. If the above is true, then the Moon should be nearing the Earth [12]. Besides, according to Laplace, the Earth should have two wave water humps. It was found, however, that the humps were shifted 2.16° ahead against the Earth-Moon axis.

The claim that the Moon should be moving towards the Earth is a fallacy.
Of course the humps are not exactly aligned with the Moon.

Relying on a hoax site is a bad idea.


Numerous meticulously accurate measuring experiments have shown, however, that the Moon is neither becoming closer nor drifting away from the Earth.

This is clearly false since the rate at which the Moon rettreats from the Earth is known.


This paradox can be happily resolved by assuming that the Moon is positioned against the Earth at a strictly determined macroquantum distance

Invoking baloney because the material before this is a lie is a typical hoax effort.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



really? then how come spikes happen in ionosphere before quakes?

What does that have to do with anything? Grasping at straws are we?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



And the gravity system realies on neutron stars ,strangelets,black holes,dark matter which cannot be physically observed or inspected. EU stands better in terms of occam's razor compared to the gravity pseudoscience system.


Repeating this nonsense motto is meaningless.

EU can't even explain a 3 body system. Gravity explains the solar system and the tens of thousands of objects in it with great accuracy. EU is a failure.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



And is it not even more ridiculous listening to mainstream govt propaganda science ministry that you spout?

Do you have anythign to say or are you admitting you are pushing a hoax?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


If you copy someone's work put it in quotes. These are not your words. These are some hoaxers words.

These idiotic claims of plasma in the Earth trun afoul of all evidence including:
1. density
2. seismic
3. geologic
4. magnetic
5. solar wind

The site expects people to be idiots and assume that this pretend scientific talk is meaningful in some bizarre way.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


So you can copy and paste yet again.

Have you read any of that material? Please explain the relevance of any of that.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



hmm...where is the proof?

Can you explain why you have fallen for that ludicrous hoax site?

Can you explain anything from that site or are you restricted to cutting and pasting things you probably do not understand?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



and provide proof which can be physcially inspected and observed not mainstream theory bs

The proof is everywhere. It seems that you do not udnerstand the material but see that it is a discarded theory so you've latched onto it. Bravo for being a scoffer.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 



seismic data leads to only 10% success in oil well drilling.enough said.

A meaningless statement. That has no bearing on the fact that the seismic data reveals the underlying structure of the rock. The existence of recoverable material in the pore space is not of interest here.

Please learn about the interactionsof waves on liquid/gas/solid interfaces. That is how we know that the core is both liquid and solid.



new topics
 
35
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join