Strange

Maybe you need to say what you were quoting, where it was from.

It is not remote sensing; it is local sensing. Your eyes are in your head and directly connected to your brain. You don't get much more local than that.

What is the connection between the cloud and quantum computing? And isn't the cloud ubiquitous by defintion?

Oh. Then it is trivially wrong. Further evidence your model is wrong.

Just that you appeared to show H2O as a linear structure, when it isn't. And that you appear to think quarks are responsible for how atoms combine, when they aren't. The strong nuclear force (gluons) does not act between atoms. That's all.

Correct. Science is based on objective measurements. (Not ignorant and largely incoherent ramblings.)

Correct.

Sorry, you don't get to dismiss well-established science as speculation. If you want to claim something different, then do it in the Speculations forum and provide evidence. Because a solar flare is a large cloud of plasma. Helium has two neutrons. And less mass than what? No. It generates gamma rays, heat, neutrinos, ...

Nonsense. As you have already been told the reaction to the force of gravity on an object, is that object's force on the Earth. Really. Really? Can you provide a reference to support that. I was unaware of that. So what. I'm not sure we "create" electrons (apart from some exceptional cases). Yes, an object CAN become statically charged. But note that this does not "create" charge or electrons. If one thing becomes negatively charged then something else must become positively charged. Charge is a conserved quantity. The mass of a neutron is about 0.1% greater than a proton. But so what? Helium (I assume you mean helium and not "he", some person) is not repelled by the Earth. The energy of protons and electrons is variable (depend on velocity) so I'm not sure how you are comparing them. I'm also not sure why you are comparing them. How is the relative energy of a proton and an electron relevant? Being ionised is nothing to do with being "saturated in energy" whatever that means. Ionization is the addition or removal of electrons in an atom. There are positive and negative ions. Again, I fail to see the relevance to anything else. Ionization doesn't change mass. Protons don't become charged, they are always charged. And none of this has anything to do with MAGNETS.

Sorry, that makes little sense. It also does not answer the question. Hydrogen is not charged. (More charged than what, anyway?) There is no such things as anti-gravity. The Earth is not charged. Hydrogen is not repelled by the Earth. The Sun is not charged. We can measure all these things. So just making a string of randomly incorrect claims is not a sensible way of having a discussion.

But what is charged? Are you saying that the two spheres are electrically charged as well as being magnets? And are they positive or negatively charged?

It is very clear that you understand very little. It would help if you accepted this. Charge is a property of particles: electrons have negative charge, protons have positive charge. Matter consists of an equal mixture of electrons and protons and so has zero total charge. Your battery is not "charged with electrons". It has the same number of electrons and protons. It is electrically neutral: no charge. What it does have is a number of chemical which can produce a voltage difference which will cause electrons to flow. The sun is also fully of electrons and an equal number of protons. Therefore no net charge. Energy is not the same as charge. The sun releases large amounts of energy (keeping us nice and warm) but has no charge.

The one your posted today (post 17). You show two magnets. You do not show any charges. Banana, wibble frogmarch.

KW is power, not potential. But perhaps you mean 24000 kV. But where does that come into it? Where is 24000 kV coming from? And why would anyone say it has no effect? Oh, hang on... I see you mentioned 23000 TW before. That is electromagnetic radiation (light) from the Sun. That obviously has an effect on the Earth. It warms it up. (I have no idea if your figure is correct. I think it is about 1.5 kW per square metre at the Earth's distance.) It is not "electrostatics" because the Sun is not charged.

Better. But you still have no charge in your diagram so even that is irrelevant.

The Sun is not electrically charged. (It is also a very long way away.) The Moon's gravity attracts and repels the oceans (tides). The Sun's gravity also has an effect on tides (about half as much - it is larger but much further away). If you look, the water was attracted towards the charge. Oh, but look: CHARGE. How very unlike the Sun.

I am not arguing for radiation hormesis. However, that arguments seems irrelevant. We know that, even without radiation, DNA copying and repair is not error-free. (And, obviously, some changes to DNA are benign.)

There is no charge in your diagram. Therefore there is no Lorentz force. F = q(E + v X B) If q = 0 then F = 0. Swap magnet banana frisson, quantitative thing is maybe wobble ship. (In other words, I have no idea what your random string of words is supposed to mean.)

The fact that chemistry is not random is pretty unquestionable. At least that is a clear, testable claim. It fails at the first step because we know that organic chemicals exist in the absence of life. Also, maybe you need to define what you mean by "life". It is possible that there were some basic reactions, that started the whole process, that did not depend on organic molecules. But they would not get very far, because they would be limited to be fairly simple. As soon as you have something that could plausibly be called life it almost certainly exploited the existing organic compounds to mediate the more complex function, to transfer or store energy, to form structures, etc.

I have noticed this a lot in your posts. What does the "?" represent?

I'm sure you're not interested, but a couple of comments on that last diagram. 1. Water molecules have a V shape (an hydrogen is like two Vs joined). 2. Quarks are not involved in the bonding of atoms in molecules, it is a function of the electrons. I don't really know what you are trying to do in all these diagrams. But they all seem to be two dimensional, which isn't very realistic. (But that may be the least of your problems.)

This very obviously cannot be true. http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/mediterranean-sea-water-masses-vertical-distribution_d84b http://www.livescience.com/29738-strait-of-gibraltar-where-atlantic-meets-mediterranean.html Some of the other points are also untrue (or so ambiguous as to be meaningless). Some of the other points are true but trivial to observe.

Yeah, right. That is why Wikipedia is able to cite peer reviewed science on the subject.

This has nothing to do with Lorentz force as there are no charges involved. Calculating the force between two magnets is very complicated because (unlike gravity or the force between two charges) it cannot be treated as the force between two points. The N pole of one magnet is repelled strongly by the other N pole but every point on the magnet is more or less strong attracted or repelled by every point on the other magnet. However, the overall effect in the case of, say, two bar magnets put at a random angle to one another is they will rotate until they are aligned N----S S----N And then they will be attracted to one another and snap together. You could try this yourself with two magnets on a frictionless surface (floating on water or hanging from threads, for example). Note that the force between the two needs to be strong enough to overcome friction or anything else keeping the magnets apart. The force between them decreases with distance much more rapidly than the force of gravity or the force between two charges. So you if you move the magnets a little distance apart there will not be enough force to move them. This sentence string of words makes no sense. It is not even a sentence. So I don't know if I have answered your question. In case you are still banging on about the Sun and the Earth.... The force at that distance is too small to have any effect. Also, the Earth is roughly like a bar magnet with a N and S pole while the Sun's is much more complex and changeable.

This does not imply that space is infinite. Instead of a sheet of paper, do the same thing on the surface of a sphere. As the surface expands all the dots move apart in the same way, but the surface is finite.