arc

Yes, I can see it now, the future of synthetic food will be a green industry.

Oh, come on billiards! you know I was comparing your model to mine. Maybe you could instead explain why your model does not make predictions of surface geologic processes. Or maybe a counter argument to that link I posted that convincingly shows your model incapable of providing plate movement. http://www.dst.uniro...antle_Dynamics_ "At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface". . . . . . . . "In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics." Please, give it your best shot. A clear cause and effects example of the mechanism would help.

Hi billiards, I have been thinking about this standard model you presented and I've made some observations about it. I though I would do some side by side comparisons for clarity. Your model claims; "As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents" This is not directly observable and at its basis is an ad hoc to support convection. My model can support convection but it does not require convection to do more than it is capable of doing, simply transporting heat to the surface. The model that proposes these currents could drive the tectonic plates in their observed kinematics is tenuously stretching its hold on reality. http://www.dst.uniroma1.it/sciterra/sezioni/doglioni/Publ_download/E6-15-03-13-TXT.aspx.html#10._Plate_Kinematics_versus_Mantle_Dynamics_ Mantle convection is expected, because Earth is cooling and because material is uprising along oceanic ridges and down going along subduction zones. Moreover, lateral variations and gradients in temperature, density, fluid content, and viscosity should determine slow creeps within the mantle. However we do not know the constraints on the velocity of these movements, and none of the proposed models of mantle convection can account for the simpler pattern in plate motion we observe at the surface, nor has a unique solution been proposed for how material in the mantle convects. At the moment there is no way to link mantle dynamics and plate kinematics at the surface, considering that the mantle and lithosphere are detached. <(My model predicts this by the way) Plates appear to follow a main stream, both now and in the geologic past, whereas mantle convection is expected to generate cells with a typical rather circular-polygonalshape. Earth’s rotation is also able to generate a possible polarity in the kinematics of the cores, mantle, and lithosphere, a sort of railway path. Plates may be more detached on a relatively less viscous mantle than on a relatively more viscous mantle, therefore lateral heterogeneity in the asthenospheric mantle may determine different decoupling from the overlying lithosphere. Variations in decoupling are in turn responsible for differential velocity among plates and plate tectonics. The Atlantic and Indian ridges are in fact moving apart with respect to Africa, proving not to be fixed both relative to each other and relative to any fixed point in the mantle. This evidence confirms that ocean ridges are decoupled from the underlying mantle. <(My model predicts this by the way) Mantle convection models show the upraise and sinking of the mantle with fixed cells, with steady vertical plumes and polygonal shapes in an horizontal view; plate tectonics rather show linear features at the surface, and plate boundaries moving one respect to the other, and unstable. These tectonics are erroneously linked to horizontally moving uprising plumes and subduction zones, which are not predicted by physical convection models. In other words, mantle convection alone seems not able to generate plate tectonics. A more robust contribution of the Earth’s rotation in combination with mantle convection could be envisaged. "As the inner core freezes latent heat is released and light elements are expelled. This produces convection currents" This alone is meaningless without predictions, what predictions does it make? Currently this cannot be observed and is speculated by modeling only. The discovery of the convection currents would give weight to this idea, but they are simply based on a mathematical model by the great Arthur Holmes, and as seen in the paper above, their combined mechanisms could not account for the observed plate movements anyway. To propose that they could is speculation at best and more likely desperation in the face of no other workable models. My model provides a simple, direct and accurate mechanism that matches surface observations. It has been shown to correspond to solar magnetic 14C proxy variability, climate history and periods of historic geologic resurfacing. The outer core's thermal variability of my model seems superior in comparison to the standard model's in the bright light of accurate and critical analysis. This is not a choice between two viable models, the standard model is a ad hoc assemblage that in the end cannot do what it was supposed assembled to do.

Hi billiards, Thanks for the link. I had earlier posted a similar link on my web site; ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt ABSTRACT (Lean 2000): Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity, reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to space based observations. The long-term variations track the envelope of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%. "You are taking this and projecting it into the extreme. What you are proclaiming as that these minor fluctuations are also responsible for thermal expansion and contraction of the outer core -- which in turn explains the driving mechanism of plate tectonics!!!!! (Wow, just wow!)" Yeah, kind of crazy huh. Like I said, I started working from the other end. Designing a mechanism that fits what is observed in the geologic record. The mantle displacement works very well. I fits very well. Better than convection, mantle plumes and other lesser accepted sources. Now I am trying to hammer out the energy source. It is tied to the solar magnetic phenomena in some way. And as your link shows, not likely the solar thermal side of the Suns energy output. You cannot argue that there is not an observed suggestion of a causative association between Earth's thermal content and the variation seen in solar magnetic flux. The bond events, Dansgaard-Oeschger events and their associated Heinrich events all fall into place (not to mention Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) when modeled from a terrestrial thermal source operating through the Mid-Ocean ridge system and AMOC/ Gulf stream. You can see above in my last post how the Little Ice Age/Bond event is lead by this solar magnetic/thermal signal. I trust your expertise, and accept your critic of the solar magnetic energy values. I owe Unity a say in this because of his continuing help. I will concede to your expert opinion after I consult with him first and see if he is of the same opinion. If this is not of magnetic inductance and is just merely associated or even timed with it then I must account for that in the model. The solar magnetic energy is part of the Suns generation of its electrical phenomena. Could there be a unknown source of current that could be associated in timing to solar magnetic variation? Please forgive the crude hatchet I use to do my inquiry. I must admit I had a hint that this would be an issue, and as Unity did suggested the additional sources of energy in post #220; http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/auror2.htm To quote Unity; "So, in fact, the energy we could be talking about could be coming from both the emission of charged particles from the Sun and the interaction of the Sun's and Earth's electromagnetic field." I had written this into the model previously on my site, page #10-11 before coming to scienceforum.net; http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/ Oct. 30, 2008: During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. (That's an encouraging thought.) A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page. "It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,” Researchers have long known that the Earth and sun must be connected. Earth's magnetosphere (the magnetic bubble that surrounds our planet) is filled with particles from the sun that arrive via the solar wind and penetrate the planet's magnetic defenses. They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere. On the day side of Earth (the side closest to the sun), Earth's magnetic field presses against the sun's magnetic field. Approximately every eight minutes, the two fields briefly merge or "reconnect," forming a portal through which particles can flow. The portal takes the form of a magnetic cylinder about as wide as Earth. The European Space Agency's fleet of four Cluster spacecraft and NASA's five THEMIS probes have flown through and surrounded these cylinders, measuring their dimensions and sensing the particles that shoot through. "They're real.” The cylindrical portals tend to form above Earth's equator and then rollover Earth's winter pole. In December, FTEs roll over the North Pole; in July they roll over the South Pole. This is happening twice as often as previously thought. "I think there are two varieties of FTEs: active and passive." Active FTEs are magnetic cylinders that allow particles to flow through rather easily; they are important conduits of energy for Earth's magnetosphere. Passive FTEs are magnetic cylinders that offer more resistance; their internal structure does not admit such an easy flow of particles and fields. (For experts: Active FTEs form at equatorial latitudes when the IMF (inter-planetary magnetic field) tips south; passive FTEs form at higher latitudes when the IMF tips north.) There are many unanswered questions: Why do the portals form every 8 minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist and coil? http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights_multi.html "In 2007 NASA's five THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic." Though they are not all of the same energy, it is unlikely that the probes chanced upon the FTE with the highest of all energy levels, so there are likely still higher energy levels to be observed in this phenomena. The energy level of 650,000 amps is put into perspective when you consider the FTE's only last about a minute and reoccur every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day. That's 7.5 FTE's per hour, 180 per day. That's 117 million amps in a 24 hour period. 42.7 billion amps per year. Flux Transfer Events look to me as just a potential between the Sun and Earth being created every 8 minutes, and the resulting FTE being the equalization of this imbalance. Could there be within the example of FTE's a current that readily flows into the magnetosphere, entering the magnetic field generator and providing thermal increase? This energy flow would exit toward a return current path. The FTE'S would be a continuous "adjustment" between the Sun and Earth, correcting the differences in potential that would be constantly created. I think there is another component to this phenomena of the Earth, a discovery between May 2009 and May 2010 at the IceCube neutrino observatory at the South Pole allowed researchers to create the most comprehensive map to date of the arrival direction of cosmic rays in the southern skies. They appear to be coming from particular locations, rather than being distributed uniformly across the sky. Between May 2009 and May 2010 IceCube detected 32 billion cosmic-ray muons with a median energy of about 20 teraelectronvolts (TeV). Similar patterns have been observed over the northern hemisphere by the Milagro observatory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the Tibet Air Shower array in Yangbajain. The hotspots must be produced within about 0.03 light years (1,897 A.U.’s) of Earth because galactic magnetic fields should deflect the particles farther out where they would smear out the hotspots across interstellar space. But no such sources nearby are known to exist. Or do they? In 1986 Nobel prize recipient and developer of the Magnetohydrodynamic generation theory (MHD) Hannes Alfven predicted sources of cosmic rays situated along the Sun’s axes in an IEEE publication and NASA Conference. In the Alfvén’s Heliospheric Circuit; the Sun acts as a unipolar inductor (A) producing a current which travels outward along both the axes (B2) and inward in the equatorial plane along the magnetic field lines (B1). The current must close at large distances (B3), either as a homogeneous current layer, or more probable as a pinched current. Image created by Ian Tresman (who has no connection with this paper) on July 13th, 2005, based on an images by Hannes Alfvén in his book Cosmic Plasma (1981), p.55. http://csem.engin.umich.edu/CSEM/Publications/Israelevich2001.pdf MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet P. L. Israelevich 1, T. I. Gombosi 2, A. I. Ershkovich 1, K. C. Hansen 2, C. P. T. Groth 2, D. L. DeZeeuw 2, and K. G. Powell 3 1 Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel 2 Space Physics Research Laboratory, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA 3 Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA It says this paper is for the purpose of showing “that the three dimensional structure of the heliospheric current system obtained from a self-consistent, first-principles based numerical model of the solar wind outflow with realistic intrinsic solar magnetic field is consistent with Alfven's conceptual model." It has a great description of how the before mentioned Alfven’s unipolar inductor relates to the Earth and the interplanetary magnetic field and Parker spiral. "The warping of the magnetic field in the Parker spiral allows the Earth to cross the thin neutral current sheet that separates the positive and negative sides of the dipole field. The Earth can pass through the current sheet at least twice during each solar rotation (sometimes more than twice, if the current sheet is wavy enough). These crossings are observed at the Earth when the polarity of the Suns magnetic field changes. Predicted by Alfven (1981), the spiral form of the magnetic field lines means that there is a significant radial component of the electric current along with the azimuthal component. Solid lines show the magnetic field lines slightly above the magnetic equator whereas dashed lines correspond to those slightly below the equatorial plane. The only way to satisfy the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by field-aligned currents at the polar region of the sun. This current closure leads to the three-dimensional heliospheric current system schematically depicted by Alfven. Thus, the heliospheric current system produced by the Sun acts like a unipolar generator." If the unipolar inductor currents are out there, the inward equatorial current may be the current return path for all planetary return currents. This connection may give the planet a source for the variable current to operate the mantle displacement of the model. This also provides a piece to a mechanism to create and control the planet's electrical potentials through FTE's I would think the unipolar inductor/generator could be linked to the magnetic field variability, providing the connection between the 14C content, climate variability and geologic processes that are shown in my model.

Hi billiards, "a planet that has maintained heat content and a magnetic field in complete agreement with the expectations of the physics known to be involved." I assume you see the Earth's magnetohydrodynamic field generator as everyone else does, as a closed system operating unto its own parameters and limits and defined therein, I do not. I see this field generator as a subordinate to a greater one, I see it as a “solar magnetohydrodynamic dependent field". I believe it was initiated by and maintained through the Sun's magnetic field. I believe the Earth is missing the internal energy source to drive a "closed system" magnetic field generator. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking when it comes to our planet having the self contained capabilities to operate its field generator for so long. When I compare our planet's field generator to the Sun's and its thermonuclear energy source I am struck by the stark contrast. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=992 "How is the Earth's magnetic field formed and what causes changes in the field? The basics of the process have long been understood: magnetism, motion and electricity are an inseparable trio, when any two are present the third is there too. However, exactly how the complex dynamics of the Earth's core translate this principle into a stable and sustainable magnetic field is still largely unknown." That statement isn't exactly brimming with confidence of a complete and factual "closed system" model of the current theory. That statement is from the University of Maryland's own site. They are building the largest model to date. It has more than 12.7 metric tons of sodium metal and a 3 meter (10ft) stainless steel sphere. "I still don't understand why you pick out Glatzmeier's model." I chose it because of his measurements, they fit my model rather well. "Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2." This information is important to my model for several reasons. First, it shows that the field has a wide variation of intensity, matching what I assume is needed to actuate the plate tectonic mechanism of my model, which I believe fits the observations better than any other current model. Having "twice the million-year average" capability would, as a preliminary observation, provide what I would hope is within the functional range needed for the outer core thermal expansion. This of coarse still needs to be confirmed but it is better than I had initially imagined. I rather expected something in the 20% +/- range which would have seemed, off hand, as vastly inadequate. The revelation that the Earth's magnetic field is currently "much stronger than normal" matches quite accurately the other solar magnetic data I have that tracks the simultaneous variation of the Earth's magnetic field and climate history. It directly challenges the anthropological causation of the last 100 + years of climate warming, a rather ground shaking idea that seems to be ignored. As you have seen in the 14C graphs shown, they tell an alternate explanation to the current climate model. Please forgive the repetitious posting, but you asked. http://pubs.usgs.gov.../fs-0095-00.pdf Image below courtesy of USGS Image below modified by this author. These graphs show solar magnetic field proxy measurements of 14C content that track perfectly through the climate variation of the last 1100 years, right through periods such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Solar magnetic flux is the only mechanism controlling the 14C content and timing. http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 - 1087, 28 October 2004. S.K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schüssler1, and J. Beer4 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck- Institut für Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany 2 Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland 3 Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut für Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 4 Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland "According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. That is supported by Glatzmeier's model; "much stronger than normal" and "twice the million-year average" If I am to take Bond as being correct when he stated; "when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened", (in regards to 1500 year periodicity climate variation that controlled the volume of drift ice in the North Atlantic) then there is in all these sources clear evidence of solar magnetic causation of climate variability. The question is what is the causative mechanism? What could happen by, through or in conjunction with this solar magnetic increase or decrease, that would produce in short time frame responses, the rather small but sudden variation in warming or cooling? I have been waiting for someone to offer a alternative solution to my models strain energy mechanism. Lets look at the whole quote; http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times. This is a reduction in solar magnetic energy corresponding to a cooling environmental response in almost simultaneous timing. How do these two phenomena relate? Do you believe this mechanism could operate through the atmosphere? What if I said it was the ocean that reduced in thermal content first? The ocean giving up the diminishing heat content of its waters, allowing the drift ice to move farther south before melting. According to the model the strain energy produces thermal content from the mantles slow displacement, the mantles outer boundary is slowly stretched and torn, releasing thermal energy as magma. When the solar magnetic energy level lowers, the boundary area thermal energy is reduced, thus lowering the oceans heat content, or more importantly and precisely, the Atlantic Meridional Overturn Circulation (AMOC) content. The little Ice Age is believed to be one of the several Bond cooling events, the same lowered heat content that extended the drift ice range would also reduce the climate temperature as shown in the graph below. Notice how the solar magnetic flux proxy 14C leads the temperature change. "High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun." Look at about 1250 on the graph, the magnetic flux begins to decrease. It took possibly 50 - 100 years for people in the northern hemisphere to notice the cooling climate, marking the beginning of the Little Ice Age commonly observed to begin around 1300-1350 in the Wolf Minimum. A nice delay as the reducing boundary area heat content is carried to the surface by the AMOC. By 1460 the highest 14C content/lowest magnetic flux of the Sporer minimum was almost reached, marking the next 90 years to the lowest magnetic flux content of that minimum at around 1550. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%B6rer_Minimum I believe a model proposing a “solar magnetohydrodynamic dependent field" is greatly strengthened by this evidence. If the earth was the sole possessor of a planetary magnetic field it would seem more believable that a closed system could be possible. That the earth could have by chance obtained the correct ingredients at the needed volumes to produce the magnetic field that we observe. But there is a total of 5 other field generating planets and none of them resemble the Earth's current model of generation. Jupiter has the largest planetary magnetic field in the solar system. Its field is 14 times stronger than Earth's. Jupiter’s core is often described as rocky, surrounded by a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen that is believed to be the convection fluid that generates the magnetic field. There is a lot of uncertainty about its composition beyond basic speculation. Jupiter is 5.2 times farther from the Sun than the Earth but emits more energy, almost 2.5 times, than it receives from the sun. That extra energy is thought to be produced by Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism in which a large gaseous body with too low of a mass for nuclear fusion, can emit energy through compression in its core from thermal contraction caused by the cooling of its surface. It’s theorized that gravitational potential energy caused by the shrinking of Jupiter is the source of the energy. Next is Saturn, the internal structure of which is thought to be similar to Jupiter, with a rocky iron core surrounded by a thick layer of metallic hydrogen. Saturn is 1.5 billion km from the sun. 9.5 times farther from the Sun as the Earth, but, like Jupiter, radiates into space 2.5 times the energy it receives from the Sun. Its core temperature is thought to be 11,700 deg. Celsius. (21,100 deg. F) And, like Jupiter the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is believed to be at work. But it can’t account for all of the radiant energy, leading to other theories on sources of heat, possibly by generating some of its heat through the "raining out" of droplets of helium deep in its interior. As the droplets descend through the lower density hydrogen, the process releases heat by friction and leaves the outer layers of the planet depleted of helium. Saturn’s magnetic field is only 5 percent of Jupiter’s measured at the equator. Uranus is the 7th planet from the Sun. Third largest by radius, fourth by mass. Has the coldest planetary atmosphere in the solar system AT -224 degrees c. Its 3 billion km from the Sun and takes 84 years to orbit it once. Scientists estimate its core of silicate/iron-nickel at a small 0.55 Earth masses with a temperature of 5000 K. (4726 C.) The mantle, comprising of hot dense water and ammonia, makes up the bulk of the planet at 13.4 Earth masses. This fluid is believed to be the source of the planets magnetic field. Uranus has the lowest internal heat of the four outer planets. Neptune, which is 1.5 billion km farther out from the Sun and is considered Uranus’ twin in size and chemistry has a heat flux of 2.61, in contrast Uranus barely emits more heat than it receives from the Sun. But what is the energy source? Uranus has fully functioning magnetic field despite being tilted out of alignment with its rotational axis by 59 degrees. Is this a clue as to a solar dependent field? The really strange thing is its axis is in line with its orbital plane. It spins like a football not a toy top. It rolls around the sun on its side, giving each polar region a direct exposure during each solstice. So here might be the most unlikely candidate for a (closed system) magnetic field generator. It’s lying on its side, its core is undersized, and the electrical conductive mantle is hot water and ammonia. It’s kind of hard to imagine it being a self-maintaining magnetohydrodynamic generator, generating a strong magnetic field. Although the Polar Regions receive the majority of the Sun's heat, the equatorial region is warmer than the poles. The heat is located where the field generator heat flux would probably be greatest. Uranus is 19.1 astronomical units from the Sun and has a heat flux of 1.1 barely a little more heat than it receives from the Sun. Neptune is 30.1 astronomical units with a heat flux of 2.61. The source of this high heat content is unknown. Several explanations have been suggested, radiogenic heating from the planet's core, conversion of methane into hydrogen and diamond that would rise and sink releasing gravitational potential energy, and convection in the lower atmosphere that causes gravity waves to break above the tropopause. I kind of see a pattern here, more heat than can be accounted for and a large power hungry magnetic field. Neptune’s bigger core, 1.2 Earth mass to .55 for Uranus, may account for a its higher heat flux and larger field. It might produce more generating capacity in some way. Its magnetic field bow shock extends out from the planet 34.9 Neptune radii. Uranus’ bow shock is at 23 radii. It seems to me that as you examine the planets and their magnetic field generating dynamics it becomes increasingly more difficult to press for a closed system model. There is a total of 5 functional systems of generation. Some are robust; one seemed odd with unlikely chances of being a self-maintaining electromagnetic field generator. Power source mechanics vary from molten iron, metallic hydrogen to heavy water-ammonia. They all have a net plus heat content that varies in explanation from frictional shrinking (Jupiter and Saturn) to friction from raining helium (Saturn), converting methane to hydrogen and diamonds (Neptune) and one unknown (Uranus). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_spiral The Parker spiral is the shape of the Sun’s magnetic field as it extends through the solar system. Unlike the familiar shape of the field from a bar magnet, the Sun's extended field is twisted into an arithmatic spiral by the magnitohydrodynamic influence of the solar wind. The Parker spiral shape of the solar wind changes the shape of the Sun's magnetic field in the outer solar system: beyond about 10-20 astronomical units from the Sun, the magnetic field is nearly toroidal (pointed around the equator of the Sun) rather than poroidal (pointed from the North to the South pole, as in a bar magnet) or radial (pointed outward or inward, as might be expected from the flow of the solar wind if the Sun were not rotating). The spiral shape also greatly amplifies the strength of the solar magnetic field in the outer solar system. Uranus is 19.1 astronomical units from the Sun, Neptune is 30.1 If the Earth was the only planet with a magnetic field a closed system would seem more viable . But having 4 other planetary field generators in the solar system we have to take them all into account together. We know none of the others have molten iron outer cores. Two have metallic hydrogen and two have warm water-ammonia mantles. We either have three separate self-contained, self-generating and self-maintaining models of operation in five separate planets or we have one power source that is able to provide energy to five functionally similar and greatly simpler systems of field generation. And we have in the induction of current into the moons of Jupiter an example of an magnetohydrodynamic dependent system. A theory is only as strong as its weakest point. Uranus has a mantle generating its field comprising of hot dense water and ammonia, it makes up the bulk of the planet at 13.4 Earth masses. Can anyone say that it is more likely that this arraignment began with a weak current-field that was built up to a field of over 23 planet radii in a self-feeding closed system? Or is it powered by the Sun’s enormous and magnetically charged Parker spiral's Magnetohydrodynamic dynamo (MHD) passing to Uranus’ magnetosphere magnetic energy through the phenomena of magnetic field induction as seen in the moons of Jupiter. Which theoretical solution has the least probability based on all five planets having strong robust fields? And which one accurately describes Earth's heat flux dynamics and tectonic surface phenomena?

FunkyAce07, this video is from a guy who claims to have solved this challenge. Think of it as the Wankel engine version of your idea. It is a smooth video but it will never work like he says. These machines can fly . . . . . . . . . . . .but only into pieces Its by some guy named Rick R Dobson Jr, he claims it is 15 times more powerful than the most powerful jet engine. . . . . . .YEAH RIGHT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNP5odWvJRk

OK, guys don’t blame billiards, I can be pretty antagonizing most of the time. In a way, this idea that I am promoting here is nothing of my own original thought. It is an assemblage of existing bits of other peoples work, arranged in a manner that I believe explains in a logical order (to me) what is not readily apparent in what I see as the rather disconnected and incomplete standard model. Let’s start with the contentious solar magnetic field inductance question. We have currently a model with the Earth possessing a magnetohydrodynamic generator that is assumed to have been in a self- sustaining mode of operation for the last 4.5 billion years. This just seems a little too much like “perpetual motion machine” for me. For this reason I am interested in the following paper; http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf "Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field." “ Ganymede, Jupiter’s third Galilean satellite, has an internal magnetic dipole (Kivelson et al. 1996, 1997) strong enough to create its own mini-magnetosphere inside of Jupiter’s larger one.” Ganymede is the largest moon in the solar system and the third Galilean moon from Jupiter. Its diameter is slightly larger than the planet Mercury and three-quarters the size of Mars. The Galileo spacecraft discovered that Ganymede is to date the only moon to generate its own magnetosphere. The field is generated by the moon's liquid iron core. Observations by the Hubble space telescope reveal ozone is near the surface, and it is likely produced as charged particles from Jupiter's magnetic field collide with water molecules within the surface of Ganymede, suggesting a chemical pathway to a presumed thin oxygen atmosphere similar to the one detected on Europa. The electro-chemical processes of creating atmospheres on these moons are likely limited by the lack of the solar thermal and electromagnetic scale of the Jovian-Galilean system. The Galilean moons of Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are all thought to have abundant water. Callisto's extremely thin atmosphere composing carbon dioxide and probably oxygen possesses a rather strong ionosphere, as does Europa's to a lesser degree, it's thin ionosphere covering a faint oxygen atmosphere. Do these moons suggest a possible alternative to the Earth’s self-sustaining closed system of field generation? I believe they do. Though they contain in their cores their primordial heat, has this “unambiguous evidence” of induction maintained this thermal content to this day? And has it done so through and by the creation of a proportionally small “mini-magnetosphere”? I see a lower level manifestation of the currently observed and by this model, proposed generation of mutual-inductively coupled or magnetically coupled phenomena, i.e. the Jovian generation of primary and secondary fields. Or more accurately the Sun's magnetic field is the primary field. While Jupiter's is the secondary, thereby leaving the Jovian moons to produce whatever degree of tertiary field that the electromagnetic component can furnish through the limitations of distance, the secondary field's strength and the given core's molten iron and/or liquid water's physical characteristics. I believe it is no coincidence that planetary sized moons with fluid interiors that are within a powerful magnetic field show through a variety of core configurations, a secondary field, and what always seems to accompany it, thermal heating of the interior and/or core and what the available thermal energy can produce to its given degree, vulcanism and or evidence of tectonic resurfacing. “responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field." Based on this study above, could the much more magnetically powerful and rotating (time varying) field of the Sun be expected to produce similar and even greater effects? If these inducted energies can be surmised for the moons that orbit a planet, then it is within reason that a massively larger and magnetically more powerful generator such as the Sun could produce similar results in many of the planets within its domain. “Glatzmeier has modelled the field getting weaker with time.” I didn't get that conclusion from the NASA article. I see a planet that has maintained heat content and a magnetic field far beyond the expectations of the physics known to be involved. Could there be a periodic magnetic energy induction supplying a timely boost to this assumed closed system, a veritable intermittent hand that applies energy to the flywheel of earth’s dynamo. Not a main power source but rather a supplemental, one that possibly shows its presents in the Earth’s magnetic field’s variability. As bond had noted; http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, It seems very likely to be the case. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ And according to Dr. Glatzmaier; "The field is increasing or decreasing all the time," "We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record." According to the article; Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2. I don’t see where it says it is “getting weaker with time” except between the times it is increasing. Well, now I’m at a crossroad. We can go on and examine this variability and how it fits, remarkably well by the way, the various geologic evidence; According to the model it can produce thermal expansion in the outer core, which through strain energy and mantle displacement produces the observed surface geologic processes. Or we go the other direction and show the graphs of solar magnetic field strength proxy 14C content (which I have done repeatedly without a direct counter argument from anyone) and its correlation to the historic climate history of the last 1100 years. This climate variation can further be shown to correlate to periods geologic resurfacing. The first being the warmer period that occurred just before and then concurrently with the tectonic extension that began around 17 Ma in the early Miocene and that may have lasted 7-10 million total. This then transitioning to the cooler period that followed which was concurrent to the building of the latest series of mountain ranges, Himalayas and Andes, which began rising after the warmer extensional period ended and just before the beginning of this current glaciation and then continuing up to the present. ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, SUPPLEMENT TO VOL. 49, N. 1, 2006 Mountain uplift and the Neotectonic Period CLIFF D. OLLIER School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia 9.2. EXAMPLES 9.2.1. Tibet, Himalayas, Kunlun Mountains (As an example, consider the timing of uplift in Tibet and its bordering mountains. Gansser (1991) wrote: «... we must realize that the morphogenic phase is not only restricted to the Himalayas but involves the whole Tibetan block. This surprising fact shows that an area of 2500000 km2 has been uplifted 3000-4000 m during Pleistocene time and that this uplift is still going on.» In places the uplift rate is 4.5 mm/yr (five times the maximum in the European Alps). According to Wu et al. (2001) from the Pliocene to the Early Quaternary (5-1.1 Million years) the Kunlun Pass area of the Tibetan Plateau was no more than 1500 m high and was warm and humid. They write: «The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years.» Zheng et al. (2000) concluded from sediments at the foot of the Kunlun Mountains that uplift began around 4.5 Million years.) This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde based on published data who has no connection to me or this work. This figure shows the climate record of Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) [1] constructed by combining measurements from 57 globally distributed deep sea sediment cores. The measured quantity is oxygen isotope fractionation ([[δ18O]]) in benthic foraminifera, which serves as a proxy for the total global mass of glacial ice sheets. This decrease in temperature aligns rather well with the mountain building (as noted above) of the same time period. “The extreme geomorphic changes in the Kunlun Pass area reflect an abrupt uplift of the Tibet Plateau during the Early and Middle Pleistocene. The Kunlun-Yellow River tectonic movement occurred 1.1-0.6 Million years” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation Quaternary glaciation also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the current ice age refers to a series of glacial events separated by interglacial events during the Quaternary period from 2.58 Ma (million years ago) to present. “That's why when I read arc's work it is obvious to me that it is little more than a stab in the dark.” That may be true, but it is due to the method by which it was constructed. You probably look at things from a more concentrated data framework. Massive amounts of data covering a narrow point of study. This model is rather the opposite; it is constructed like a web, tying a multitude of research by others together into a cohesive (and hopefully accurate) story. That is how my Asperger brain works, I can look at many unrelated parts and see correlations in their functions, and I draw a diagram in my mind that creates a framework linking them together in context. An accurate story at its most basic form is an assemblage of words or ideas into a logical order. Our observed reality should, at least at our scale, be seen as logical processes of interrelated mechanisms. We should not have to strain to see the causes and effects that cascade in all directions around us. This model is an attempt to do this, albeit in a somewhat tenuous way, not unlike a web. If done correctly it should have the symmetry that produces balance of the load, maintaining the even distribution of stresses. Or as you would say "incredibly tenuous links". But this is tempered by; What are the alternatives? What does the counter theories have to offer, besides broad ambiguities that for the most part do not even connect in a unified understanding the observable geological evidence let alone connect it to current and historic planetary thermal content including current and past climate variability. Just having a reasonable answer to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) sets it out front in this regard. If one was to read the first ten posts of this thread you should see enough to give pause to your certainty, the predictions of observations are quite acceptable when compared to the currently accepted theory. Or better yet, go to the plate tectonic site shown at the bottom of the page. It has many more predictions of observations that would seem unlikely without the model being reasonably on target. It is fairly simple and if the current model had comparable simplicity it would be an easier comparison, but the standard model has its own tenuous difficulties to overcome.

A city slicker is watching a Maine farmer remove some of the previous winter's crop of field stones that arrive every year. As the farmer approaches the road where city slicker is watching from he speaks up. City Slicker: Where did all those rocks come from? Farmer: The glacier brought 'em. City Slicker: Where did the glacier go? Farmer: Back for more rocks.

The tungsten filament in an incandescent light bulb is specifically rated for a given voltage, e.g. 120 volts, 230 volts etc. By not exceeding this limit the filament will achieve its designed power rating of wattage, e.g. 60 w, 75 w etc. without premature failure. By staying below tungsten's melting point of 3,695 K (6,191 °F) the proper electric current will heat the filament to between 2,000 - 3,300 K (3,140 - 5,480 °F) The specific resistance that the tungsten has to the rated voltage determines the current that causes the filament to emit light energy, but most of this energy is given off as heat. A lower voltage will increase bulb life. For example, by operating a 120 volt 60 watt bulb at 100 volts or less you will increase the bulb's life expectancy greatly. This is an old sign company trick to make those hundreds if not thousands of flashing lights on those old Las Vegas type signs last longer, they ran the bulbs at a lesser voltage to achieve the benefit of longer bulb life, saving a lot of money in maintenance costs.

The need or desire for social acceptance, whether self imposed pressure or of the group, is in play in all human associations.

Yes, some of these are downward displaced workers, they either have arrived from formerly greener pastures or started here and have been unable to breakout to blue collar work in manufacturing or construction trades because these employers are now preferring a lower wage immigrant work force. In 2009 when the economy hit the skids our company only cut 5 employees out of a total work force of 38. They were ones added during the previous "good years" and were not considered essential. Our company is a family owned business and it has operated these last four years with very low margins to keep this core group employed. Our competition laid off employees in mass and have chosen to supplement their rehiring with low wage immigrant replacements as the economy has recovered, these current american fabricators and assembly techs are training their eventual lower wage replacements. Our company will be having to compete against these lower cost competitors. I find it rather hypocritical when people raise hell about Walmart coming to a new area and harming local businesses with their lower wage employees and high volume wholesale buying power, and then turn around and think dumping mass amounts of low wage immigrant workers into the same local communities doesn't accomplish the same thing. I worked with a guy that was a fabricator at a company back in the late 1980's, he was paid then around $17 an hour, he now works at that other "transitioning" company for minimum wage. The guy is almost 60 years old and makes about half what he did in 1987. Please explain this current idea that "Walmart is bad for american workers and small businesses" while "dumping lower wage workers into the same market and displacing those same american workers and small businesses" is good for competition and America. It is only good for employers that will higher 30 worker for what they payed 15 american's to do previously. Wall street loves companies that will hire 300 workers for what they use to only "buy" 100 or 150 for. Wall Street loves american products that now can be made by lower wage workers, opening vast new markets to american exports. Wall street loves cutting costs, and really doesn't care if millions of workers and the businesses that want to do right for their employees get financially worked down to going out of business or giving up and reducing wages. Most of these are jobs that do not involve exports, they involve construction and fabrication of locally used products, but they have to sink or swim in the ocean of cheap labor. Its a free market and no one is standing up for these Americans. These jobs allowed them to buy their own homes or at least start to, they won't be able to do this now in this new labor glut. People know the middle class is shrinking from the bottom up, the blue collar American dream is dead and won't be brought back for minimum wage. Yes, the facts are that doubling production for half the wages is very profitable and produces increased tax revenues. Washington and Wall Street are loving the cheap labor, it looks good for America, but there are millions of workers that lose their dreams to the millions of immigrants that come here for theirs. So, the players behind cheap immigrant labor are; Wall Street, hmm. Those guys are always for the little guy right? And Washington, they just love us common people, always protecting us from those corporations. Gee, I don't feel any anxiety at all about the future. Oh, and the press that has self induced blindness to the millions of American families that have been, and are now being financially harmed by falling wages. Or the political parties that are so exited about getting a piece of this political pie. No, the facts show its just rainbows and lollipops from here on out. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12122 In 2001, following a three-year undercover investigation, federal prosecutors accused Tyson of conspiring to smuggle undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America to work in its poultry plants in Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri and Virginia, over a period of 7 years, in order to raise profits. Despite the testimony of managers that orders came from on high, a Tennessee jury controversially concluded in 2003 that the operation was run locally without the approval of the company executives. What do you think happens when these workers "escape" to outside employment, they get replaced by another . . .and then another . . . .and then another . . . . . . Again; Just as the treasury could print so much money it would lower the value of a dollar, an over abundance of cheap labor diminishes the value of the status quo living wage worker. This isn't about hiring workers for jobs Americans don't want, this is about under cutting lower middle income blue collar jobs and workers from below. Leaving this struggling fringe now trying to raise fast food employment to a living wage standard.

Diesel is a breed of its own, fewer repair shops and part availability, it would have to scale up to compete with gas. And that would dive up its price, taking away one of its advantages while making everything delivered by a diesel more expensive. Gas was so much more available in the past, small engines on farms and the first tractors were all gas. Same in marine engines, there were more outboards than even inboard gas engines, and there were a lot of those. It took many years for diesel to make inroads into those smaller applications, starting with the need to move larger machines. The really cool applications were in aviation starting with the Packard radial in 1928-29. The Germans though took it to a new level with the Jumo 205. prior and during WWII Image furnished by Tennen-Gas who has no connection to me or this post. If you had to choose between highly explosive aviation fuel or the safer kerosene it was an easy choice. Especially in war planes. I used to work with a guy that was training to be a navigator in b-24's, he said they were terrified of blowing up in mid-flight during training. The tanks were over filled by the ground crews so they vented as the planes climbed, he said the planes smelled of gas fumes. They had many solenoids that operated things like bomb bay doors, rattling from the shaking plane. He said he was flying in formation somewhere here in the states and the plane to their right just blew up. Diesel is a breed of its own

That video reminds me of the movie - A Beautiful Mind . . . . . . . . of course without any of the "Beautiful Mind" part.

It is relative to its surroundings, being poor in America may come with government subsidies that do not exist in the third world. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/11/09/too-much-of-too-little/ "There was a time when Terry Canales thought he knew the solution, and that solution could be accomplished through politics. Canales, a 33-year-old Texas state representative, grew up outside McAllen, surrounded by the poverty and obesity he called “the double deaths” of Hidalgo County. He had waited in line at the area’s ubiquitous drive-through convenience stores and watched people use their government Lone Star cards to purchase some of South Texas’s most popular snacks, paying $1 for hot Cheetos smothered with cheese or $2 for a Mexican snow cone covered with gummy bears and chili powder. He had seen children use food stamps to buy Red Bull energy drinks by the case, and he had seen some of those same children waiting in line at the medical clinic near his house where 28 people had diabetes diagnosed every day." Friday nights at our house is pizza night. Repeatedly, and including this last Friday, my wife observed customers paying full price for pizzas with state issued food cards. This last time the woman in front of her paid 30 dollars on a state card for two pizzas. My wife did what she does every Friday, bought our two with coupons for $15.

"it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the lowest wage earner to participate successfully in it." I guess I would explain this by using one of the more visible examples of a lowest wage job, working in a fast food restaurant. 20 years ago these jobs furnished motivated workers of a high school and college age an introduction and education into the workings of a modern food service business. These were considered temporary jobs by almost all of these worker, being just a stepping stone to earn and learn as they moved up in life. Many of these workers that did not move on to college would likely have left fast food employment for a manufacturing position, gaining experience, and in time, possible a living wage from added technical skills. This group has been recently spotlighted, they appear to not be leaving fast food employment, there appears to be a redefining of fast food by these workers as more of a long term - dare we say - career. Or at least one requiring a living wage. The question is why have they not found the living wage job that previously existed beyond fast food? http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/12/05/fast-food-strike-wages/3877023/ I believe the reason for this is these manufacturing jobs have been filled with lower wage workers, drying up this important step in the ladder of economic opportunity for many workers. I know this first hand. The industry that I have worked in for 34 years is under constant pressure to lower wages. How and why would they do this? Because a few companies have mixed into the work force minimum wage immigrant workers that they have no intention of ever paying the higher wages now paid. This requires my employer who pays the industries highest wages to compete with a substantial disadvantage. As the competition enlarges this minimum wage work force my employer must compensate through lower profit margins and cutting employee benefits. At some point they will probably do the same and another middle class job will go by the wayside. I'm talking about manufacturing jobs that pays our workers up to 3 times minimum wages. My dad raised 4 kids doing this for a living. My three sons are following in his footsteps, I hope this will not be a regrettable choice. My own job is to take these manufactured electrical advertising products (think Las Vegas) and install them at our customers businesses. Some of these customers are manufacturers themselves and they appear to be doing the same where they can, replacing higher wage workers for lower. My electrical licence has in the past guaranteed me and my loved ones a good living but even this is threatened from attempts to change our state to a "Right to work" status, meaning anyone can do the installation, including the welding and electrical work. This could be as much as 1/3 to 1/2 a cut in income if passed. Just as the treasury could print so much money it would lower the value of a dollar, an over abundance of cheap labor diminishes the value of the status quo living wage worker. This isn't about hiring workers for jobs Americans don't want, this is about under cutting lower middle income blue collar jobs and workers from below. Leaving this struggling fringe now trying to raise fast food employment to a living wage standard. So you see, you can grow an economy and lose the lower middle income jobs at the same time. You are not loosing the job just the value it had in contributing to a middle class life that is sadly on its way out. There will be little left of the blue collar lower to middle class but for public employees and the few surviving unions. "it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the lowest wage earner to participate successfully in it." As I inadequately explained, the modern economy can impose an accumulated adjustment of differed expenses. These can raise prices in almost all goods and services as these new inflationary costs are distributed downward through the economy. Where these meet the lowest wages they have a proportionate larger adverse impact on the workers buying power. Hurting those with the least amount of income the most.

I'm not an economist but I think the problem lies in the way that when an economy becomes increasingly larger, it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the lowest wage earner to participate successfully in it. In 1900 a family may have had only to deal with the monthly payments of rent or mortgage, energy costs of heating and cooking, groceries and incidentals. While most major cities had cheap horse drawn or even electrically powered public rail transportation systems. The average worker then, not unlike the worker now, would hope for an adjustment in wages to cover inflationary increases. The mechanisms that would increase the cost of living expenditures back then involved fewer players in the supply chain that delivered these goods and services to the end user. Compare this to now, where every aspect of our economy, and by extension our lives, involve vast interrelated dependencies. When the price of say fuel goes up it affects so many goods and services that the increased adjustments of costs not only cascade through the economy, but negatively impact those at the bottom of the economy the greatest. By the time an increase in wages is provided to the lowest earners it will be delinquent and even fall short in meeting the total of added expenses that the inflation imposed on prices. This is unfortunately the way increased costs are covered. The burden is shifted, not out of unconcern for low wage earners, but as the outcome of a vast adjustment that the total economy made to a change in the valuation of everyday goods and services within the economy. The stock market and key commodities form the crucible of our economy, their value in contrast to wages and other costs determines the strength of the economy, the industries and financial sectors operate around this core with those jobs furnishing middle class wages and lifestyles. It is the lowest wage jobs that are the farthest from the crucible that receive a disproportionate impact. The inflation increase is proportionately greater the lower the wages are, and, as in a small movement of the handle of a buggy whip produces proportionately greater movement in its farthest reaches, those at the economy's edges receive the greatest adverse effect on their finances.

Atmospheric pressure can really suck. . . . . err, I mean push!

When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not. Mark Twain

Here, use one of mine. Seems strange though, I've been called a crackpot, a troll and last week my favorite "He needs psychological help." I may be a little odd (and Stetson's post reads like my semi-biographic ) but I try not to take anything personal. It is as sure as the sun will rise that I will misunderstand many people here and they will misunderstand me, it comes with the territory.

There is a substantial naivete of anyone buying into this new version of the same old Marxism being peddled here. There will always be those that manipulate any system of economics, or more accurate, the government that administers it. Don't kid yourself democracies are our best chance. This other economic system suggested requires a new governmental system to administer it. One that will not be accountable as is now possible. Corruption is rampant in closed systems, Russia, China, N. Korea, see a pattern here. Even ones considered democracies such as Greece were unable to prevent corruption from establishing itself in every aspect of their government. Humans are incredibly selfish and will build into any system they can access a subset of mechanisms to enrich themselves, the Mafia and the drug cartels in Mexico and S. America should give you a measure of the degree a system can be corrupted. The irony in this economic system suggested in the video is that the degree of corruption that may be held in check by the transparencies we now have may be able to go unchecked to the levels now seen in Russia and China. Do you think these individuals just disappear? Like they won't be waiting to manipulate the next system? As for the price of food being a new economic player in poverty, I think the graphs below are self explanatory. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-america-spends-money-100-years-in-the-life-of-the-family-budget/255475/ "This is our story today: It is a story about how spending on food and clothing went from half the family budget in 1900 to less than a fifth in 2000." This article was derived from information furnished from http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/ I think part of the 39% spent on "other" in 2003 as compared to 13% in 1900 could be our lack of self control in our own personal economic choices. We buy a lot of crap we do not need and the majority of the money seems to go to China and others. You don't suppose that is why we are where we are. Though this would be under the food expenses category, do you ever see someone who is working a low wage job but eats at a fast food restaurant? 5 dollars a day five days a week is 1,200 dollars a year. Throw in the 5 they spent in the morning for coffee and a breakfast burrito and their situation becomes a little more clear. They need to take responsibility for there own financial decisions. Here's another point from the article; So if the typical American family feels squeezed, what's squeezing us? I have two answers: The first answer is housing and cars. Half of that orange "other" slice is transportation costs: mostly cars, gas, and public transit. A century ago, if you recall, 80% of families were renters and nobody owned a car. Today, more than 60% of families are home owners, and practically everybody owns a car.* The other answer, which you can't see as clearly in this chart, is health care. Health-care spending makes up more than 16% of the U.S. economy, but only 6% of family spending, according to the CES. One reason for the gap is that most medical spending isn't out of our pockets. Employers pay workers' premiums and government foots the bill for the elderly and the low-income. Government spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid has quadrupled since the 1950s in the most meaningful measurement, which is share of GDP. In short, health care costs are squeezing Americans. But the details of this squeeze elude the color-wheel above. We are paying for health care with taxes, borrowing, and compensation that goes to health benefits, rather than wages. The sentences in red are where the rubber meets the road. 100 years ago if you became sick and maybe died there was little cost incurred as compared today. We have in the last 100 years had a technological and pharmaceutical revolution in medical sciences. Each advancement has possibly allowed a previously fatal condition to be survived, the expense in this is not just related to this one period of treatment. But by surviving the patient will advance in age and be now subject to more frequent and expensive medical care, some life threatening and still survived with great expense only to allow the patient to advance to more medical care and expense. We are at the point now that elderly patients consume the highest levels of health care costs not just in the last years of their lives, but more increasingly the last few months. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/factsheets/costs/expriach/index.html The study used insurance company data on 3.75 million enrollees and data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. It found that 8 percent of health care expenses occurred during childhood (under age 20), 13 percent during young adulthood (20-39 years), 31 percent during middle age (40-64 years), and nearly half (49 percent) occurred after 65 years of age. Among people age 65 and older, three-quarters of expenses (or 37 percent of the lifetime total) occurred among individuals 65-84 and the rest (12 percent of the lifetime total) among people 85 and over. The total per capita lifetime expense was calculated to be $316,600.

Could lead to some interesting bio-engineered variation and adaptation . . . . . .of course with the eventual and almost obligatory insurgency and all out war to retake the position of supremacy.

A nice similarity to symbiotic relations between some plants and animals. The animal dispersing the seed and in turn receiving shelter or subsistence. Eventually, evolution may allow the plant to eat the fly that once pollinated it.

That sounds very reasonable and very interesting, I look forward to it. Something that has both a strong and immovable prime directive coupled to the capacity to quickly adapt and even more so, evolve, would make for a convincing scenario. This type of artificial intelligence might be inclined to send out massive amounts of interstellar probes, and more likely complete colonizing units that disperse across the galaxy like spores. With each allowed to adapt and change due to its own circumstances they may cycle back in billions of years and face off with each other, in a sort of galactic Wilson cycle of battles for supremacy. Not unlike what humans have done since dispersing out of Africa so long ago. Here's a twist, can you imagine any scenario where these adaptations would turn to a full biologic existence to adapt or would they stay in a more android or possibly cyborg configuration with or without central command and control? To evolve sometimes means to move to a total autonomous configuration whether biologic or artificial intelligence/techno-mechanical.