Earth's magnetic field

[sunspot]

The earth's magnetic field is assumed to stem from convection in the molten or liquid iron (nickel) that surrounds the solid iron (nickel) core. This is actually a very reasonable theory. A logical side affect would be the solid iron core becoming polarized magnetically within the magnetic field direction created by the eddies, just as a piece of iron will become a magnet if it spends enough time in a magnetic field. The electrons within the iron will line up with the magnetic field.

 

The earth has been shown to reverse its magnetic field with north pole becoming south and vise versa. Based on the logic of the first paragraph this would imply the convection somehow reversing. The question that occurs is what about the magnetic directional capactance within the solid iron core from the previous cycle? Would this resist the reversal of the field? The data of magnetic field reversal is not thorough enough to show the profile history to answer these questions. All we know is that it does reverse and will eventually reach maximium field strength.

 

These is another fly in the ointment. NASA has demonstrated that the core of the earth is actually rotating faster than the surface. This provides at least a partial explanation for the convection within the liquid aspect of the core. For example, if one was to spin a cylinder in a beaker of water, eddies would form around the cylinder and the water in the beaker would eventually begin to follow the direction of the cylinder's rotation. For the convection eddies within the earth's core to reverse would require a potential that not only has to overcome the magnetic polarization of the solid core, but also the eddie stemming from its faster rotation.

 

One may postulate that maybe the solid core reverses spin direction cancelling out the old convection eddies and making new ones. But this would imply that the water in the beaker would also need to start changing its rotational direction. There is no evidence that suggests the earth slows down its rotation, stops and reverses its rotational direction in space. This constant same spin implies that the core has probably spun in the same direction, maybe even faster in the past. Because there are two potentials (constant faster forward core rotation for distinct eddies direction) and magnetic capacitance within the core that would resist any magnetic reversal, but magnetic reversal does occur, I would conclude that an iron core is not in the center of the earth.

 

The way I see it, the King (iron core theory) is brain dead but is being kept artificially alive on life support. As long as the King's heart still beats there is no intellectual room for the changing of the guard. Out of respect for the King, we need to pull the plug and give the King a very dignified and respectful state funeral. This would create a hole in science that would open the door to new debate.

 

The King's cronies will not let this happen, even though he is brain dead, as long as his heart beats, even artificically, they can retain their positions of prestige and act as king without any resistance. In other words, all new comers have to prove their theories with the strict rules of science, while the iron core dogma is able to play under a different set of rules, without the requirements of logic, common sense and direct data. We need to pull the plug or dethrone the king and require it play by the rules of science. It should not be just grandfathered in by default.

[aguy2]

The earth's magnetic field is assumed to stem from convection in the molten or liquid iron (nickel) that surrounds the solid iron (nickel) core. This is actually a very reasonable theory. A logical side affect would be the solid iron core becoming polarized magnetically within the magnetic field direction created by the eddies' date=' just as a piece of iron will become a magnet if it spends enough time in a magnetic field. The electrons within the iron will line up with the magnetic field.

[/quote']

 

What if the N/S polarization is determined by something outside Terra, and occasionally the planet flops over and the poles remain the same? Doesn't the axis of rotation show some tendency to be slightly unstable?

 

aguy2

[sunspot]

I realize it is easier to criticize than create. So I will present another alternative. The observation that the core of the earth spins faster than the surface implies it is generating energy, way more energy that can be explained with magnetism alone. In other words, between the core and surface is not free empty space but a dense visco-plastic mineral phase. The core has to be able to overcome a lot of friction and/or chemical resistance, considering the core is almost a large as Mars, requiring a constant source of energy that has been going on for maybe 5 billion years. The measured magnetic field stemming from an iron core doesn't have enough the energy output, especially if the field is observed to reverse independant of this motion.

 

Gravity alone can not explain the faster rotation of the core. Gravity might work if the core was going at the same rotational speed as the surface. What these limitations seem to suggest is that matter is being pulled into the core causing the spin. It can not be a black hole or else the earth would have long disappeared and surface gravity would be much higher. The most reasonable explanation is fusion. The pulling in of matter for fusion would explain this constant extra potential for rotation.

 

The practical problem this fusion theory creates is that the earth does not have sufficient gravity to have ever started fusion. This is true. However, the way around this is connected to fusion eddies. When the sun was younger and less dense, the fusion rate of its core became physically limited by rate at which fuel could diffuse into the core. The result were fusion eddies forming. These fusion eddies formed to increase the surface area for fusion and overcome the physical limitation, i.e., the fusion fire spreading. The observation that all the planets have the spin direction, i.e., repulsive spin, peptuated the higher fusion fuel surface area and cause the eddies to repel each other. This essentially lit the fusion fire of the earth, who began to gather fuel reserves.

 

The sun eventually stole of the best fuel from the planet/stars making them rely more on a higher proportion of lower grade fuel such a light/medium atoms. The fusion is still going on in the earth, but at a very limited rate due to its lower gravity and the segregation of its best fuel (H2O) by the crust. The critical state of water allows water to dissolve its way through the crust and reach the mantle for slow diffusion to the core.

 

Another practical problem is that everyone believes that fusion needs to act such and such a way. Obviously this therory must be flawed since fusion has still not been succesfully harnessed using this theory. The only practical fusion that has occurred begins with a chemical starting point, like lithium deuteride for fusion in the hydrogen bomb. The magnetic containment theory has a problem along with its physics approach. I am not criticizing mindlessly, but am pointing to the lack of success using this approach. Many hard battles have been won but the war wages on.

 

The changing of the magnetic field direction is quite easy for a fusion core. There are two zones in core fusion, a fuel input zone and an heat exhaust zone. The fuel input is a rotation. The heat exhaust of the earth's core lines up with the poles because of the higher thermal gradient. The incumbant magnetic field direction will imply a gradual structural heat buildup in one direction. Structural equilibrium will require the core exhaust heat periodically change the primary direction of the heat output shifting the magnetic field.

 

The magnetic field also suggests earth fusion occurring in a different way than currently theorized for the sun. It is based on charge. It is essentally due to electrons and protons combining to make neutrons in the presense of protons. This converts the potential energy within the charge into heat. Essentially, the potential energy within the EM force becomes the potential energy of the strong nuclear force. The direction of the exhaust heat will reverse this creating charge. The net affect is fusion.

 

The entire solid core of the earth is not in a state of fusion. Only a small zone in the center is the fusion engine. The bulk of the solid core is more than likely solid oxygen.

[swansont]

The way I see it' date=' the King (iron core theory) is brain dead but is being kept artificially alive on life support. As long as the King's heart still beats there is no intellectual room for the changing of the guard. Out of respect for the King, we need to pull the plug and give the King a very dignified and respectful state funeral. This would create a hole in science that would open the door to new debate.

 

The King's cronies will not let this happen, even though he is brain dead, as long as his heart beats, even artificically, they can retain their positions of prestige and act as king without any resistance. In other words, all new comers have to prove their theories with the strict rules of science, while the iron core dogma is able to play under a different set of rules, without the requirements of logic, common sense and direct data. We need to pull the plug or dethrone the king and require it play by the rules of science. It should not be just grandfathered in by default.[/quote']

 

Any evidence to back up your claims?

 

Simulations of the dynamo theory have shown field reversals

[sunspot]

I read the article and it makes sense. However, on that picture is another anomaly, which is, why do seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west? The perfect earth sphere is flattend down north-south and/or there is more solid iron core material north/south.

 

If we combine this observation with the logic that the most heat conduction should go in the direction of the highest thermal gradient (toward the north and south poles), there shouldn't be more solid iron core north-south due to less heat/pressure in these directions. Isn't the heat/pressure what keeps it solid.

 

The poles should also be the areas of highest thermal convection keeping the magnetic fountain always orientated between the poles. In other words, although molten hurricanes and eddies may form and head toward the equator, these are just subsets of a larger more permenant convection which should keep the magnetic field direction orientated between the poles. These eddies will be pertubations that should occur more frequently than rarely. Reversal has the problem of the permanent one directional spin of the core.

 

With the fusion core model none of these are conceptual problems. The primary direction of the heat exhaust also heads toward the highest thermal gradient, which is toward the north and south poles. Exhaust heat is actually going in all directions, but more north and south due to this creating the highest thermal gradient. The solid nature of the oxygen core is an artifact of this fusion heat/pressure and gravity. The primary exhaust directions make more solid oxygen (mountains?) north and south. If the solid oxygen, either north or south, gets too high with structural/thermal capacitance, the direction of the majority of the exhaust heat will reverse, allowing the solid oxygen mountains time to cool and lower, while buliding the solid oxygen mountains up on the other side to restore balance. The lower thermal gradient with the equator makes less dense solid oxygen and more expanded visco-fluid oxygen, causing the equator to bulge and seismic waves to take longer to travel east and west.

 

If a solid oxygen core replaces a solid iron core, and we maintain the same calculated mass for the core, that means that there has to be about three times as many oxygen atoms as there were iron atoms. This should give up the higher density profile needed for the fusion.

[sunspot]

Another argument that makes an iron core conceptually inconsistent is abundance of oxygen within/on the earth. Oxygen is assumed to be the most adundant element on the earth. If we look at the surface, the crust is composed of mineral oxides. It is currently assumed that the crust formed before the oxygen atmpsphere, which was later created by plants. This implies that somehow all the atoms of the crust were oxidized while sparing the core, allowing the core to remain pure metal or iron. In other words, when the earth was fluffy and before the crust or core formed, the iron that would make up the core was somehow able to avoid oxidation.

 

One conceptual way around this is that a reduction potential may have existed in the fluffy earth cloud. For example, when smelting steel, one adds carbon to iron oxide to make CO2 and metallic iron. The problem with this is that there is not enough CO2, carbonate, bicarbonate, etc., on the surface to account for the amount of iron in the core.

 

Another conceptual way around this is to assume that the iron was added over time as meteors. This is reasonable, especially since iron based meteors have been found. But the problem with this is that the solid iron needs to migrate through the hot mantle. It would be like throwing an iron based meteor into an iron smelter. It would quickly conduct heat, melt and then become part of the molten mixture. Maybe the way around this is speed. If a large meteor was traveling fast enough maybe it could reach the core before it fully melted. Such speeds upon impact will probably vaporize much of iron. One might expect to find more iron oxide on the surface.

 

One additional earth genesis theory that might still work is, when the earth was just a material cloud, magnetic iron particles attracted together faster than gravity was pulling in the mass of the cloud together. This set the iron core in place before the rest of the materials were gradually added by gravity. But this still has the conceptual problem of the original fine iron magnetic particles seeing all the oxygen in the cloud. As such, even if an iron core did form, one would expect much more iron oxide in the crust than is currently measured.

 

The fusion eddie scenario leading to a fusion core in the earth does not have any of these continued genesis problems. If it started by increasing the fusion surface area for an existing fusion core, it will spin out of the original core with all the material it needs to get started. Anything else added by gravity or even fusion attraction potential will either be pulled in to be fused or be added as material stockpile. It can evolve independantly of any material composition, allowing the variety observed in the planets. Some scenarios would cause the fusion eddies to die of starvation, while others scenarios would allow it to sustain.

[[Tycho?]]

Does anybody actually read sunspots posts? Because I know I stopped long ago.

[Sisyphus]

'']Does anybody actually read sunspots posts? Because I know I stopped long ago.

 

Got to give him a hand, though: he's one of the most persistent and prolific crazy cranks I've seen.

[swansont]

Until he learns to post in "speculations" someone has to occasionally point out that his posts are not to be confused with accepted, tested physics.

[sunspot]

One has to admit although the iron core theory of the earth is considered accepted science, it has many conceptual problems. To explain these away one has to go out on the limb beyond proof or just plain ignor the data. If it was a new theory just submitted todayby me or anyone, it would not pass the scutiny of science.

 

In this post I would like to show how the continuiity of oxygen from the surface to a solid oxygen core, can easily explain all the layers of the earth. Before I begin I would like to present some background data.

 

Seismic data has revealed that the Earth is divided into several layers which have distinct chemical and seismic properties (depths in km):

 

 

0- 40 Crust

40- 400 Upper mantle

400- 650 Transition region

650-2700 Lower mantle

2700-2890 D’’ layer

2890-5150 Outer core

5150-6378 Inner core

 

The inner core and crust both appear solid; the outer core and mantle layers appear plastic or semi-fluid. The various layers are separated by discontinuities which are evident in seismic data.

 

The ionization enthalpies of oxygen are shown below.

 

 

 

The above ionization data was generated for oxygen atoms in rarfied space, i.e., vacuum. Inside the earth, the oxygen atoms are closely spaced because of the high pressure. This creates electron congestion where the obitals touch and overlap. The result is what I call ionization sharing. The congested electrons become ionized in the sense that they no longer belong to their original atom. However, the overlapping orbitals will reorganize the electrons to help lower the congestion, allowing the ionized electrons to become shared. The electrons of oxygen are ionized in the sense that oxygen loses monology control of its orginal electrons (endothermic). However because of the communtiy sharing of electrons, the orbtals of oxygen stay sort of full (exothermic). The exdothermic ouptut due to the sharing of commnuity electrons should lower the ionization enthalpy values relative to isolated oxygen in rarified space where orbital sharing can not occur. It is loosely like comparing the properties of gaseous and liquid water.

 

That being said, I would like to start at the surface of the earth and work my way to the core, through the layers of the earth and correlate these layers to the ionization sharing of the first six outer electrons of oxygen. The earth’s surface is dominated by the oceans which are composed of water and dissolved minerals. Because of the effects of weather and underground seepage, water is also somwhat distributed throughout the solid aspects of the crust. At the moderately high temperatures and pressures, which are found perhaps several miles within the crust, the water will change phase into a dense fluid when it reaches its critical point. In this critical water state, liquid-liquid water interactions are no longer supported, yet the high pressure maintains liquid volumes and fluid flow characteristics.

 

Water at the critical point changes its chemical properties such that minerals become more soluble. The solubility effect of critical water increases in the presence of acids, bases and small dissolved ions. Smaller amounts of critical water within high pressure molten fluxes of minerals will lower their melting point. The main point of these observations is that the critical state of water, combined with hydraulic pressure above and mantle heat below, allows water to be continuous from the surface to the mantle, first via underground liquid water/brine channels, then via hydrothermal and high pressure hydrated molten flux channels dissolved through the crust by critical water.

 

As we enter the upper mantle, surface and crustal chemical bonds can not longer form. This causes the crtical water to become oxygen, hydrogen and electrons. The upper mantle has one electron ionization sharing, leaving oxygen with the very stable 3-electron arrangement within its 2p orbitals (one electron in each 2p orbital). This stability is broken in the transition region between the upper and lower mantle. By the end of the lower mantle all the 2p electrons of oxygen are now being ionization shared. The ionization sharing within the D” layer between the mantle and fluid core region breaks the stability of the 2s electrons of oxygen and these begin to become ionization shared. The fluid aspect of the core ionization shares the first 2s electron. The solid outer core shares both 2S electrons leaving oxygen with monopoly control over its 1S electrons.

 

The last two 1S electrons of oxygen are extremely stable and would need something like a fusion core in the center of the earth for these to become ionization shared. Gravity alone would not suffice. The logical implication of the 1S orbitals electrons of oxygen, somehow, becoming ionization shared is that there is no longer structured electron repulsion between the oxygen atoms because they no longer have monopoly control of any their original electrons. This would allow the oxygen nuclei to approach much closer while being stablized by the community sharing.

 

If one assumes the same measured mass of the assumed fluid and solid iron core being expressed by a fluid/solid oxygen core, the implication is the need to squeeze roughly three times as many oxygen atoms into the same space. The ionization sharing lowers the spacing between atoms due to the stability inherant within community sharing, with only monopoly control electron orbtials remaining repulsive. The fusion heat goes into amplifying the community sharing, bringing the oxygen nuclei in closer. The hydrogen diffusing from the surface toward the fusion core brings its own electron into the commnutiy electrons, while having to increasingly squeezed between the increasingly compressed oxygen nuclei on its journey to the core. This creates a very efficient and frugal hydrogen diffusion limited final geometery for fusion.

[JustStuit]

You might want to include the pressure at various depths otherwise ionization energies mean nothing. Also, would these pressures strip water of hydrogen? You have said a lot of weird things, and you'll need some proof. Also, the further to the center of the earth you go, the lower the gravity. You might also explain how your speculation predicts as many things as the iron/nickel one and why it would be right. So far you've rambled.

[sunspot]

I am going to change directions and look at fusion. Fusion is very special in the sense that it unifies the four forces of nature. Even using existing theory, gravity begins the process to create pressure and heat, it brings EM force close together, leading to the nuclear forces and fusion. At the fusion zone, all four forces are happening/working together. There is no proof that fusion is an example of the unified force in action, allowing one force to become another, although this is essentially what is happening. For example, EM force essentially changes to nuclear force when neutrons form from electrons and protons and then stick via fusion.

 

If a fusion fire is lit, it represents a strong exothermic potential leading to more stable states of matter. This should create an attraction potential. Just like O2 and H2 will attract to a flame once the chain reaction leading to water is lit. With fusion being sort of a cousin of the unified force, there is some circumstantial indication that it can use attractive force to help attract materials to feed its exothermic potential.

 

The circumstantial data that supports this theory is the observation that the crust can defy gravity better than the surface water. In other words, the surface water has more fusion (fuel) potential value not only due to the hydrogen but also maybe due to the oxygen. The mountains are mostly low or no value fusion materials (minus the oxygen). This causes the water to be attracted stronger by the fusion core and the mountain less, allowing the mountains to rise highter. The oxygen and water content of the mountains will probably set a limit as to how high they can form on the earth. The very tall volcano on Mars, which is three times taller than Mt Everest, is propably indicative of less fusion potential and/or the lower water content on Mars. The surface of the earth is probably flat with respect to summation of gravity and fusion potential.

 

I was watching 60 minutes last night and there was a discussion about the melting of the ice cap at the north pole. It was attibuted to green house gases from industrialization. This would be totally logical if the polar melting/refreezing never happened before. If one combines the north polar melting with the impending shift within the earth's magnetic field, the fusion core is losing the high thermal gradient with the north pole. The primary direction of core exhaust heat is going to shift toward the south pole because of the higher thermal gradient. The south pole will go into an increasingly active seismic state.

[sunspot]

Ionization sharing is a type of chain reaction. Once an electron is ionized the pressure and overlap makes it harder to stabilize back to the old way. If it does, it kicks off a neighboring electron. Over billions of years, even without a fusion core, heat from the center and even radioactive decay is amplifying the ionization until the distinct layers of the earth are in place.

 

Let me turn this around, how does the iron core explain the distinct layers of the earth? Even factoring out the iron core theory, what is the state of the art that explains the layers and the distinct discontinuiites between the layers? These layers and transition regions need to reflect some sort of physical/chemical phase change within the properties of materials, which can be readily explained with oxygen and the ionization sharing of its six outer electrons.

[swansont]

One has to admit although the iron core theory of the earth is considered accepted science' date=' it has many conceptual problems. To explain these away one has to go out on the limb beyond proof or just plain ignor the data. If it was a new theory just submitted todayby me or anyone, it would not pass the scutiny of science.

[/quote']

 

 

What makes you think this is so?

[sunspot]

I believe that the earth is an integrated whole. As an analogy, our body is distributed into organs, muscles, heart, brain, etc., but all are integrated together to create one unified phenomena. The iron core theory is fairly satisfactory for just the core and magnetic field, although there are several key conceptual inconsistencies, that I have tried to point out. Beyond being the core, an iron core is disjointed from the rest of the earth. The magnetic field is assume to be too weak to explain much on the surface or anywhere else. There is no iron convection to spread the influence of the magnetic iron to the mantle and surface, etc.

 

The layers of the inner earth appear to reflect transitions between states of matter. Even with the convection within the fluid aspect of the core, needed for the iron core's magnetic field, and the convection within the mantle, the inner earth layer distances remain very steady. This implies it is more than a function of a gradient of material composition. With oxygen being the most abundant material on the earth, compression transitions of oxygen, or as I called it ionization sharing, is the most logical source of the layers. The first six ionizations of oxygen is quite do-able and correlates beautifully all the way to the core. However, one can not easily segregate ionization shared oxygen from an iron core, because of oxygen diffusion into the core. The result should be reflected as much more iron oxide on the surface.

[sunspot]

Weather and a Fusion Core within the Earth

 

If we look at weather on the earth, it is not only connected to the spin and the thermal gradients of the earth, but it is also connected to the evaporation and the condensation of water. The output of solar fusion potential, reaches the earth as both light and heat, and evaporates the surface water. The breaking of the hydrogen bonds which define the liquid phase of water energizes the hydrogen, hoping to pull the hydrogen to the sun. This is resisted by its chemical bonding to oxygen and its condensation as water as it reaches cooler zones higher in the atmosphere. The result is the formation of clouds and rain.

 

The solar fusion based energizing of the hydrogen of water, during evaporation, implies that the fusion potential of the hydrogen within the evaporated water becomes hotter than that of the surface water, and is loosely analogous to the fusion potential of the hydrogen much lower in the crust, i.e., earth’s fusion core sets up a hydrogen potential gradient to the surface. This separated higher fusion potential is centered on the lower potential defined by surface of the earth. One minor depotentiating phenomena is lightning.

 

Low pressure systems on earth are always associated with high water content. High pressure systems, are due to the coriolis affect and are usually not dependant on water content to form, although higher water content will lower their pressure. The low pressure systems are due to the condensation of the water. Water vapor takes up vapor space. As such, for any given pressure, less oxygen and nitrogen able able to occupy the vapor space when water vapor is present. When water condenses to form clouds and rain, the amount of gas present will decrease quickly, causing the movement of air to equalize the pressure. This air will often come from high pressure circulations.

 

Relative to solar induced evaporation, the earth will attempt to put the energized hydrogen of the atmospheric water into its proper place within the earth’s gradient, while being physically restricted by the buffer that is created by the oceans and crust. The excess fusion potential is released primarily as kinetic energy within counterclockwise spin low pressure circulations. The clockwise circulation of high pressure is connected to the rotation of the earth. Extreme potential needing to be released can create extreme weather dynamics like hurricanes and tornadoes.

 

If one took two wheels with the same spin and touch them they would repel apart. If they were spinning in opposite directions their spins help reinforce each other allowing them to stay close together like two gears. The opposite spin high and low pressure circulations allow them to reinforce each other and remain close so the pressure differential can equilibrate. If the earth randomly produced low pressure circulations, some with forward spin and some with reverse spin, some would repel the high pressure coriolis induced circulations. This would cause more water to collect in the atmosphere leading to catastrophic storms.

 

If one looks at the spawning of same spin fusion eddies, they come about to help increase the surface area for fusion, thereby increasing the rate of fusion and the amount of fusion attraction potential.The opposite spin low pressure weather circulations, relative to high pressure, reflect the opposite occurring. The additive eddies reflect an increased surface area way to decrease the solar energized hydrogen. This is induced by the fusion potential of the earth’s core, attempting to retrieve its fuel at the fastest rate.

 

When one considers powerful low pressure circulations like tropical cyclones, all the weather theory is in affect with the added necessity created by the earth’s fusion core, due to the sun trying its best to steal the earth’s hydrogen. Green house gases favor the sun and cause the earth’s core to have to put out additonal effort. These effords can make it harder for us living on the surface of the earth.

[CanadaAotS]

I've also heard a plausible theory for a fission core... a natural nuclear reactor as the core. Really, we could debate and debate but unless we dig a hole 5500 km or so we won't know exactly what is going on.

[swansont]

I've also heard a plausible theory for a fission core... a natural nuclear reactor as the core. Really, we could debate and debate but unless we dig a hole 5500 km or so we won't know exactly[/i'] what is going on.

 

Or, just on a lark, one could actually do some scientific inquiry. Y'know, do experiments and examine the evidence.

[swansont]

I believe that the earth is an integrated whole. As an analogy' date=' our body is distributed into organs, muscles, heart, brain, etc., but all are integrated together to create one unified phenomena. The iron core theory is fairly satisfactory for just the core and magnetic field, although there are several key conceptual inconsistencies, that I have tried to point out. Beyond being the core, an iron core is disjointed from the rest of the earth. The magnetic field is assume to be too weak to explain much on the surface or anywhere else. There is no iron convection to spread the influence of the magnetic iron to the mantle and surface, etc.

[/quote']

 

I asked for E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Not fitting into your new-age belief structure, and not understanding physics, doesn't qualify.

[sunspot]

I am trying to provide circumstantial evidence by showing how a fusion core within the earth can be used to explain and integrate a wide range of observations, i.e., almost anything. For example, a hurricane is a phenomena that is releasing a lot of energy from the water vapor that was stored in the atmosphere. One hydrogen bond does not seem like much, but if there are a lot of them it creates an amplified affect.

 

The rapid release of hydrogen bonding energy within a cyclone occurs even with the sun adding fuel to the fire (trying to keep water evaporated). Surface or ocean heating is also going contrary to the direction of the condensation of water (keeping the atmospheric water slanted more toward water vapor instead of liquid water). Yet the condensation into rain pushes forward at an accelerating rate. The warm air rising to get the spin going should also be counter productive to condensation. Fusion potential, as I call it, or the attraction by a fusion core for fuel, provides a potential that can overcome the contrary of solar and solar induced surface heat. The cyclone is loosely analogous to a forest fire, in the sense that the burning creates its own winds to help feed the fire. The winds help the fire but the combustion is the engine.

 

I have tried in the past to use existing data to support one point. I did this with my hydrogen bonding model for the cell. I narrowed myself to packed and unpacked DNA to show a potential difference, at the hydrogen bonding level. It did not matter because everyone expects to see things a certain random way and no amount of existing data is enough. Direct data would be much better, but this would prove a thesis for an integrated model that would supersede the current state of the art. Everyone seems to what to avoid the inevitable.

 

What is left for me is building highly integrated models. I have been presenting these piece-meal, trying to shift thinking, making the various parts seem both disjointed and unconventional at the same time. The MDT model for physics is highly integrated but is obviously very hard to understand in light of the mind set that is created by existing theory, because it is highly integrated instead of dissociated (specialized correlations). The earth core model is also highly integrated but should be easy enough to understand.

 

The same direct proof that I lack is also lacked by the iron core theory. What I do not understand is, why is the iron core not marketed as speculation, instead of a proven fact? It comes down to the politics of acquiring resources. Polititians hold the purse strings. Their nature is based on adherance to their political traditions, while using smoke and mirrors to manipulate. I guess the iron core theory fits right in. Logic and integration go againt the grain of political philosophy because it would means more integrated efforts instead of dissociated confrontations that waste time and resources.

 

I also understand something fundamental that few understand. The iron core theory is a cornerstone theory for scientific thought. In other words, there is a lot of related and unrelated science that is contingent on it remaining in place. If one pulled the plug on the iron core theory, a lot of other science would have to adapt as the thought building begins to sag and collapse. I did this in my mind two decades ago. It created a lot of need even in areas not directly related. It woulk have been easier to live the fantasy than go through the trouble of adaptive change.

 

The problem that remains is what should be done with the iron core theory considering the ripple affect? The answer is nothing. We should build a new house of thought right next door, built upon the fusion core counterstone. As it takes shape, others from the iron core house will want to help and move it. With the loss of structural weight, the iron core house will stabilize and become an historical landmark which helped us reach where we will be. If should still be taught in school because knowledge from the past teaches us about the present and lines us up with the future.

[Klaynos]

I am trying to provide circumstantial evidence

 

 

Proper evidence please...

[swansont]

The same direct proof that I lack is also lacked by the iron core theory. What I do not understand is' date=' why is the iron core not marketed as speculation, instead of a proven fact? It comes down to the politics of acquiring resources. Polititians hold the purse strings. Their nature is based on adherance to their political traditions, while using smoke and mirrors to manipulate. I guess the iron core theory fits right in. Logic and integration go againt the grain of political philosophy because it would means more integrated efforts instead of dissociated confrontations that waste time and resources.

 

I also understand something fundamental that few understand. The iron core theory is a cornerstone theory for scientific thought. In other words, there is a lot of related and unrelated science that is contingent on it remaining in place. If one pulled the plug on the iron core theory, a lot of other science would have to adapt as the thought building begins to sag and collapse. I did this in my mind two decades ago. It created a lot of need even in areas not directly related. It woulk have been easier to live the fantasy than go through the trouble of adaptive change.

[/quote']

 

Conspiracy theory and megalomania aren't the directions I would have gone, but I guess you have to play to your strengths.

[sunspot]

Point well taken. Sometimes I get on a roll and vent my frustrations. Getting back to the task at hand, which is an integrated model of the earth. There are two main things left that any integrated model for the earth should also be able to address. First it needs a model for earth core fusion without a lot of nuclear smoke reaching the surface, since it is not observed. The second has to do with the integration of the living state. Life has changed the planet. The oxygen atmosphere is the most obvious.

 

I would like to address the living state, at this time. If we look at the biomaterials of life they all have one important thing in common, which is hydrogen bonding. It is the basis for DNA packing and template relationships. The same is true of RNA. While all protein stuctures are based on hydrogen bonding along the protein helix. The major component of life or water is also dependant on hydrogen bonding to define its unique chemical properties. The hydrogen proton is the unification variable of the cell, i.e., chemical hydrogen proton. If one took away this variable all the biostructures would break apart,and the template relationships needed for genes on the DNA could not occur. The weak nature of hydrogen bonding allows it to be easily broken and reformed. This is what defines the fluid/flowing nature of the living state.

 

If we look at weather the sun evaporates water breaking the hydrogen bonds and causing them to have maximum potential. The earth does the opposite by forming clouds, rain and then merging the rain with larger and larger bodies of water to lower surface tension (there is residual hydrogen bonding potential in aqueous surface tension). These steps lower the potential of the hydrogen bonds. Within this range are the hydrogen bonds within all the biomaterials of the cell. Essentially two hydrogen bonding potential poles exist on the surfae of the earth. Between these poles a continuity of hydrogen bonding is formed. For example, plants store hydrogen based energy into reduced food materials. This is driven by the sun as photosynthesis. The animals eat the plants and metabolize this reduced hydrogen energy to form water, lowing the hydrogen bonding potential.

 

If we look at the DNA, it's activity is between hydrogen bonded DNA double helix and trransient open hydrogen bonds that reform at make RNA template or more DNA. All the hydrogen bonding formation reactions are from the earth side of the potential, while all the breaking of hydrogen bonding into transition states is loosely connected to the solar side of the potential. The solar potential is actually stepped down via metabolism and is expressed via ATP. The energy of ATP is about that of the strongest hydrogen bonds. This is way oversimplified but essentially the solar/earth potential, at the hydrogen bonding level, builds from both ends toward the middle and subdivides into finer hydrogen bonding gradients.

 

Currently, life is assume to form is a random way with selective advantage causing the best to continue and evolve further from there, etc. This would be the case if one ignors the impact of the hydrogen bonding. As an analogy, chemistry is based on atoms, electrons and orbitals and bonds. If we ignor the importance of this simple schema, then the chemisty of the earth would follow the same random path maybe taking billions of years to slowly build up enough water molecules to form a drop of water. It does not happen that way. There are natural electron potentials at work which define water directly even from a cooling ionized cloud. The biomaterials are the same way with respect to hydrogen bonding, in that basic principles of hydrogen bonding naturally lead to these materials.

 

Another analogy is someone deciding to build houses for a living who knows very little about residential construction. What they do is take all their wood and randomly nail and unnail it together in a wide variety of random patterns until a house somehow appears every ten thousand years of so. Or else, they rely on a plan that is very systematic, allowing them to complete a house every few months. The hydrogen bonding is the planner of biomaterials, with a basic plan, connect the gradient. There is room for variety. Altering the position of genes on the DNA will only lead to a very slight change in the hydrogen bonding potential of the DNA. Until fairly advance life, the subgradients are coarser allowing variety within the subgradient. But in the end, the major transitons of life, plant to animals, single cell to multicellular, etc., reflect the average hydrogen bonding potential state of life on the rise.

 

The human brain cells have the highest hydrogen bonding potential values of an cell in the body. This is reflected in their having the highest membrane potential. While more brain cells and more branching both reflect more surface areas for this highest potential. That makes the brain part of the solar side of the potential, i.e., inner sun. The potential with the earth keeps us buzzing around, with natural instinct allowing us to lower the hydrogen bonding potential of the surface life.

 

The fusion core of the earth is useful in that fusion potential should be able to influence the hydrogen protons of life. This not only keeps us grounded on the earth, but it creates an integrated potential on the surface that maximizes the lower of surface potential. That integration is reflected by the integration of nature. Humans are like a solar catalyist for lowering the potential of the surface.

[sunspot]

I will end this topic with a few closing remarks. When I began to conteplate the earth, the reality was that nobody can 100% prove what is going on in the core of the earth. It comes down to educated opinion. The approach I took was to see if it was possible to make an integrated model of the earth. I began with the standard theories and found that there were too many discontinuities. But then I relaized that this was an arifact of scientific investigation. In other words, for science to have begun, 100 years ago, with the assumption of the integration of nature, that would have made scientific investigation an order of magnitude more difficult. It was easier to break things down into bit-size chunks so we can begin to understand how the pieces work, first. But the theories of the ideal pieces don't always fit back together perfectly, so we use statistics to help factor out these tell-tales signs of a different integration, which conflicts with our understanding of the ideal parts.

 

In my case, I tried to use what we know to conceptually build a more integrated model. The parts are the fusion core model are not very differentiated in the strict scientific sense. This is where there is a class of philiosophy. But on my behalf the lack of integration is a short coming of existing theory. I am a community of one and felt that my time was better served building an integrated framework instead of a bunch of disjointed parts.

[dehammer]

ive always wondered something when ppl discuss the earths center as being a iron core. at that depth, and that tempature, how can anything, including iron, be solid. it would seem to me that the center would be molten iron nickle, not solid iron nickle. if thats the way it is, then the molten metal would be attempting to move along the magnetic lines, but would reach a point where they could not move after north and south then be pushed out to wards the poles by more molten metal moving outwards. couple this with the spin of the core and the fact that its not uniform, and there is plenty of chance for the core to change its polarity with no new theories needed to explain it.