TheSolarist Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 For many years now, like 30, I have been trying to work out what kind of mechanism could have started the evolution of life on Earth, and since I cannot accept the God concept and science has been unable to identify anything specific I decided to come up with my own idea. However, I am not a scientist and have no formal qualifications in this area, but what knowledge I do have is from years of research study, my own life experience and common sense with a vivid imagination. The following is just a small portion of my complex idea, and perhaps best represents the scientific possibilities to support the idea. I believe that the solar system is just a gigantic Atom, operating on the same energy principles as atoms but having only a single horizontal orbital plane. Therefore each planet is just a Negatively charged particle in orbit of the Positively charged Sun, and each orbital ring represents a different energy level like atoms. If this were the case, then the number of Negative orbital planets would determine certain characteristics relative to the solar system as a whole, just as it does in atoms with chemical characteristics like Hydrogen, Oxygen and so on. The fact that each planet moves through space at a certain speed determines Kinetic energy, and that each planet has a different chemical and mineral composition determines their specific physical energy. In addition to this there is the combination of gravitational forces between each planet and the Sun, which itself is influenced by the 12 nearest Star Constellations as it moves through space at a certain speed. The point is that the solar system should be seen as a generator of interactive energy, which can be combined just like any other mixture of energy influence to create any specific outcome. Now the Earth also generates a specific energy relative to its orbital position with intrinsic spin, exposed to the Sun's energy with alternating periods of Light and Dark, Hot and Cold over 24hrs times the 12 month orbital rotation. Thus one half of the Earth will be in Light for 12 hrs and the other in Dark for 12hrs, creating two opposite states between Positive and Negative conditions. In addition to this the Earth's Moon further regulates this alternating state on Earth, where the 28 day orbital cycle interacts with the Sun's energy and eclipses the Sun over different parts of the Earth. Although at certain times these alternating periods will change slightly because of the Earth's eliptical orbit, and also the angle of it's intrinsic spin exposing the North and South poles to longer or shorter periods of Light and Dark. This complex arrangement of influences between the Sun, Earth and the Moon creates a unique set of circumstances, where this Triad of forces interacts with certain Atoms on the Earth's surface. The most common atom being that of Hydrogen sustained by the Sun itself, upon which all other atoms are integral structural multiples. Although there are essentially two types of atoms; those that are Inert have their outer electron shells complete, and those that are reactive are deficient of one or more electrons in their outer shell. In addition to this there are a number of Isotopes, which are the same atoms but are either missing or have an extra Neutron making them slightly different. However, my knowledge of atomic physics is limited to the very basics, and all I know is that reactive atoms join together essentially attempting to complete their deficiency by sharing one or more outer electrons with other reactive atoms. Life on Earth is based on such reactive formations between atoms that create complex molecules, exposed to the same Triad of forces from the Sun, Earth and Moon (For example as a flower opens when the Sun rises and closes when the Sun sets into darkness, and the Moon influences the motion of water at high and low tides). Now imagine if all the other planets had a similar (but less powerful) effect on the surface of Earth, regulated by the cycle of their orbits and alignments along the horizontal ecliptic plane they could in fact influence the 'Life Atoms' to behave accordingly. Similarly the 12 Star Constellations through their influence over the Sun, should react just as atoms do when the proton is exposed to external forces influencing the energy levels of orbital electrons. That's not to say that the planets will change their orbital levels like atoms, but may otherwise cause changes within the planet's energy creating certain conditions. This may be the cause of Sunspots as a result of the Sun's differential rotation, being pulled along by each constellation in the Sun's orbital cycle and it's interaction with orbital planets. Whatever the cause of Sunspots the effects on Earth have been recognized by science, where the lack of Sunspots have had a dramatic impact of our climate in the past such as the "little ice age" for example. Although this all seems fairly scientific in substance, as I mentioned at the start, this is only a small portion of my theory and the rest is pure speculation. Since Astrology is not a recognized science as such, not the hocus pocus found in your local newspaper, but the geometry involved with the orbital rotations of each planet of the 360-degree radius and their influences on the Earth. The rest actually goes into the strange occurences of numbers that seem to be present in the geometric structure of things on Earth, and uses this to suggest that it cannot be a coincidence that life is based on these very same geometric patterns. (As above So below) Thus, the 360-degree rotation can be represented by the 12 Star points of the solar sphere in space, as 4 groups of 3 x 10 x 3 = 90 x 4 = 360 degrees, and so the 10 orbital bodies of our solar system will be aligned with each single degree of rotation every orbital cycle. The Earth seems to replicate these calculations in its position of 3rd orbital, taking 360 days of 12 months with 4 seasons, which is adjusted accordingly due to the Moon's 28 day orbit of Earth and the elliptical orbit of both round the Sun adding 5.4 days to the journey. Therefore, the driving force behind the evolution of life on Earth may be directly related to this numerical geometry, where Life Atoms are deficient in outer electrons and strive to become complete as one by sharing with others. Thus influenced by the complex array of cosmic energy only found on Earth, and so continue to multiply by replicating their IMAGE in accordance with the cycle of energy influences in time through the 360-degrees of geometry. The general definition of life is given as, 'the force existing in living things, which gives them the ability to change with the passing of time'. Such as sharing with others to become complete, evolving from one state into another under the influence of external cosmic forces. To help try and explain this theory I have created a short video animation following events from the Big Bang, and a series of 24 jpg slides showing the geometric similarities in the evolution of life on the Earth. The video can be seen on youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WciZMEfqP10 My other video on youtube explores my idea of how religion came about through misinterpretation of the environment at the beginning of human evolution, seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb9CAkH7CJY I will also be uploading the series of slides mentioned in video format soon. Well thats all for now, I need some sleep.............
Klaynos Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 I believe that the solar system is just a gigantic Atom, operating on the same energy principles as atoms but having only a single horizontal orbital plane. Therefore each planet is just a Negatively charged particle in orbit of the Positively charged Sun, and each orbital ring represents a different energy level like atoms. Atoms arn't like this at all, the electrons in atoms do not orbit the nucleus, and there are distinct finite, quantised energy levels. None of which is seen in the solar system The planets and the sun are not charged. If this were the case, then the number of Negative orbital planets would determine certain characteristics relative to the solar system as a whole, just as it does in atoms with chemical characteristics like Hydrogen, Oxygen and so on. The fact that each planet moves through space at a certain speed determines Kinetic energy, and that each planet has a different chemical and mineral composition determines their specific physical energy. In addition to this there is the combination of gravitational forces between each planet and the Sun, which itself is influenced by the 12 nearest Star Constellations as it moves through space at a certain speed. The point is that the solar system should be seen as a generator of interactive energy, which can be combined just like any other mixture of energy influence to create any specific outcome. Now the Earth also generates a specific energy relative to its orbital position with intrinsic spin, Why is it's spin intrinsic? exposed to the Sun's energy with alternating periods of Light and Dark, Hot and Cold over 24hrs times the 12 month orbital rotation. Thus one half of the Earth will be in Light for 12 hrs and the other in Dark for 12hrs, creating two opposite states between Positive and Negative conditions. "Positive and Negative conditions" can you explain that a bit? In addition to this the Earth's Moon further regulates this alternating state on Earth, where the 28 day orbital cycle interacts with the Sun's energy and eclipses the Sun over different parts of the Earth. Although at certain times these alternating periods will change slightly because of the Earth's eliptical orbit, and also the angle of it's intrinsic spin exposing the North and South poles to longer or shorter periods of Light and Dark. It's actually changing all the time as the earth slows... This complex arrangement of influences between the Sun, Earth and the Moon creates a unique set of circumstances, where this Triad of forces interacts with certain Atoms on the Earth's surface. The most common atom being that of Hydrogen sustained by the Sun itself, upon which all other atoms are integral structural multiples. It's far more complicated than just putting say five hydrogen (or deuterium) atoms together and it looking like a Boron atom. Although there are essentially two types of atoms; those that are Inert have their outer electron shells complete, and those that are reactive are deficient of one or more electrons in their outer shell. In addition to this there are a number of Isotopes, which are the same atoms but are either missing or have an extra Neutron making them slightly different. However, my knowledge of atomic physics is limited to the very basics, and all I know is that reactive atoms join together essentially attempting to complete their deficiency by sharing one or more outer electrons with other reactive atoms. Life on Earth is based on such reactive formations between atoms that create complex molecules, exposed to the same Triad of forces from the Sun, Earth and Moon (For example as a flower opens when the Sun rises and closes when the Sun sets into darkness, and the Moon influences the motion of water at high and low tides). It'd be interesting to work out at what range the EM force is stronger than gravity, gravity would certainly have little to do with the bonds... Now imagine if all the other planets had a similar (but less powerful) effect on the surface of Earth, regulated by the cycle of their orbits and alignments along the horizontal ecliptic plane they could in fact influence the 'Life Atoms' to behave accordingly. Similarly the 12 Star Constellations through their influence over the Sun, should react just as atoms do when the proton is exposed to external forces I don't really understand this. influencing the energy levels of orbital electrons. That's not to say that the planets will change their orbital levels like atoms, but may otherwise cause changes within the planet's energy creating certain conditions. This may be the cause of Sunspots as a result of the Sun's differential rotation, being pulled along by each constellation in the Sun's orbital cycle and it's interaction with orbital planets. Whatever the cause of Sunspots It's a magnetic effect which damages convection. the effects on Earth have been recognized by science, where the lack of Sunspots have had a dramatic impact of our climate in the past such as the "little ice age" for example. Although this all seems fairly scientific in substance, as I mentioned at the start, this is only a small portion of my theory and the rest is pure speculation. Since Astrology is not a recognized science as such, not the hocus pocus found in your local newspaper, but the geometry involved with the orbital rotations of each planet of the 360-degree radius and their influences on the Earth. That's because, if you're in a room with say 5 other people each of those people has a greater gravitational pull on you than any of the planets... The rest actually goes into the strange occurences of numbers that seem to be present in the geometric structure of things on Earth, and uses this to suggest that it cannot be a coincidence that life is based on these very same geometric patterns. (As above So below) Thus, the 360-degree rotation can be represented by the 12 Star points of the solar sphere in space, as 4 groups of 3 x 10 x 3 = 90 x 4 = 360 degrees, and so the 10 orbital bodies of our solar system will be aligned with each single degree of rotation every orbital cycle. The Earth seems to replicate these calculations in its position of 3rd orbital, taking 360 days of 12 months with 4 seasons, which is adjusted accordingly due to the Moon's 28 day orbit of Earth and the elliptical orbit of both round the Sun adding 5.4 days to the journey. The good ol' playing with numbers, if you pick the right ones you can prove pretty much anything from them....you know that months and seasons are completely arbitary? And that large parts of the world have 2 seasons, wet and dry. Therefore, the driving force behind the evolution of life on Earth may be directly related to this numerical geometry, where Life Atoms What is a "Life Atom"? are deficient in outer electrons and strive to become complete as one by sharing with others. Thus influenced by the complex array of cosmic energy only found on Earth, and so continue to multiply by replicating their IMAGE I've no idea how this could happen without nuclear processes happening on the earth. in accordance with the cycle of energy influences in time through the 360-degrees of geometry. The general definition of life is given as, 'the force existing in living things, which gives them the ability to change with the passing of time'. Have a read of: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31518 Such as sharing with others to become complete, evolving from one state into another under the influence of external cosmic forces. To help try and explain this theory I have created a short video animation following events from the Big Bang, and a series of 24 jpg slides showing the geometric similarities in the evolution of life on the Earth. The video can be seen on youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WciZMEfqP10 My other video on youtube explores my idea of how religion came about through misinterpretation of the environment at the beginning of human evolution, seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb9CAkH7CJY I will also be uploading the series of slides mentioned in video format soon. Well thats all for now, I need some sleep.............
TheSolarist Posted June 24, 2008 Author Posted June 24, 2008 (edited) Atoms arn't like this at all, the electrons in atoms do not orbit the nucleus, and there are distinct finite, quantised energy levels. None of which is seen in the solar system The planets and the sun are not charged. In my 'unscientific' view, the planets are moving through space and therefore must generate a specific Kinetic energy relative to their mass and velocity, thus creating a magnetic field surrounding that mass and giving it a Charge accordingly. Why is it's spin intrinsic? The Earth spins about it's axis tilted at an angle as it orbits the Sun giving it angular momentum, and since the Earth's magnetic axis and it's rotation axis are so close together and often become aligned due to Earth's 'wobble' factor then the spin is intrinsic like an electron. "Positive and Negative conditions" can you explain that a bit? The term positive and negative can generally be defined as opposite forces, which can include anything having a spectral range between the two opposite ends. The opposite of light is dark with intermediate levels of colour, and the opposite of hot is cold with intermediate thermal levels. Since Light and heat are essential elements for life to exist, any variations between positive and negative conditions will influence living cells. It's actually changing all the time as the earth slows... The energy from the Sun is greater when the Earth is closest and therefore less when further away along the eliptical orbit, and when the Moon passes in between the Earth and Sun during an eclipse the energy from the Sun is blocked. It's far more complicated than just putting say five hydrogen (or deuterium) atoms together and it looking like a Boron atom. If complex atoms can be stripped of their protons, neutrons and electrons one by one, you would be left with the most basic Hydrogen atom. Likewise if you add the same one by one you can construct the complex atoms. It'd be interesting to work out at what range the EM force is stronger than gravity, gravity would certainly have little to do with the bonds... Gravity is not the issue here, it is the energy influences from the Sun that interacts with the Earth and Moon, which in combination influences living things. Sunlight influences a flower to open and close, and as far as I am aware the cycles of the Moon influences the female menstruation cycles. I don't really understand this. Assuming that all bodies of mass moving through space at a certain speed generates a certain Kinetic energy, and that the physical characteristics of that mass radiates a certain electromagnetic energy then each planet in orbit of the Sun can be no different. That energy must go somewhere as it cannot be destroyed, it must therefore fall into the pull of the Sun's gravity passing every other planet in the process. On the part of the 12 nearest Star Constellations that influence the Sun's orbital motion, they also radiate specific energy, such as light photons, which must reach this solar system for it to be seen on Earth. Furthermore, the Earth is constantly being bombarded by Cosmic energy, which must have some degree of influence on the living organisms. It's a magnetic effect which damages convection. Yes, but the effect is caused by the 11 year cycle of the Sun's orbital motion as it passes each Star Constellation in turn, and the additional interaction with the orbital planets. That's because, if you're in a room with say 5 other people each of those people has a greater gravitational pull on you than any of the planets... The gravitational pull of other planets would have no effect on Earth people, but the combination of Astrological Cosmic energy bombarding the Earth could cause changes. The good ol' playing with numbers, if you pick the right ones you can prove pretty much anything from them....you know that months and seasons are completely arbitary? And that large parts of the world have 2 seasons, wet and dry. Just my observations, see my new video now ulpoaded on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckJjbLpodaE What is a "Life Atom"? Metal for example cannot join with other metals unless it is heated beyond it's limit and melts, only then can it be combined to create an alloy of such. Life atoms on the other hand, do not require this extreme force in order for it to change it's form. (Hence my speculation that a much weaker force must be present to influence these atoms to behave the way that they do, i.e, energy from the orbital planets). I've no idea how this could happen without nuclear processes happening on the earth. My point exactly. Nothing happens without a reason, and as science cannot explain how the 'Nuclear Processes' of life were kick started in the first place, my speculation is that external forces present within the solar system reaching the Earth have something to do with it. Its either that or perhaps there is some dude up there playing around with us. I realize that my knowledge is limited, but most of my ideas make logical sense to me, although my science may not be up to standard I'm trying to look outside the box. You see I think science looks far too deep into the workings of atoms and too far out into space, looking for answers that could well be right in front of them. Edited June 24, 2008 by TheSolarist
Klaynos Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 In my 'unscientific' view, the planets are moving through space and therefore must generate a specific Kinetic energy relative to their mass and velocity, thus creating a magnetic field surrounding that mass and giving it a Charge accordingly. Kinetic energy is frame dependent, what you measure from the rest frame of the earth will be different from what you measure from the rest frame of the sun. The Earth for example has no kinetic energy in it's rest frame. The Earth spins about it's axis tilted at an angle as it orbits the Sun giving it angular momentum, and since the Earth's magnetic axis and it's rotation axis are so close together and often become aligned due to Earth's 'wobble' factor then the spin is intrinsic like an electron. But it's not intrinsic, the earth is physically spinning, whereas electrons are not. The term positive and negative can generally be defined as opposite forces, which can include anything having a spectral range between the two opposite ends. The opposite of light is dark with intermediate levels of colour, and the opposite of hot is cold with intermediate thermal levels. Since Light and heat are essential elements for life to exist, any variations between positive and negative conditions will influence living cells. So in this case it's whether that part of the earth is illuminated or not ok. Temperature is a requirement, and is linked highly with the intensity from the star. The energy from the Sun is greater when the Earth is closest and therefore less when further away along the eliptical orbit, OK, the intensity of the radiation is greater closer to the sun. and when the Moon passes in between the Earth and Sun during an eclipse the energy from the Sun is blocked. If complex atoms can be stripped of their protons, neutrons and electrons one by one, you would be left with the most basic Hydrogen atom. Likewise if you add the same one by one you can construct the complex atoms. OK, but the shapes etc... are abit more complicated than just bigger versions of it. Gravity is not the issue here, it is the energy influences from the Sun that interacts with the Earth and Moon, which in combination influences living things. Sunlight influences a flower to open and close, and as far as I am aware the cycles of the Moon influences the female menstruation cycles. So we're just talking about the intensity due to the sun ok, this is many orders of magnitude greater than reflected light from the other planets. Assuming that all bodies of mass moving through space at a certain speed generates a certain Kinetic energy, and that the physical characteristics of that mass radiates a certain electromagnetic energy then each planet in orbit of the Sun can be no different. Actually the do radiate differently, it depends on lots of things, the intensity from the sun (basically closeness), the material the planet is made out of, especially clouds and stuff, Venus has a massive surface temperature but doesn't radiate that much because it has a massive greenhouse effect. That energy must go somewhere as it cannot be destroyed, it must therefore fall into the pull of the Sun's gravity passing every other planet in the process. What energy? The radiated energy? Well it's photons so it's got a velocity greater than the suns escape velocity, there's also some energy loss in the planets orbits due to friction this goes into heating the interplanetary dust... On the part of the 12 nearest Star Constellations that influence the Sun's orbital motion, they also radiate specific energy, such as light photons, which must reach this solar system for it to be seen on Earth. Furthermore, the Earth is constantly being bombarded by Cosmic energy, which must have some degree of influence on the living organisms. Yeah, ok, but the influence is pretty much nothing and swamped by photons from the sun. Yes, but the effect is caused by the 11 year cycle of the Sun's orbital motion as it passes each Star Constellation in turn, and the additional interaction with the orbital planets. Can you cite references for this, as I can't find any. The gravitational pull of other planets would have no effect on Earth people, but the combination of Astrological Cosmic energy bombarding the Earth could cause changes. It's all swamped by the sun, and that's only effect is bombarding with photons... unless you're in a windowless room, or at night, in which case it's mostly neutrinos from the sun and you don't interact with them, and the other sources of photos are really nothing compared to the daytime sun. Street lights would have a greater effect. Just my observations, see my new video now ulpoaded on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckJjbLpodaE Metal for example cannot join with other metals unless it is heated beyond it's limit and melts, What about rust? Try and get ice to react without changing it to water... only then can it be combined to create an alloy of such.Life atoms on the other hand, do not require this extreme force in order for it to change it's form. (Hence my speculation that a much weaker force must be present to influence these atoms to behave the way that they do, i.e, energy from the orbital planets). There's no evidence for there being weaker forces involved. My point exactly. Nothing happens without a reason, and as science cannot explain how the 'Nuclear Processes' of life were kick started in the first place, My point was you are describing nuclear processes, which do NOT occur on earth except where humans have created them... And very heavy elements, whereas life is mostly light elements. my speculation is that external forces present within the solar system reaching the Earth have something to do with it. Its either that or perhaps there is some dude up there playing around with us. We'd be able to measure them if they where great, and they would play havoc with nano scale experiments. I realize that my knowledge is limited, but most of my ideas make logical sense to me, I appreciate that. But science is harsh people expect you to answer all the difficult questions... although my science may not be up to standard I'm trying to look outside the box. You see I think science looks far too deep into the workings of atoms and too far out into space, looking for answers that could well be right in front of them.
TheSolarist Posted June 24, 2008 Author Posted June 24, 2008 Kinetic energy is frame dependent, what you measure from the rest frame of the earth will be different from what you measure from the rest frame of the sun. The Earth for example has no kinetic energy in it's rest frame. There is no rest frame associated with the Sun, Earth or the planets as they are all moving through space at a certain speed. Everything has Kinetic energy, the Frame of Reference is only relevant if you want to know how much Kinetic energy a body of mass has. But it's not intrinsic, the earth is physically spinning, whereas electrons are not. If electrons had no spin then they would have no magnetic field associated with their electric charge, which was discovered by Paul Driac in the 1930's. see web site below...... http://plus.maths.org/issue22/features/spin/index.html So in this case it's whether that part of the earth is illuminated or not ok. Temperature is a requirement, and is linked highly with the intensity from the star. Illumination is not the issue, it it the process of Photosynthesis converting light into energy required for life to exist, if there was no Sun light (Energy Radiation) then life could not have evolved the way it has on Earth. Furthermore, this energy radiation needs to be regulated by some means to avoid destroying living cells, which is achieved by the specific characteristics of the Earth's orbital spin and it's relationship with the Sun and Moon and is why only Earth has life. Of course temperature is a requirement, but if it is too hot like Venus or too cold like Neptune, then life could not exist either and therefore thermal regulation is also necessary. OK, but the shapes etc... are abit more complicated than just bigger versions of it. Yes, and this is where geometry comes into the equation, why do you think these creationists and Inteligent Design ideas claim that God created everything, because science cannot explain it. Apart from random creation which is a hit or miss situation, i.e, it either happens or it does not. There is only one other explanation in my 'unscientific' opinion for such complex designs found in the shape of things, and that is through the geometry of the solar system and my speculative energy influences on the Earth. Every shape can be found through the geometry of the 360-degree radius, which can be mapped out using the mathematical calculations of Astrology. Actually the do radiate differently, it depends on lots of things, the intensity from the sun (basically closeness), the material the planet is made out of, especially clouds and stuff, Venus has a massive surface temperature but doesn't radiate that much because it has a massive greenhouse effect. Not all energy radiated is heat and light, like you said it depends on the chemical structure of the planets, electromagnetic energy is not restricted by such greenhouse effects. What energy? The radiated energy? Well it's photons so it's got a velocity greater than the suns escape velocity, there's also some energy loss in the planets orbits due to friction this goes into heating the interplanetary dust... Each planet has a range of different energy radiation levels determined by their mass, composition, distance from the Sun and orbital speed, and includes the electromagnetic spectrum, gravitational energy, Kinetic energy, thermal energy etc,. Since as you say that photons have a velocity greater than the Sun's escape velovity, the rest are more likely to be subjected to the Sun's gravitational field and not escape. Therefore this 'Interplanetary dust' could carry the energy between planets, in addition to other 'Carrier Waves' capable of transfering energy within the solar system. Yeah, ok, but the influence is pretty much nothing and swamped by photons from the sun. Most Cosmic energy that bombards the Earth will never be swamped by the photons from the Sun, since they will strike the dark side of the Earth influenced only by magnetic fields. Can you cite references for this, as I can't find any. The reference below is new to me from what I knew several years ago, but the 11 year cycle has remained unchanged. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2003/03-097.html Jupiter orbit and sunspots http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980127d.html It's all swamped by the sun, and that's only effect is bombarding with photons... unless you're in a windowless room, or at night, in which case it's mostly neutrinos from the sun and you don't interact with them, and the other sources of photos are really nothing compared to the daytime sun. Street lights would have a greater effect. Yes, but I was not talking about people in a room that was your idea, this whole discussion is about what may or may not have happened to kick start life on Earth. What about rust? Try and get ice to react without changing it to water... Rust is a corrosion of metal caused by environmental conditions, it still cannot combine with other metal (unless you used super glue), ICE on the other hand is not a metal, if you had the time you could breath on an ice cube and melt it then just pour it in with other water which can then be frozen again. There's no evidence for there being weaker forces involved. A magnetic field is such a weaker force that exerts influence on electrically charged material for example. My point was you are describing nuclear processes, which do NOT occur on earth except where humans have created them... And very heavy elements, whereas life is mostly light elements I'm thinking of the strong and weak nuclear forces in atoms. We'd be able to measure them if they where great, and they would play havoc with nano scale experiments. Perhaps we would be able to measure greater forces, but I'm speculating about weaker forces. I appreciate that. But science is harsh people expect you to answer all the difficult questions... Wish I'd never jumped into the deep end with so much info, its taken me ages to go through this, but I'm enjoying it......
Bignose Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 There is no rest frame associated with the Sun, Earth or the planets as they are all moving through space at a certain speed. Everything has Kinetic energy, the Frame of Reference is only relevant if you want to know how much Kinetic energy a body of mass has. No, you aren't understanding the concept of frames of reference. Start out with an empty space with only two balls in it, each with a mass of 1 kg. One ball is moving at 1 m/s the other at 2 m/s. It doesn't matter ball you choose as a frame of reference, but the one you pick as the reference has no kinetic energy and the other has 1 J of kinetic energy. So which one has more kinetic energy? You cannot say, any frame of reference is as valid as any other. No one frame is better than any other. Now, let's look at the Earth. It has kinetic energy from it's rotation about the Sun. But, there is also some from it's rotation from bring in the spiral arm of the Milky Way. The Milky Way is also moving through space, and space itself is expanding. The really important thing to note is that there is no fixed point in space where you can sit back and just tally these things up. So, what kinetic energy is important? The kinetic energy of the rotation about the sun? The rotation about the galactic center? How you even calculate these numbers is 100% completely dependent upon how you look at situation. Do you pick a frame where you are moving with the Milky Way? Then the movement of the galaxy itself means that there is no KE from that. How about a frame where the Sun is still... then there is only KE from the revolutions about the Sun. How about a frame where the Earth is still... then the earth has 0 KE. Finally, it is a fundamental principle of modern physics that there is no such thing as a preferred frame. That is to say, that there is no one "right" frame or any "wrong" frames. They are all equivalent. In this way, just basing a theory on a single kinetic energy is very troublesome, because there is no "right" KE or "wrong" KE -- it is all 100% dependent on your frame. And as near as we can tell, the laws of nature are frame independent -- the laws work no matter what frame of reference we use.
ydoaPs Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Kinetic Energy is frame dependent. If you don't believe me, solve the word problem in the thread I linked to.
TheSolarist Posted June 25, 2008 Author Posted June 25, 2008 Looks like this is all way beyond me. So if I'm on ball 1 being the reference, only the other ball has Kinetic energy at that time. Then if I jump onto the other ball 2 the Kinetic energy comes with me from ball 1. If that were the case, then in reality both balls do have Kinetic energy moving through space, is that what it means???
Bignose Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Looks like this is all way beyond me. So if I'm on ball 1 being the reference, only the other ball has Kinetic energy at that time. Then if I jump onto the other ball 2 the Kinetic energy comes with me from ball 1. If that were the case, then in reality both balls do have Kinetic energy moving through space, is that what it means??? No, what it means is that kinetic energy is completely, 100%, totally, and wholly determined by what reference frame you pick. And, since there is no such thing as a "preferred" reference frame, then any theories based on absolute values of the kinetic energy have to be able to take all reference frames into account. Specifically, you cannot specifically say "item x has y Joules of kinetic energy" -- you'd have to say "in reference frame z, item x has y Joules of KE" you have to be very specific about the reference frame.
TheSolarist Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 But is this not just a value of perception? Regardles of the preferred frame of reference, either a body of mass moving through space has Kinetic energy or it does not. Forget about people, they are not the issue here, what happens to the Potential energy of a body of mass moving through space at a certain speed if it is not converted into Kinetic energy?? What happens when a body of mass collides with another if it has no Kinetic energy?? Its like driving a car along a road at 100mph and you hit a brick wall, the Kinetic energy of the car would most likely demolish the wall and the car, compared to a car driving at 10mph which would only result in minor damage to the car and a few chips off the wall. You cannot say that because the car you are in is you reference frame that it has no Kinetic energy, when the car hits the wall the results will always be the same regardless of where you are. I clearly do not understand your notion of frames of reference and how this could make the Kinetic energy of an object void, has physics changed so much that it ignores the very principles of its foundation.
Klaynos Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 But is this not just a value of perception? Regardles of the preferred frame of reference, either a body of mass moving through space has Kinetic energy or it does not. Forget about people, they are not the issue here, what happens to the Potential energy of a body of mass moving through space at a certain speed if it is not converted into Kinetic energy?? You're still implying a preferred reference frame, things have KE when compared to other things, with PE -> KE you ask where it would go well if you consider yourself to be at rest which is perfectly valid in an inertial frame, then you would see all the PE converted into KE of the other body. What happens when a body of mass collides with another if it has no Kinetic energy?? For the collision to occure one of the objects must have been moving relative to the other so that one had the KE. Its like driving a car along a road at 100mph and you hit a brick wall, the Kinetic energy of the car would most likely demolish the wall and the car, compared to a car driving at 10mph which would only result in minor damage to the car and a few chips off the wall. You cannot say that because the car you are in is you reference frame that it has no Kinetic energy, when the car hits the wall the results will always be the same regardless of where you are. This is simple to explain, in the rest frame of the car the car has no KE, but the wall has allot of KE... I clearly do not understand your notion of frames of reference and how this could make the Kinetic energy of an object void, has physics changed so much that it ignores the very principles of its foundation. This is the theory of relativity, it's about 300 years old, Galileo Galilei came up with it, and then Newton worked on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_relativity
Edtharan Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Its like driving a car along a road at 100mph and you hit a brick wall, the Kinetic energy of the car would most likely demolish the wall and the car, Another way to look at it is what happens to a stationary car that is hit be a wall travelling at 100km/h? /rhetorical question It is the exactly the same as a car travelling at 100km/h and hitting a wall. Or what happens if a car is travelling at 50km/s and is hit by a wall travelling at 50km/s. They are all the same. compared to a car driving at 10mph which would only result in minor damage to the car and a few chips off the wall. You cannot say that because the car you are in is you reference frame that it has no Kinetic energy, when the car hits the wall the results will always be the same regardless of where you are. What you have done here is to not only change reference frames, but change the velocity in all reference frames as well. When we are describing these things, you have to keep track of which frame of reference you are describing it in. In this, you have kept the frame of reference of the wall, and change the velocity of the car compared to that. Lets use 3 frames of reference: The Car, The Wall and a Chase Camera. So, compared to the wall the car is travelling at 100km/h and the Chase Camera is travelling at 90km/h. This is the frame of reference of The Wall Compared to the Car, the wall is travelling at 100km/h and the Chase Camera is travelling at 10km/h. This is the frame of reference of the Car. Compared to the Chase Camera, the Car is moving at 10km/h and the Wall is moving at 90km/h. This is the frame of reference of the Chase Camera. SO, what is the kinetic energy of the Car as compared to the Wall, in the Wall's frame of reference? What is the Kinetic Energy of the Car compared to the Chase Camera's frame of reference?
TheSolarist Posted June 27, 2008 Author Posted June 27, 2008 I have taken the time to read through the site you suggested, and could find nothing to say that Kinetic energy of an object does not exist. Like I said it is just a value of perception, since the Relativity of Kinetic energy is still there regardless of any frame of reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_relativity A frame of reference is a particular perspective from which the universe is observed. In physics, it refers to a provided set of axes from which an observer can measure the position and motion of all points in a system, as well as the orientation of objects in it. There are two types of reference frames: inertial and non-inertial. An inertial frame of reference is defined as one in which Newton's first law holds true. That is, one in which a free particle travels in a straight line (or more generally a geodesic) at constant speed, or is at rest. A non-inertial frame of reference, therefore, is one in which a free particle does not travel in a straight line at constant speed. For example, a coordinate system centered at a point on the earth's surface. This frame of reference rotates around the centre of the earth which produces a fictitious force known as the Coriolis force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy The kinetic energy of an object is the extra energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. Negative work of the same magnitude would be required to return the body to a state of rest from that velocity. My whole point at the start was to suggest that the energy from solar system planets may have had influence over the evolution of life, through the Kinetic energy of individual planets with chemical, heat, electromagnetic radiation, nuclear forces from potential energy (gravitational, electric, elastic, etc.). Although I may not be as experienced as you all in these areas, I do know that the energy in the universe is constant, although it cannot be destroyed it can be converted from one form into another i.e, Potential to Kinetic relative to mass and velocity. Therefore the Kinetic energy still exists in every body of matter moving through space at a certain speed, regardless of your point of observation and perception.
Bignose Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 But, you see Solarist, you say things like: In my 'unscientific' view, the planets are moving through space and therefore must generate a specific Kinetic energy relative to their mass and velocity, thus creating a magnetic field surrounding that mass and giving it a Charge accordingly. and you don't provide exactly what is meant by specific kinetic energy -- which is tough enough to define because of the frame dependence -- nor do you provide any kind of evidence for these statements. Can you cite any evidence that kinetic energy creates a magnetic field? And if it does, how hard do I have to hit a golf ball with my driver to create a magnetic field?
TheSolarist Posted June 28, 2008 Author Posted June 28, 2008 Ok, that is bad writing on my part, but I'm learning as I go, which is why I wanted to float my ideas on this forum where all the brains are and less religion to get constructive feedback. and you don't provide exactly what is meant by specific kinetic energy -- which is tough enough to define because of the frame dependence -- nor do you provide any kind of evidence for these statements. Can you cite any evidence that kinetic energy creates a magnetic field? And if it does, how hard do I have to hit a golf ball with my driver to create a magnetic field? So as the planets are objects of mass and moving through space at a certain speed, they must produce some form of Kinetic energy. In addition to this most of the planets have a magnetic field that extends beyond their mass, indicating that they must be electrically charged in a similar way as an electron creates a magnetic field as it spins about it's axis. But this is exactly what I was hoping for, to re-examine my speculations and get my ideas into a better focus, for example, after having to search the net for validation, I have discovered that the planets have emissions of electrons and Jupiter as one has emissions of much more energy than it gets from the Sun. Although I have much to learn, I still believe that my speculative ideas on planetery energy influences on Earth may have had something to do with the evolution of life. How, I don't quite know, but then neither does anyone else have a definite answer so I keep looking, I can't help it it's just my quest.
ydoaPs Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 Your posts still imply that you are thinking there is an absolute reference frame. Velocity of objects differs with respect to different refference frames. Thus their kinetic energy varies as well.
Klaynos Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 Kinetic energy is a property of objects, it's not something they give off or produce.. And move through space at a certain speed relative to what?
Bignose Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 Even if items are charged, and even if item have a specific kinetic energy (in any frame), how are the two linked? There is nothing that necessarily links them together except in a sort-of trivial manner. I.e. if an item is being moved due to an electro-magnetic field, then it has kinetic energy, but that is just the result of any force. Gravity, internal combustion engine, and human power are all also good as getting things moving and thus giving an object KE. An object can have an electro-magnetic field without it necessarily having kinetic energy and an object can have kinetic energy without it necessarily having an electro-magnetic field. Unless you can cite some proof otherwise? and, in which case, I'll repeat my question then -- how hard (interpret as how fast) do I have to hit a golf ball to create a magnetic field?
TheSolarist Posted June 29, 2008 Author Posted June 29, 2008 OK, what I am talking about is not gulf balls, cars or any other objects, my speculation is about the planets of this solar system and their energy. But in answer to your question about the gulf ball, NO it cannot have a polarized magnetic field as it is a non-metallic solid object, although it has Kinetic energy that you give it when hit by a gulf club, and how much Kinetic energy depends on how hard you hit it. Now as far as the Planets are concerned they are in orbital motion due to the gravitational Force of the Sun, therefore they have Kinetic energy with associated angular momentum and spin. Yes this Kinetic energy is converted internally to other forms of energy, which in the case of planets with a magnetic field assists in the convection of thermal energy creating thermal currents within the liquid metallic core. These internal convection currents establish an Electrical Charge, resulting in that planet's polarized magnetic field determined by the speed of its spin. Without the Kinetic Energy associated with motion, there would be no Electrical current to create a Magnetic Field............ My question to you then is, if a planet were to lose its Kinetic energy of motion including spin, it just stopped dead in space, would it still have a polarized magnetic field?? Now to make this very clear, what I mean about polarized is in exactly what it means, like a bar magnet with positive and negative ends. If you really need me to provide reference then here are a couple out of hundreds available under 'solar system' and 'planetary magnetic fields', found on google for example. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_magneticfield.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070503160126.htm http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/earthmag/planetmg.htm http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Magnetic_Fields_of_Planets_and_Stars_999.html It has just occurred to me that perhaps I should be in an Astronomy forum.
Bignose Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 (edited) No Solarist, please re-read exactly what you wrote before: In my 'unscientific' view, the planets are moving through space and therefore must generate a specific Kinetic energy relative to their mass and velocity, thus creating a magnetic field surrounding that mass and giving it a Charge accordingly. In this statement, you say, kinetic energy creates a magnetic field. This is what I am objecting to. Not to the fact that planets have a kinetic energy. Not to the fact that planets have a magnetic field. But to your statement that the kinetic energy creates the magnetic field. This extraordinary statement which is contrary to much of basic physics requires extraordinary proof. Or you have to drop the claim. Provide some evidence that what you say is true, or admit that it was wrong. Or, if I am mis-interpreting the statement, please clarify it. Because as it is quoted right there -- you say that kinetic energy creates a magnetic field, which just isn't supported by facts. ---------------- Still objects have magnetic fields all the time. My magnets on my refrigerator are still (in my reference frame) and obviously have a magnetic field because that it what is holding the magnets up. Earth has a lot of iron which is inherently magnetic, and it would still have a magnetic field whether it was spinning or not. It is a property of the material, not of its spin or velocity. Certainly the movement of magnetic and electric fields are related. But, look at Maxwell's equations ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations ): you've got the movement of the electric field and magnetic fields -- but where is the movement of the obejct? There is no velocity of the magnet itself in the equations. The magnetic and electric fields can change without the obejct itself moving -- pushing more current through a wire, for example. The resistance of a resistor changing due to temperature effects, as another example. As a battery dies and less and less power can be drawn from it as a third example. In those examples the fields change without any movement of the objects themselves. There is no spot where the kinetic energy of an object changes an electric or magnetic field -- this is the concept you presented above and this is the concept that you need to provide evidence for. Edited June 29, 2008 by Bignose
Klaynos Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 My problem with this is still mainly that the fields involved here are tiny compared to local effects. The earths magnetic field is tiny compared to most local effects. I've just done a quick experiment, taken a compass put on on the desk and taken a stapler that I've no reason to assume it's ever been magnetised, all of it is spring operated, waved the stapler near the compass and the needle moves significantly, so a small local effect overcoming the magnetic field of the earth, which is unusually strong for the solar system.
TheSolarist Posted June 29, 2008 Author Posted June 29, 2008 Bignose & Klaynos, I now realize that I am wrong about what I said before relating to Kinetic energy and magnetism, and have been doing a great deal of reading to bring my limited knowledge up to date. Furthermore, my writing skills clearly need looking at, as I seem to just clump together information in the hope that it makes some sort of sense. However, I'm glad that you all made me realize this by having me examine my ideas myself, rather than just telling me outright with no explanation. So I will not be posting anymore of my wild claims, instead I will take the time to follow other posts and ask questions if this is ok. This does not mean I've given up on things, just not jumping in the deep end without first learning how to swim. 1
Bignose Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 Solarist, this is an incredibly refreshing attitude here. I think if you poke around a few of the other recent threads here in the Pseudoscience and Speculations section, especially recent ones by Motor Daddy and New Science, you'll see all too often the defender of a new idea be deliberately obtuse or simply refusing to accept that anything but their world view is correct. It is never embarrassing/shameful/sad to have to admit that you made a mistake. What makes it sad is when someone refuses to admit a mistake. No one (of sound mind) can say that 1) they know everything and 2) that they have never made a mistake. Einstein, Newton, Gauss, etc. as great as they were, and as great as their contributions to modern science/physics/math are, they made tons of mistakes. Solarist, there is a lot of learn out there, and if you need any help, please ask questions on the forum. We, the members, may have the answers or we may not. We certainly aren't immune from making mistakes either. But, we all enjoy learning and discussing science and enjoy helping other people learn and discuss it as well. Stick with it. You've got some interesting ideas, and they may turn out to be right. But, you need to build your theory on a solid foundation. A theory is a lot like a house. A house is built on rock, or on concrete for a reason -- to make it a sturdy as possible. If you build it on sand, the house is at risk. In the same way, when a theory is build on shaky ground, it can be toppled easily. As an example in this case, poor use of the concept of kinetic energy. But, if you learn how to use the terms correctly, what the physics concepts can and cannot do, then you'll have a theory built on a solid foundation -- a theory that will stand up to much tougher scrutiny. Maybe one of the biggest things that need to be said here is that if you want to overturn or improve an existing theory, you need to be very well versed in the current state of a theory before you bring about changes. You have to know what current theory says, what it's assumptions are, what it's successes and failures are, basically everything. And that is going to take time to get up to speed. As another analogy, you have to learn to walk before you can run. So, in order to prevent some of the more basic mistakes from happening, you will need to know the current theory as well as possible before trying to fix what you perceive as its failures. Like I said, this forum is really pretty good about helping if we can, so I will hope that you'll stick around and ask questions if they come up. Again, this attitude is almost unbelievably refreshing, so I hope that you'll become a long-time member.
Klaynos Posted June 29, 2008 Posted June 29, 2008 Bignose & Klaynos, I now realize that I am wrong about what I said before relating to Kinetic energy and magnetism, and have been doing a great deal of reading to bring my limited knowledge up to date. Furthermore, my writing skills clearly need looking at, as I seem to just clump together information in the hope that it makes some sort of sense. However, I'm glad that you all made me realize this by having me examine my ideas myself, rather than just telling me outright with no explanation. So I will not be posting anymore of my wild claims, instead I will take the time to follow other posts and ask questions if this is ok. This does not mean I've given up on things, just not jumping in the deep end without first learning how to swim. I value your honesty, and this kind of attitude is one that marks you out as someone who is seriously prepared to learn and invest in new ideas I look forward to your questions
sindhu sati Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 hi Solar energy is the most important source of energy.Solar energy can also be used in electricity requirements.Solar Photovoltaic (SPV) cells, solar radiation gets converted into DC electricity directly. solar energy mostly used in batteries solar energy uesd for cooking, heating,cooling etc.when we hang out clothes to dry in front of sun the energy of the sun is used for this method.solar panels stored the energy of the sun for providing heat for heating water. solar system are avail in the market also. Solar panel Solar roofing panel
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now