Acme Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) Now here's the crunch. Every falsehood swallowed derails a great many truths that it invalidly contradicts. If there is no sanity forthcoming with this post, in the way of specific non-cut-and-paste responses, then I guess derailment city is not my town. ... Edgar Cayce has given (195-70, 10) that the moon was thrown off from the earth together with other satellites of the solar system. Others atypically exist, in fact, with like synchronous rotation. He has also given that everything is made from what we know as "electricity", and other things mainstream science may be ignoring to their disadvantage, and the advantage of those who don't ignore it! ... Edgar Cayce Edgar Cayce (pronounced Casey) is known as one of America's greatest psychics. His followers maintain that Cayce was able to tap into some sort of higher consciousness, such as a god or the akashic record, to get his "psychic knowledge." He used this "knowledge" to predict that California will slide into the ocean and that New York City will be destroyed in some sort of cataclysm. He predicted that in 1958 the U.S. would discover some sort of death ray used on Atlantis. Cayce is one of the main people responsible for some of the sillier notions about Atlantis, including the idea that the Atlanteans had some sort of Great Crystal. Cayce called the Great Crystal the Tuaoi Stone and said it was a huge cylindrical prism that was used to gather and focus "energy," allowing the Atlanteans to do all kinds of fantastic things. But they got greedy and stupid, tuned up their Crystal to too high a frequency and set off volcanic disturbances that led to the destruction of that ancient world. ... Welcome home Atlanteans. PS You say "Edgar Cayce has given (195-70, 10)", but you do not give a link or other direction to your source. Please give us the reference information we need to evaluate your assertion. Edited March 29, 2015 by Acme
Pymander Posted March 30, 2015 Author Posted March 30, 2015 The Official Edgar Cayce Readings are available on DVD-ROM from: http://officialedgarcaycereadings.com/ The reading 195-70, 10 means the 70th (psychic) reading given for individual 195, and the 10th paragraph comprising a question and the answer, at least in this case. Here the readings offer "...these then are thrown off, as was the moon from the earth, or as is the various satellites of the various planets, as well as the various effects out in space." The reading was given 9 MAY 1930. From my point of view, this better explains the synchronous rotation of the moon than "tidal drag", and also explains the thinner crust of the near side, which for me became confirmation of the Permian extinction as to such a cause. I did not know of the extreme differences of the near and far side beforehand. But the throwing off of the moon was earlier believed the cause of the Pacific Ocean before Pangaea was hypothesised, and even longer before Theia was invented. Also, Ganymede is locked in synchronous rotation with Jupiter, confirming Cayce's 1930 statements. This raises questions about tidal locking, because Jupiter has many moons that are not. If the moon's launch truly did cause the Permian extinction, halfway between now and the Cambrian Explosion, then the near side is 245 MY old, while the far side is, or was, the surface of the earth, and 4600 MY old. It is a fact that the ocean basins are basalt no older than the Jurassic (180 MY old) besides sediment, according to magnetic dating. Certainly the pattern of an increasingly wet Triassic and Jurassic followed by a very dry Cretaceous supports the idea of gradual flooding since launch, followed by rifting recommencing around the end of the Jurassic. Many huge creatures requiring water support for their mass became marine animals. The relieved pressure in the interim would have caused the flooding period.
studiot Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Pymander I offered a concise reasonable and polite quick reply to your question (post#3). You did not respond or even to acknowledge it. I then expanded on my short response (post#17) and again politely asked a simple question about whther your original question was about historical development or the present day (which was as you originally presented it). Again your silence was deafening. Most of your posts in this thread seems to me to be longish outpourings of unrelated statements that may or may not be true, but would require checking if anyone felt they had relevence. If you wish your issue to be taken seriously you need to pull these disparate statements together to present a coherent flow of logic, explaining the reason for bringing them up. Two books by eminent professors on the subject you appear to be addressing, but are not too technical, which make these conenctions rather well in an unbiased and factual manner thus making them believable are The Day the Earth Nearly Died by Benton Eruptions that Shook the World by Oppenheimer 3
Pymander Posted March 30, 2015 Author Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I will try to answer your questions/statements #3 & #17, studio, but you do realise that you are placing me between a rock and a hard place. The short answer to #3, "As I understand it Mars is too cold and Venus is too hot" doesn't explain anything. So the water evaporates on Venus and turns to ice and falls off Mars? But if I attempt, as I have in parts, to write the step by step evolution of the oceans of earth from my perspective, they become what? "...longish outpourings of unrelated statements that may or may not be true [or relevant]". The "coherent flow of logic, explaining the reason for bringing them up" then, depends upon the goads, and nails fastened, as I am attempting, through examining existing beliefs, presenting facts, and waiting for questions and propositions worthy of further discussion. If the questions are worthy, I will answer them and use the opportunity to further this strategy (see #27). Short of this, I gain an overview of the requirements of participants and work on this (See #6). I wish I had the luxury of time and notoriety to write a book on it, especially in collaboration with the relevant authorities, but alas, I am a peasant. So here I am. But I do understand your wish that the information was logically structured and sequenced as a book may be. So let's begin here... Suppose that we are mistakenly assuming our oceans were generated by the earth from its original substance. Suppose that the earth does not have volcanoes spewing diluted sulphuric acid, but sulphur and its oxides (very dry). Suppose that Venus and Mars and Earth began with the same proportion of water. This seems indicated by the revelation that 180 MYA, the earth did not consist of one continuous ocean, when the radius was 55% of its present value. "The Geological Map of The World" would indicate this: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/IGCP40_CGMW_Rossi.pdf The need to presume subduct ion may be based on a false assumption that the earth's radius is constant. One fly in the ointment is explaining the source of water on earth as a continuous process (burnt solar wind). The 2 to 4 parts per million of uranium in the lithosphere would make the core an amalgam of much more U, just like Au in a pan with Hg is amalgamated. Now, considering that a set of fuel rods will power a city for 2 years, how hot is the core, and how is the heat released? And what is the relationship between radius, surface area, and volume? Exponentially increasing radius is, in fact, indicated. Our H2O may conceivably come from the sun, which could not originally steel it from the extremely distant gas giants as it did from the rocky planets much much closer. Edited March 31, 2015 by Pymander
Pymander Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Sensei, thank you for your calculation of 2.34 km^3 of air losing Oxygen per day. I don't know for sure but it does sound plausible. The Carboniferous had, due to rampant growth of huge moss (scale trees) on a single continent presumably covered in swamps, 30% atmospheric oxygen, and laid down the isolated carbon as our coal deposits. The following age (Permian) saw a series of ice ages and massive tectonic activity, and ended the Palaeolithic inexplicably, but for this scenario. Source materials for the conjectures, besides that already mentioned (Book of Life - edited by Stephen Jay Gould), are to be found here: http://ccgm.org/en/maps/93-carte-geologique-du-monde-a-125-000-000-9782917310045.html http://www.jamesmaxlow.com./main/ http://www.nexusmagazine.com/products/dvds/dvds-general/nexus-magazine-1987-2014-detail The first link provides a map that can be scanned to reveal the coloured isochrones(?) (basalt dating) of the Pacific, and more revealing than Google Earth. Clearly seen is the involvement of the Pacific Ridge in the formation of the Gulf of Mexico and onward as the San Andréa's fault, to re-join the continued "mid" ocean ridge northward back into the Pacific. The same may be discerned following the Indian ocean mid ocean ridge, and its effects, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean (hence Venice and various sunken archaeological treasures), and the Dead Sea (0.5 Km below sea level) & Jordan Valley continuation. James Maxlow (and J. Robert Oppenheimer - see Wiki -> PDF it and search for "Sanskrit") is (are???) considered wacko for his take on science, but current champion of the Geological side of my H2O explanation. Using the third link, you will find Dr. James Maxlow's articles in the Nexus material, and much more wacko stuff (e.g. Crop Circles regularly sampled year by year. That would make a good OT topic for someone interested in the frontiers of science). Edited March 31, 2015 by Pymander
Acme Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 James Maxlo: Geologist & proponent of Expansion Tectonics You can find a discussion already here of Maxlow & Neal Adams in the forum trash. >> Expanding Planets
Pymander Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Let me answer you this way, Acme. Science does well when the methods encouraged her are applied to a limited set of variable, or properties of reality. Kepp the others constant, set up a control, draw graphs of changes, find functions, attempt a model, make predictions from the model, test conformity = confirmation/refutation. The refutation side, though, has changed to, "throw in some extra conjectures" more and more ad nauseum because we are shining sanity not prone to error, and the new prophets of truth". Am I wrong? But in astronomy, geology, evolution, psychology, can we isolate the variables? Do we even know what they are? The whole is much more than the sum of its parts, like a light switch describes a computer, a huge collection of same, organised by what ... intelligence??? (Fred Hoyle) Look up the simplest DNA known and explain it. An tame orang-utan mimicking a world champion chess opponent has a better chance of winning by sheer accident. Consciousness is one step further and was once called spirit, and considered "the first cause and irreducible reality, from out of which, as and by its power, mind and matter proceed" - Sir Arthur Avalon (alchemy properly understood without "UBI LOCUTI SUMUS, IBI NIHIL DIXIMUS" to preserve it from Christian persecution before the reformation)! In this light, then, how is DOCTOR James Maxlow held in such low esteem, when crusts may thicken, and radioactively generated heat may not be liberated as effectively, especially with water (which now joints other lithosphere materials in the lave spewing from volcanoes) assists in cooling the surface (consider Krakatoa). This fact combines well in the once accepted explanation for the asteroids, as it retained more hydrogen in formation at the greater distance. Its replacement conjecture is up there with Enid Blyton's material, in my opinion.
Acme Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Pymander, the whole basis for your arguments is pseudoscientific nonsense that has been debunked time and time again. Whether it's Cayce or Maxlo or whoever you throw in next, it is a foundation of sand and a monumental waste of bandwidth and peoples' time here. Were this topic to be done any justice it would be locked in the trash as the others. Note: In the locked thread on expanding earth that I earlier cited, Klaynos cites 4 other threads here of the same name. That one of them isn't locked is simply a staff oversight. Expanding Earth Locked Expanding Earth Locked Expanding EarthLocked expanding earth Open
Pymander Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Acme, why do you wriggle like a worm when confronted with information that takes you out of your depth. "Planets on either side of the earth have scanty water, but we have oceans of it." Many areas of science, truly so called, become a part of that discussion, so tell me this? If it is relevant to the topic, like caterpillars and butterflies, why do you squirm? Because butterflies are pretty and caterpillars are creepy? The best response so far, to the questions raise, concerning the conjecture "because the solar wind blew their water away, and we have a magnetic field", is 234 km^3.O2/day. And here's some more doubt you may like to clarify, which has nothing to do with tectonics (or does it?) Oxygen + protons + electrons = positively charged water + electricity. electricity = magnetic field. No oxygen, no magnetic field. So we have blown up another dubious conjecture about the geodetic dynamo, haven't we. The system that creates auroras is self perpetuating, as likely as not, and developed its current state in proportion to the O2 levels on earth = the original global dead sea levels saturated with various salts. Its N-S B-Field current intensity most likely didn't have anything like the present value until all the lower salts were precipitated as today's coveted ores. How important is this then? Lang Hancock sat on the knowledge of Australia's iron ore wealth (40% global) for 8 years to become a multimillionaire, waiting for laws to change that would have prevented his ambitions. There are three things multinational corporations seek, markets (rich), labour (poor), resources (untaxed). Add up the consequences of the knowledge you ridicule, and the interests you are serving as strictly "mainstream". Who control it ... really? "How vile and despicable war seems to me! I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. My opinion of the human race is high enough that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the peoples not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the press." Page 10 of... https://namnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/29289146-ideas-and-opinions-by-albert-einstein.pdf Edited April 1, 2015 by Pymander
imatfaal Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 ! Moderator Note This thread has stopped being a mainstream inquiry and is now too speculative to remain in main fora. Please take a moment to read the rules and guidelines for posting in this Forum.
pavelcherepan Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Oxygen + protons + electrons = positively charged water + electricity. electricity = magnetic field. Even if this mechanism were plausible, for it to work there must be a directed flow of charged particles, otherwise if your electrons are going all over the place you won't get any magnetic field. What would cause such a directed flow of charged particles? Edited April 1, 2015 by pavelcherepan
Pymander Posted April 1, 2015 Author Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Jupiter's magnetic field is extreme. Below the gases and under the weight, hydrogen acts like liquid metal. Under the gravity, and through the field, Jupiter is gathering mass from the solar wind directly, and separating the electrons and protons N & S as on earth, to some extent but not necessarily 100%, and the current runs between the magnetic poles. The earth is not a gas giant that will have the gravity, but it has oxygen providing energy to the system as a magnetic field. Both have a liquid metal cores. Beyond this speculation, what do we know? We can not explain the red spot of Jupiter. We can not know the path of electrons through the vaguely understood complexity of the earth, or the Sun's various electrical-magnetic phenomena. The behaviour of the electric and magnetic fields on large scales is like turbulence in water to resolve mathematically, nigh impossible differential equations to even describe, much less solve. We have no certain explanations either for sprites, positive lightning, or St. Elmo's ball lightning that makes much sense yet. However, my main claim here is that oxygen, once created in a free state on earth, has caused the oxidation of protons from the solar wind, due to cyanobacteria initially, over three and a half thousand years, and thus created the conditions on earth for higher life forms and an acceleration of the process. I am suggesting that the hypotheses regarding this matter may need revision, and also leads to possible errors regarding our tectonics. Check out the first link in post #30. The mid ocean ridge creating the ocean basin is at the same time the zone of subduct ion for the Gulf of California, clearly, and poses a fairly obvious contradiction. Meanwhile, the entire Pacific mechanism is severely disarranged. It does not compare with other oceans, given this chronological information. Lastly, how is it reasonable that high energy protons (hydrogen ions) entering an atmosphere of 20% oxygen, is not being oxidised on contact, and the process concentrated as Aurora Australis and sprites? How do we not see the evidence from slowly expanding stromatolites, BIFs and related phenomena from 3900 MYA on? How is the Moon's dichotomous crust and synchronous rotation explained? What mechanics explains tidal locking? All these things may well be interrelated, and demand a complete revision of paleontological and geological theories, and much more besides. Perhaps we may conclude here, and allow time and tide to take its course with these ideas. Thanks for your participation. Edited April 2, 2015 by Pymander
John Cuthber Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 "Lastly, how is it reasonable that high energy protons (hydrogen ions) entering an atmosphere of 20% oxygen, is not being oxidised on contact, and the process concentrated as Aurora Australis and sprites? " Do you realise that the solar wind is, from most points of view, a very good vacuum? "What mechanics explains tidal locking?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
pavelcherepan Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) How do we not see the evidence from slowly expanding stromatolites, BIFs and related phenomena from 3900 MYA on? What do stromatolites and BIFs have to do with solar wind? However, my main claim here is that oxygen, once created in a free state on earth, has caused the oxidation of protons from the solar wind, due to cyanobacteria initially, over three and a half thousand years, and thus created the conditions on earth for higher life forms and an acceleration of the process. I am suggesting that the hypotheses regarding this matter may need revision, and also leads to possible errors regarding our tectonics. This seems like a bunch of unrelated statements. Solar wind, cyanobacteria, oxygen and plate tectonics all in one pile. Would you be so kind and explain relationships between all of those? And what's that about 3500 years? Also please take a look at John Cuthber's comment above and also the following: The total number of particles carried away from the Sun by the solar wind is about 1.3×1036 per second. So now if you calculate roughly the amount of these particles that will reach Earth, you'll get a number around 5*1027 particles per second. Even if you assume that all of these will reach the atmosphere (which they won't) and compare this with the estimated amount of hydrogen escape into space of ~3kg/sec: (3000 g/sec/ 1.008 g/mol) * 6.02*1023 mol-1 = 1.79*1028 atoms/second loss from the atmosphere. Can you see now that you still get a net loss of hydrogen? Edited April 2, 2015 by pavelcherepan
Pymander Posted April 2, 2015 Author Posted April 2, 2015 I can't make head of tail of posts #38 and #39. A huge amount of dissociated hydrogen blasts way out past Pluto. It has very high velocity = temperature. However it may rip through the atmosphere, even if it is entirely deflected to enter at the magnetic poles, the hydrogen nuclei must combine with the oxygen, and the positively changed water formed must eventually acquire electrons and become neutralised to join the earth water resources. How is this not correct? At the other pole, electrons enter the planet to balance the charge, and this process must constitute a current through the earth, and by some means, perpetuate the earth's magnetic field. Why is this not right? If we can get past this, I may proceed to the other questions. If I am wrong about this, I am wrong about the whole deal.
pavelcherepan Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) I can't make head of tail of posts #38 and #39. A huge amount of dissociated hydrogen blasts way out past Pluto. It has very high velocity = temperature. However it may rip through the atmosphere, even if it is entirely deflected to enter at the magnetic poles, the hydrogen nuclei must combine with the oxygen, and the positively changed water formed must eventually acquire electrons and become neutralised to join the earth water resources. How is this not correct? At the other pole, electrons enter the planet to balance the charge, and this process must constitute a current through the earth, and by some means, perpetuate the earth's magnetic field. Why is this not right? If we can get past this, I may proceed to the other questions. If I am wrong about this, I am wrong about the whole deal. It is incorrect because: a) not all of protons will get into the atmosphere at poles, but a lot will be trapped in Van Allen belts. b) the amount of protons coming with solar wind is tiny (the number in post 39 includes both electrons and protons) c) the amount of electrons coming with solar wind is tiny d) Earth loses more hydrogen every second than the amount of protons supposedly coming into the atmosphere e) you can't use the normal idea of temperature when particle concentrations are so low EDIT: Oh, and another thing - you can't form water with oxygen atom and protons. Chemical reactions are interactions between outer electron levels. No electrons = no chemical reactions. Edited April 2, 2015 by pavelcherepan
John Cuthber Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 I can't make head of tail of posts #38 and #39. A huge amount of dissociated hydrogen blasts way out past Pluto. If I am wrong about this, I am wrong about the whole deal. It's not a huge amount, there is very little of it. Problem solved.
Pymander Posted April 2, 2015 Author Posted April 2, 2015 Please indulge my meagre learning a little further, so that the problem may also be solved for yours truly. a) not all of the protons will get into the atmosphere at poles, but a lot will be trapped in Van Allen Belt. Q. Will these protons, then, not be oxidised at the South magnetic pole and in the Van Allen Belts, in total all of them? b) the amount of protons coming with the solar wind is tiny (the number in post #39 includes both electrons and protons) c) the amount of electrons coming with solar wind is tiny Q. Therefore the number of dissociated hydrogen atoms created will be around half of 5*10^27 per second and the number of water molecules created will be half of that again = 1.25*10^27 and with atomic weight 1 + 1 + 16 then (1.25*10^27)/(18*6*10^23)=115 grams of water per second, right? Now the current O2 levels would not be constant about the Earth over the 3900 MY period since cyanobacteria evolved, and even seasonal which is shown by the banded iron formations. Assuming the hypothesis proposed as an alternative, that our water was in the same proportions to other lithosphere elements, bound or otherwise, a little more on Mars and less on Venus due distance from sun, in the beginning, we might assume a linear increase. There will be some loss due precipitation of FeSO4 as Fe2O3. This ore is almost pure in Western Australia and 40% of global total. As such, obviously, precipitation will be a rapidly decreasing influence. Now, 30% O2 levels in the Carboniferous was attained so errors should well and truly cancel. To the present then we might get, at the present rate of oxidation: 0.115 Kg.H2O / second * 3900,000,000 * 365.25 * 24 * 60 * 60 seconds / 2 for the equation assumed = 14.1 * 10^15 Kg.H2O Now, we have 332,500,000 cubic miles of water on, in and above the earth, and the earth's oceans are regarded as representing 96.5% of the entire planet's total. https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Now there are 4.16818183 * 10^12 litres per cubic mile so the O2 may have generated 3395.6 cubic miles of water from the solar wind since 3900,000,000 BC. So I guess I am wide of the mark by about a factor of 1,000,000, unless my arithmetic sucks, or solar mass ejection and cosmic rays can make up the difference, or the three contributing sources of protons have a very different relationship to the one assumed over time (not entirely unreasonable), or our accepted statistics are way off (a possibility), or there have been a huge number of comets decreasing over time, bombing the earth. Okay, thanks for the help. I guess the conjecture is amiss.
swansont Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 I can't make head of tail of posts #38 and #39. A huge amount of dissociated hydrogen blasts way out past Pluto. It has very high velocity = temperature. However it may rip through the atmosphere, even if it is entirely deflected to enter at the magnetic poles, the hydrogen nuclei must combine with the oxygen, and the positively changed water formed must eventually acquire electrons and become neutralised to join the earth water resources. How is this not correct? At the other pole, electrons enter the planet to balance the charge, and this process must constitute a current through the earth, and by some means, perpetuate the earth's magnetic field. Why is this not right? If we can get past this, I may proceed to the other questions. If I am wrong about this, I am wrong about the whole deal. Seems to me you have enough information to do a calculation and estimate the field from the current. There are two parts to this problem: magnitude and direction (B is a vector) A worksheet and diagram are at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magcur.html (2nd panel) It doesn't matter much, but if we use the numbers from pavelcherepan, 5 x 1027 protons, and assume a like number of electrons, then that's 1028 charges/sec, or a current of 1.6 GA, at a distance of 6.4 million meters (radius of the earth). (I just put in 1600A and 6.4 meters, and dropped a factor of a million in both terms) That indeed would give us a field of 0.5 gauss on the earth's surface. But here's the problem: it would be, as the diagram in the link shows, in an east-west direction around the earth. i.e. compasses would not point north. It's even worse, because there's a component of the earth's field pointing toward the surface, just as you'd expect from a dipole inside the earth, and not at all what you'd expect from a current flow through the earth. Therefore, by your own declaration, you are "wrong about the whole deal"
pavelcherepan Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 a) not all of the protons will get into the atmosphere at poles, but a lot will be trapped in Van Allen Belt. Q. Will these protons, then, not be oxidised at the South magnetic pole and in the Van Allen Belts, in total all of them? Here's a quote from Wikipedia article on Van Allen belts (I quoted a part on Inner belt because that's where most of protons are): In the inner belt, particles are trapped in the Earth's nonlinear magnetic field, that originate from the sun. Particles gyrate and move along field lines. As particles encounter regions of larger density of magnetic field lines, their "longitudinal" velocity is slowed and can be reversed, reflecting the particle. This causes the particles to bounce back and forth between the Earth's poles.[31] Globally, the motion of these trapped particles is chaotic. So many if not most of them will not get to the poles. And then again there is this notion if oxidation of protons. You can't oxidize a proton because: Oxidation is the loss of electrons or an increase in oxidation state by a molecule, atom, or ion. Proton has no electrons so it can't be oxidized and can't form chemical bonds. It must first acquire an electron and become a neutral hydrogen atom before it can do so. Q. Therefore the number of dissociated hydrogen atoms created will be around half of 5*10^27 per second and the number of water molecules created will be half of that again = 1.25*10^27 and with atomic weight 1 + 1 + 16 then (1.25*10^27)/(18*6*10^23)=115 grams of water per second, right? I don't have a calculation but it must be much less than that due to the issues above. and even seasonal which is shown by the banded iron formations. Not exactly true. It hasn't been proven with any sort of certainty that banded structure of BIF's is a result of seasonal variations.
Pymander Posted April 3, 2015 Author Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Thank you Swansont. I was aware of the right hand rule, the dot and cross product in vector physics, etc. The rest is beyond me. But I assumed, naturally, that the current takes a more circuitous route like in a solenoid, or perhaps due to a gyroscopic rotation of the liquid core mass and the charges whose relative motion create the magnetic field due special relativistic effects, as is known. This is why I alluded to the Sun's macroscopic magnetic phenomena and the unexpected effects manifested there. Thank you also, pavelcherepan, but again, I am using the older interpretation of oxidation-reduction here, and not the more modern electron donor-acceptor stuff. I don't know if the protons become atoms first, possibly, because electricity is pretty free flowing. Or maybe the H+, e- and O2 must party together, or in stages as with outer well known processes. Either way, eventually the water must form, and it does seem improbable to be otherwise to me. But there seems to be a huge factor amiss for the formation of oceans on this planet. If it is not conclusive, and I don't think that it is, the probability of the scenario suggested is what, 10%, pending unknowns? I'm not unhappy to leave it there. Like in a chess game, if you win, great, if you lose you learn, and learning is the name of the game for science too, no? Edited April 3, 2015 by Pymander
swansont Posted April 3, 2015 Posted April 3, 2015 Thank you Swansont. I was aware of the right hand rule, the dot and cross product in vector physics, etc. The rest is beyond me. But I assumed, naturally, that the current takes a more circuitous route like in a solenoid, or perhaps due to a gyroscopic rotation of the liquid core mass and the charges whose relative motion create the magnetic field due special relativistic effects, as is known. This is why I alluded to the Sun's macroscopic magnetic phenomena and the unexpected effects manifested there. Then it is incumbent upon you to create a model that works, and can be tested. As it stands, your idea does not work and you are "wrong about the whole deal" Somehow I think that a current of 1.6 GA on the earth's surface would be noticeable.
Pymander Posted April 3, 2015 Author Posted April 3, 2015 1.6 GA on the surface? Not more directly? Is that what it would require? Then the theory fails on two counts, doesn't it? At least the magnetic field source component. Pity, because, reading the "Book of Life" edited by Stephen Jay Gould (this is by no means a children's book but quite detailed and technical and with minimal iconology (you need another book full of icons to identify the species discussed)) this 'oxidised solar wind protons' idea seemed to explain a great many things. I read the book twice in as many months, and see the world as more beautiful because of it. However, the stance of the authors is decidedly aetheistic, with which I am NOT in sympathy, and without apology. I do believe that the souls here had this world and its fates, written in the stars, and our palms, specifically created for them by benevolent forces. Right on topic, and even citing the morning stars, Venus and Mars, is JOB Chapter 38, written according to Edgar Cayce, by the same soul who designed the Great Pyramid, Blessed Abraham, and became the Christ (MICAH 5:2). "Any man who does not appreciate the beauty of nature is like a dead man" - Albert Einstein. http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Life-Illustrated-Evolution/dp/0393321568 But then, the strange circumstance of so much water between Venus an Mars has an easier explanation. I question everything (Aquarius), but perhaps it is right. If the solar wind did NOT blow their water away (and I can not assess the certainty of that assertion with my understandings, beyond the questions raised here already), then there is obviously much more to be discovered. If I may offer a more general opinion here - such macroscopic composites as the Earth, the Sun, the Universe, the Human brain, body and the entire functional entity mentally (psychology), evolution, and even consciousness itself, can we ever be certain of our understanding of them? To call such 'information' speculative or science based on mainstream (current possibly transient credentialistic opinion) is fair enough, but without overtones of blasphemy, heresy, anathema and demonic (insane) as we once did. I hope this little blog-like conclusion does not offend, and with my other posts, affords some solace to those Christian folk that our current materialism must certainly dismay. Thank you all for your time.
hypervalent_iodine Posted April 4, 2015 Posted April 4, 2015 ! Moderator Note Offend? No. However, it is against the rules to use this site as your soap box. You are required to provide a testable model for your idea. You have so far failed to do this. If you cannot do it within your next post, this thread will be closed.
Pymander Posted April 4, 2015 Author Posted April 4, 2015 A soap box to some is science to me. A testable model in the context of "The water on this planet is a result of, primarily, the solar wind reacting with the atmospheric oxygen since photosynthesis began"? Is this any more possible, according to your guidelines and limitations, than doing the same with, for example: 1. "The universe as we know it today is the result of a super-compressed state of matter, beyond the limits of a black hole by orders of magnitude, without material cause, exploding; rather than light being the original "creation", with the ability to materialise as is an established, but little understood fact." 2. "The absence of antimatter in the current state of affairs is due to asymmetrical behaviour of two types of matter, alike in a plethora of other behaviours." 3. "Dark matter is the reason that galactic clusters are assembling although the light matter is insufficient to explain this." 4. "Dark energy is the reason for anomalies in the cosmic microwave background predicted on the basis of the Big Bang Hypothesis." 5. "The measureable matter and energy throughout the universe is the fundamental cause of all things without exception, although the alternative hypothesis that consciousness is the first cause and made manifest as the senses (the earth element), the emotions (water), the desires (fire) and the temperaments (air), cannot be refuted or distinguished as uniquely more correct than the alternative (hence the universe may not have an existence independent of the observer, fundamental to special and general relativity), and is thus an equivalent statement, not just anciently, but even according to the calculations and investigations of Albert Einstein." How do these hypotheses qualify as requiring none of what you demand of me? How does the "unless it is mainstream" not constitute, dare I say it, hypocrisy? Your methods that apply to a test tube do not apply to a planet, let alone a universe, or any reality beyond its manifestation that goads the scientific mind to find its causes. In short, it may have a purpose, regarding the "observers". Close this thread, I've already said goodbye three times, and yes, rules have a purpose. Your site, your purposes.
Recommended Posts