Magnetic Pole Shift
CC
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <53VU9.9352$Dq.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
tadchem <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Somebody" <ab...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:v274dr1...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Could someone help me understand a few things about this "magnetic pole
> > shift" hype that has been going around? For example, what would cause the
> > magnetic field of an entire planet to suddenly flip polarity? How long
> > would it take for the actual process to occur? What would be the effects
> on
> > the earth's crust, life, weather, etc?
>
> Back in the International Geophysical Year project (about 1960)
> international researchers mapped the ocean floor and discovered sufficient
> evidence to prove the theory of continental drift. A major piece of this
> evidence was mapping the magnetic orientation of particles in the sea bed.
>
> It was discovered that the pattern of magnetization revealed that the
> earth's magnetic field had reversed itself HUNDREDS of times since the
> Atlantic Ocean opened up, roughly at 10,000 to 100,000 year intervals.
>
> The world did not come to an end once.
>
> Its all hype.
>
>
> Tom Davidson
> Brighton, CO
Well, it really isn't 'all hype' as you think.
Records are for at least 171 times (a dipole reversal).
William Topping found 70,000 proton track per cm^2 in worked churt and
flint tailing at a PaleoIndian site what is now northern Michigan.
Dipole reversals are not simply a pole flip. The sun is an excellent
model or indicator of what can happen on the Earth.
The primary phenomenal structure in any 'live' planet or star is a
large scale flux loop system. For example the Sun's primary flux loop
is in the E-loop mode when the sun is at solar minimum. During the
E-loop mode the Sun behaves as if there were a large scale toroidal
current and the sun displays the properties of a magnetic dipole. When
the sun begins to approaach solar maximum the magnetic dipole field
begins to weaken and then is gone altogether. During this phase the
sun is in the H-loop mode. At this time the sun displays the
properties of a large scale electric dipole structure.
If the Earth's main flux loop structure (electromagnetotoroid) or EMT
for short were to go through a similar process then there would be
considerable damage to the biosphere. Charged particles would be
accelerated poleward; protons to one pole and electrons to the other.
Another feature is that the Earth's seafloor spreading zones are in a
1:1 correlation with dipole reversal events. In other words it might
be possible to discount this but the simplest explanation is that there
may be a direct correlation between sea floor spreading activity and
dipole reversal events.
In studying flux loop systems over the years I've discovered that an
EMT in a compact mode can generate copious quantities of neutrons in
the core. That's right, you're likely to choke on this but the same
mechanism which can cause a dipole reversal; which causes a pi/2 radian
rotation of the flux density vector around the axis of the Poynting
vector on a flux loop is operative during the H-loop mode. This
process produces quantum scale copies (structurally) of the main flux
loop system. These quantum scale flux loops are exactly the same thing
as neutrons. So it is that the Earth's EMT during the H-loop flux
mode will produce hundreds of billions of tons of neutrons per second.
This means that there really is a means for mass creation/production
and the consequence to a planet is that it will undergo gross expansion
after each episode of mass production in the planet's core. If one
just looks at the New World Hammond Atlas (at your local library)
they've done an excellent job of mapping the sea floor spreading zones.
When looked at all at once one gets the distinct impression that the
Earth has expanded and the sea floor spreading zones are the massive
stretch marks.
In fact, the biosphere has undergone tremendous devastation again and
again and the primary cause of mass extinctions is a major expansion
episode.
There are a number of websites which have information on Earth
Expansion and even though geologists have the evidence for Earth
expansion staring them in the face they refuse to accept the facts.
My own research has allowed me to discover the mechanism for mass
creation in the universe. This is hard to believe especially if you
were raised with the conservation law mantra drilled into your head.
In fact, conservation laws only express that energy and matter can be
transformed one into the other without gain or loss. The truth of the
matter is that they say nothing about the origin of mass in the first
place. Conservation laws don't address the issue of the origin of
matter. Some think that the mythical Big Bang answers the question of
the origin of matter but it doesn't. First, it doesn't because it
isn't a belief that can be made subject to verification. Second,
that's exactly what it is - a belief. It's not valid or legitimate
science.
CC
Greg Neill
> In studying flux loop systems over the years I've discovered that an
> EMT in a compact mode can generate copious quantities of neutrons in
> the core. That's right, you're likely to choke on this but the same
> mechanism which can cause a dipole reversal; which causes a pi/2 radian
> rotation of the flux density vector around the axis of the Poynting
> vector on a flux loop is operative during the H-loop mode. This
> process produces quantum scale copies (structurally) of the main flux
> loop system. These quantum scale flux loops are exactly the same thing
> as neutrons. So it is that the Earth's EMT during the H-loop flux
> mode will produce hundreds of billions of tons of neutrons per second.
Whacko alert! *TILT!*
Jonathan Silverlight
writes
>
>Well, it really isn't 'all hype' as you think.
>
>Records are for at least 171 times (a dipole reversal).
>
>William Topping found 70,000 proton track per cm^2 in worked churt and
>flint tailing at a PaleoIndian site what is now northern Michigan.
And I would suspect he'd laugh at you. Is CC and c...@singtech.com a way
for Charles Cagle to get round kill rules?
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
tadchem
In the sense of "exaggeration" I consider it to be "hype."
> Records are for at least 171 times (a dipole reversal).
...and not a single extinction event has been tied to any of the last 171
magnetic pole reversals.
> William Topping found 70,000 proton track per cm^2 in worked churt
I think you mean "chert."
> and
> flint tailing at a PaleoIndian site what is now northern Michigan.
Without more data, that number is totally meaningless, assuming Topping
could distinguish proton tracks from tracks produced by naturally occurring
radioactive materials and by cosmic rays.
<snip>
> If the Earth's main flux loop structure (electromagnetotoroid) or EMT
> for short were to go through a similar process then there would be
> considerable damage to the biosphere.
By your own admission this has happened at least 171 times in the past, but
there is NO evidence of the "considerable damage" to the biosphere like
there is of biosphere changes and climate change associated with "ice ages".
> Charged particles would be
> accelerated poleward; protons to one pole and electrons to the other.
The magnetic field of the earth normally channels charged particles from the
solar wind to the magnetic poles. The charged particles follow helical
paths coiled around themagnetic flux lines. Protons are stopped by the
particle collisions in the ionosphere and electrons are carried down to the
ground. The air of the troposphere is non-conducting, while the ionosphere
and the ground are conductors, so the earth is a huge spherical condensor.
The average voltage gradient is 100 volts per meter, increasing from the
ground up.
> Another feature is that the Earth's seafloor spreading zones are in a
> 1:1 correlation with dipole reversal events.
You misspeak. The spreading zones are there. The freshly produced basalt
that is a product of the spreading records the earth's ambient magnetic
field quite diligently. There is no "1:1 correlation" between a *handful*
of spreading zones and *hundreds* of dipole reversal events. The
correlation exists between the dipole reversal events and the magnetic field
orientation recorded in thte basalt.
> In studying flux loop systems over the years I've discovered that an
> EMT in a compact mode can generate copious quantities of neutrons in
> the core. That's right, you're likely to choke on this but the same
> mechanism which can cause a dipole reversal; which causes a pi/2 radian
> rotation of the flux density vector around the axis of the Poynting
> vector on a flux loop is operative during the H-loop mode. This
> process produces quantum scale copies (structurally) of the main flux
> loop system. These quantum scale flux loops are exactly the same thing
> as neutrons.
An interesting claim. Have you any experimental evidence to support it?
Can you *make* neutrons on the benchtop by playing with your toroids?
> So it is that the Earth's EMT during the H-loop flux
> mode will produce hundreds of billions of tons of neutrons per second.
Where does all this energy come from? If dipole reversal is cyclic, why
doesn't the source of this energy become depleted?
> This means that there really is a means for mass creation/production
> and the consequence to a planet is that it will undergo gross expansion
> after each episode of mass production in the planet's core.
I once saw an old atlas (published in about 1959) which tried to explain
continental drift by claiming the earth was growing, but that the
continental crust was NOT growing. The explanation raised more questions
than it answered, and could only be completed with a violation of the
conservation of mass-energy.
> If one
> just looks at the New World Hammond Atlas (at your local library)
> they've done an excellent job of mapping the sea floor spreading zones.
> When looked at all at once one gets the distinct impression that the
> Earth has expanded and the sea floor spreading zones are the massive
> stretch marks.
If you ignore all the subduction zones, which are as abundant as the
spreading centers.
> In fact, the biosphere has undergone tremendous devastation again and
> again and the primary cause of mass extinctions is a major expansion
> episode.
In the history of our own genus there have been several dipole reversals,
but the only mass extinction appears to have occurred at the end of the
Pleistocene.
Show me *please* a single mass extiction that can be laid at the doorstep of
a dipole reversal. AFAIK, none of the mass extinctions can be dated
precisely enough to correlate to a single event.
> There are a number of websites which have information on Earth
> Expansion and even though geologists have the evidence for Earth
> expansion staring them in the face they refuse to accept the facts.
There are also a number of websites devoted to flat earth theory. That is
no guarantee of credibility. "Geologists ... rewfuse to accept the facts" -
now *you* are sounding a little paranoid.
> My own research has allowed me to discover the mechanism for mass
> creation in the universe. This is hard to believe especially if you
> were raised with the conservation law mantra drilled into your head.
Show me. Please explain how, design an apparatus, test it, and demonstrate
the production of a single neutron from the collapse of your magnetic field.
> In fact, conservation laws only express that energy and matter can be
> transformed one into the other without gain or loss. The truth of the
> matter is that they say nothing about the origin of mass in the first
> place. Conservation laws don't address the issue of the origin of
> matter. Some think that the mythical Big Bang answers the question of
> the origin of matter but it doesn't. First, it doesn't because it
> isn't a belief that can be made subject to verification. Second,
> that's exactly what it is - a belief. It's not valid or legitimate
> science.
If the earth had been increasing in mass throughout its history, its orbit
would have changed SIGNIFICANTLY, as would the orbit of the moon, and any
other planet (such as Jupiter) which has a magnetic field (unless you are
also willing to discard the conservation of angular momentum). Yet the
earth has demonstrably been within the "zone of habitability" - the zone in
which water can exist on earth as a solid, liquid, or vapor - for almost all
of its existence.
The astronomical data does not support your thesis.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Don Findlay
> You misspeak. The spreading zones are there. The freshly produced basalt
> that is a product of the spreading records the earth's ambient magnetic
> field quite diligently. There is no "1:1 correlation" between a *handful*
> of spreading zones and *hundreds* of dipole reversal events. The
> correlation exists between the dipole reversal events and the magnetic field
> orientation recorded in thte basalt.
>
> Brighton, CO
Tom,
Let's clarify. Are you saying (from a geophysics (?) point of view)
that the spreading zones are there anyway, and that the mechanism of
reversal (whatever it might be) has no connection with them - that a
coincidence between striping and ridge addition is pure serendipity?
Don.
Landy
>
> Let's clarify. Are you saying (from a geophysics (?) point of view)
> that the spreading zones are there anyway, and that the mechanism of
> reversal (whatever it might be) has no connection with them - that a
> coincidence between striping and ridge addition is pure serendipity?
Why would there be any connection? They are two independent processes, one
recording the effects of the other like a giant tape recorder.
The data are empirical, it's not a "point of view".
cheers
Bill
tadchem
"Don Findlay" <d...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:5f164087.03020...@posting.google.com...
<snip repost>
> Tom,
>
> Let's clarify. Are you saying (from a geophysics (?) point of view)
from an empiricists/experimentalists point of view
> that the spreading zones are there anyway, and that the mechanism of
> reversal (whatever it might be) has no connection with them
The mechanism of spreading and the mechanism of reversal are independent.
The mechanism of spreading coincidentally provides a mechanism for
*recording* the ambient magnetic field in the magnetic "striping" that is a
geological analog to analog tape recordings.
As I said, "The freshly produced basalt that is a product of the spreading
records the earth's ambient magnetic field quite diligently."
> - that a
> coincidence between striping and ridge addition is pure serendipity?
Ocean ridge spreading is a continuing process that has been in progress
since the breakup of Pangaea.
I was simply responding to the OP's remark "Another feature is that the
Earth's seafloor spreading zones are in a 1:1 correlation with dipole
reversal events."
He seems to be confusing the *spreading zones* themselves (of which there is
roughly one per ocean, such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge) with the *records* of
the earth's magnetic field produced *by* the spreading zones. This type of
imprecise communication must be avoided if one hopes to be able to
meaningfully discuss scientific concepts. Otherwise, most discussions tend
to degenerate into disagreements over semantics - apples vs oranges and all
that.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Don Findlay
Why? Because of symmetry of juxaposition of space and time. And
scale. They might both be *directly unconnected, but have the same
parent cause. We shouldn't forget that the flipping field and the
magma intrusion was what started plate tectonics off in the first
place. Though they only got it half right (to my mind). The ridge
bit was OK (enough) but the transform / subduction part was wide of
the mark. The subduction aspect can be halved if the the Eastern
Pacific margin is acknowledged just as 'Atlantic overskating ', (which
it is) and eliminated altogether if the Western Pacific margin is
properly interpreted in terms of extension of the Himalayas and
related back-arc basins
<http://users.indigo.net.au/don/ee/alaska.html> and related
(forthcoming) pages (which it can be without sacrificing anything of
the 'hard data').
In fact it would seem by the juxtaposition that Nature is giving us a
pretty good clue that they are in fact related, perhaps as opposite
sides of the same coin, rather than one having a direct causal
connection with the other. Pretty "in your face", I would think.
Don
CC
tadchem <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote:
OK I'll give you that. It was an imprecise communication. I should
have said there's a 1:1 correlation between spreading ridge events
whereas in retrospect we look at a striping zone and recognize that
this was a ridge spreading event or process. We might suppose that the
spreading is continuous and that magnetic dipoles reversals merely
leave their mark on a dual moving conveyor belt system. But I'm
suggesting that we interpret sea floor spreading as episodic which
kicks in for a while (because it is driven by the episodic creation of
mass in the core of the Earth's electromagnetotoroid which occurs
during the EMT's H-loop mode) and then turns off. In reality the
spreading and therefore Earth expansion may not actually stop but only
be reduced to such low levels that the error margins on the measurement
process may be larger than the expansion magnitude at the time of
measurement.
In discovering the mechanism of a mode change of the Earth's EMT I also
discovered the mechanism for the generation of mass in the core of the
EMT. So, I'm very prone to suggest that the correlation between
magnetic striping and sea floor spreading is 1:1. The intermediate
mode between a full reversal is the H-loop mode and the H-loop mode
also is the mode in which mass creation in the core of the EMT takes
place.
CC (the OP) :-).
CC
tadchem <tadche...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "CC" <c...@singtech.com> wrote in message
> news:040220030444295656%c...@singtech.com...
> > Well, it really isn't 'all hype' as you think.
>
> In the sense of "exaggeration" I consider it to be "hype."
>
> > Records are for at least 171 times (a dipole reversal).
>
> ...and not a single extinction event has been tied to any of the last 171
> magnetic pole reversals.
>
> > William Topping found 70,000 proton track per cm^2 in worked churt
>
> I think you mean "chert."
Of course. "Chert". No need for a spell checker when I've got you,
eh? :-).
>
> > and
> > flint tailing at a PaleoIndian site what is now northern Michigan.
>
> Without more data, that number is totally meaningless, assuming Topping
> could distinguish proton tracks from tracks produced by naturally occurring
> radioactive materials and by cosmic rays.
Dig around. You should write to Willaim Topping and get a copy of his
paper "Cosmogenic radiocarbon as a source of error at Paleo-Indian
sites and evidence for a giant solar flare in prehistory."
William Topping
Rt. 2, Box 2779, Baldwin, Michigan 49304 USA
> > If the Earth's main flux loop structure (electromagnetotoroid) or EMT
> > for short were to go through a similar process then there would be
> > considerable damage to the biosphere.
>
> By your own admission this has happened at least 171 times in the past, but
> there is NO evidence of the "considerable damage" to the biosphere like
> there is of biosphere changes and climate change associated with "ice ages".
Let's review: "Evidence is the subjective interpretation of data, not
the data itself." Since it is subjective what may constitute and
qualify as evidence for you may not for me.
When people say that "there's no evidence" they are stating their own
subjective viewpoint, or the idea is so new that no one ever thought to
make the correlation in the first place. I would say that the data is
there but that without the idea to intepret it in that way then one can
say there's no evidence yet that you've seen.
> > Charged particles would be
> > accelerated poleward; protons to one pole and electrons to the other.
>
> The magnetic field of the earth normally channels charged particles from the
> solar wind to the magnetic poles. The charged particles follow helical
> paths coiled around themagnetic flux lines. Protons are stopped by the
> particle collisions in the ionosphere and electrons are carried down to the
> ground. The air of the troposphere is non-conducting, while the ionosphere
> and the ground are conductors, so the earth is a huge spherical condensor.
> The average voltage gradient is 100 volts per meter, increasing from the
> ground up.
Well, actually protons are sent west and electrons east. Because the
field is a magnetic dipole and has a gradient spiraling is to be
expected. But during the H-loop mode of the Earth's primary flux loop
(its electromagnetotoroid or EMT) the protons will be accelerated
toward one pole (of the large scale electric dipole) and the electrons
to the other.
> > Another feature is that the Earth's seafloor spreading zones are in a
> > 1:1 correlation with dipole reversal events.
> You misspeak. The spreading zones are there. The freshly produced basalt
> that is a product of the spreading records the earth's ambient magnetic
> field quite diligently. There is no "1:1 correlation" between a *handful*
> of spreading zones and *hundreds* of dipole reversal events. The
> correlation exists between the dipole reversal events and the magnetic field
> orientation recorded in thte basalt.
Technically each set of magnetic striping zones or ridges of a common
magnetic orientation (which come in pairs) at the time of their
production as new seafloor were the active spreading zone. Of course,
some pairs are now a thousand miles apart. Nevertheless, I recognize
that one can interpret sea floor spreading as a continuous process and
the magnetic striping as only marking the new sea floor as it cooled
through the Curie temperature of the ridge material.
> > In studying flux loop systems over the years I've discovered that an
> > EMT in a compact mode can generate copious quantities of neutrons in
> > the core. That's right, you're likely to choke on this but the same
> > mechanism which can cause a dipole reversal; which causes a pi/2 radian
> > rotation of the flux density vector around the axis of the Poynting
> > vector on a flux loop is operative during the H-loop mode. This
> > process produces quantum scale copies (structurally) of the main flux
> > loop system. These quantum scale flux loops are exactly the same thing
> > as neutrons.
>
> An interesting claim. Have you any experimental evidence to support it?
> Can you *make* neutrons on the benchtop by playing with your toroids?
There's actually quite a bit of experimental 'evidence'. Bear in mind
that 'evidence' is not the data itself but rather the subjective
interpretation of the data.
As for the physicists and cosmologists interests in these matters, the
actual generation of mass in the form of bursts of neutrons (100
million at a single pulse) has been demonstrated multiple times in
controlled laboratory experiments during Project Sherwood. These
plasma pinch experiments which were conducted at multiple laboratories
under the auspices of the A.E.C. (Atomic Energy Commission) all had
essentially similar results. The neutrons generated in these
experiments did not originate from fusion reactions as had been the
scientists' hopes. Careful analysis of the energy spectrum of those
neutrons revealed they were not thermonuclear in origin. See 'Project
Sherwood' by Amasa Bishop (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company) (c) 1958.
Even though extensive tests were conducted to determine their source,
by the close of the program in 1958 the origin of those neutrons was
still a mystery. An analysis of the experimental set up which produced
those neutron bursts reveals that the exact conditions necessary to
stimulate pi/2 radian flux density rotations existed at the pinch zone
in the plasma and thus millions of microscale flux loop systems
(neutrons) were created on the spot. If the scientists involved in
Project Sherwood had not erected a mental block by the repetition of
and belief in the standard mantra of conservation of mass which has
been an unproven yet axiomatic foundation stone of modern physics
perhaps they would have discovered that they were actually creating
mass in the 1950's. Instead, a whole generation of physicists had to
pass away first.
I've used high voltage discharge equipment to produce small scale
electromagnetotoroids (artificially produced ball lightning events).
Though I had no equipment to measure any neutron production there's
evidence that EMT's (as the natural phenomenon of Ball Lightning) can
and do sometimes generate large quantities neutrons.
<Begin of Sci. Amer. article>
Curious Phenomenon In Venezuela
Cowgill, Warner; Scientific American, 55:389, December 18, 1886
During the night of the 24th of October last, which was rainy
and tempestuous, a family of nine persons, sleeping in a hut a few
leagues from Maracaibo, were awakened by a loud humming noise and a
vivid, dazzling light, which brilliantly illuminated the interior of
the house.
The occupants, completely terror stricken, and believing, as
they relate, that the end of the world had come, threw themselves on
their knees and commenced to pray, but their devotions were almost
immediately interrupted by violent vomitings, and extensive swellings
commenced to appear in the upper part of their bodies, this being
particularly noticeable about the face and lips.
It is to be noted that the brilliant light was not accompanied
by a sensation of heat, although there was a smoky appearance and a
peculiar smell.
The next morning the swellings had subsided, leaving upon the
face and body large black blotches. No special pain was felt until the
ninth day, when the skin peeled off, and these blotches were
transformed into virulent raw sores.
The hairs of the head fell off upon the side which happened to
be underneath when the phenomenon occurred, the same side of the body
being, in all nine cases, the more seriously injured.
The remarkable part of the occurrence is that the house was
uninjured, all doors and windows being closed at the time.
No trace of lightning could afterward be observed in any part
of the building, and all the sufferers unite in saying that there was
no detonation, but only the loud humming already mentioned.
Another curious attendant circumstance is that the trees around
the house showed no signs of injury until the ninth day, when they
suddenly withered, almost simultaneously with the development of the
sores upon the bodies of the occupants of the house.
This is perhaps a mere coincidence, but it is remarkable that
the same susceptibility to electrical effects, with the same lapse of
time, should be observed in both animal and vegetable organisms.
I have visited the sufferers, who are now in one of the
hospitals of this city; and although their appearance is truly
horrible, yet it is hoped that in no case will the injuries prove
fatal.<End of Sci. Amer. article>
<Begin C. Cagle's comments>
*** C. Cagle's notes*** Cowgill was attached to the U.S. Consulate at
Maracaibo. This remarkable event has many of the features of a
"classic" Ball Lightning (BL) event. Humming is frequently reported as
being associated with many other BL events and the humming itself is a
clue to the oscillatory process of dipole reversals associated with BL.
The physiological effects, however, both on plant and human life, are
evidence of exposure to radioactive particles. I believe that the
particular effects are consistent with exposure to a strong neutron
flux in the near region of the phenomenon attendant with possible
related products (such as beta particles, alpha particles, and various
daughter products from thermal or epithermal or perhaps even fast [over
.1 Mev] neutron induced decays) as might be expected from exposure to
such a flux. The severe skin burns associated with this event could be
taken as evidence of hydrogen or nitrogen capture (of neutrons) and the
recoil related to the interaction of neutrons and hydrogen in the water
in the skin of the victims (or with nitrogen in tissues). It is worth
noting that in 1886 radioactivity was unknown. Likewise, electrons,
protons, alpha particles, and neutrons were years away from discovery.
Taking into account that this was obviously particulate radiation (not
photonic) one has several choices which might be limited to alpha
particles, beta particles and perhaps neutrons. Thermal neutrons
could certainly deposit energy into the outer layers of skin as could
beta or alpha particles but there's a limited propagation (in air) and
penetration of alpha particles and beta particles. Neutrons, on the
other hand could penetrate the walls of the house and possibly undergo
neutron capture by the hydrogen in the water in the tissues of the
surrounding flora or in the nitrogen of plant tissues. There also
remains the question of the origin of the rapid onset of nausea which
led to the vomitings mentioned in the report. I understand that some
radiation therapy can induce nausea but I don't know the details of the
mechanism (or even if it is true). <end of C. Cagle's comments>
If you could get some of your 'expert' friends or colleagues to comment
on the type of radiation that they think must have been present based
only upon the physiological effects (nausea, vomiting, burns, hair
loss, plant kill off, the apparent ability of the radiation to
penetrate the walls of the house, etc.) which were reported without
regard to or worrying about the possible mechanism, I would be
interested in hearing or reading what they have to say.
> > So it is that the Earth's EMT during the H-loop flux
> > mode will produce hundreds of billions of tons of neutrons per second.
>
> Where does all this energy come from? If dipole reversal is cyclic, why
> doesn't the source of this energy become depleted?
When you are asking "Where does all this energy come from?" you are
demonstrating your conservation mantra think mode. Conservation
doesn't say a thing about the outright creation of mass in the first
place but only about the transformation of mass and energy. After the
mass and energy is created then its transformations (from one form to
another) are conservative but the process of mass creation itself is
not. I think it is a bit cheeky to insist on a property of mass when
in fact the general community of physicists in the world doesn't
actually understand the origin of mass nor the nature of charge nor of
gravity in the first place.
> > This means that there really is a means for mass creation/production
> > and the consequence to a planet is that it will undergo gross expansion
> > after each episode of mass production in the planet's core.
>
> I once saw an old atlas (published in about 1959) which tried to explain
> continental drift by claiming the earth was growing, but that the
> continental crust was NOT growing. The explanation raised more questions
> than it answered, and could only be completed with a violation of the
> conservation of mass-energy.
You know I was hung up on the same mantra myself for years and years
and years. E=mc^2 is really an articulation of the law of conservation
of mass and energy. It basically says that the stuff which composes
mass and energy (Joule called it vis viva) must move back and forth
across the equals sign without loss or gain. However, it says
absolutely nothing about the origin of mass and energy in the first
place. To make the claim that it does is to enter into metaphysics and
to assert your belief as a fundamental doctrine of your
pseudoscientific religion.
> > If one
> > just looks at the New World Hammond Atlas (at your local library)
> > they've done an excellent job of mapping the sea floor spreading zones.
> > When looked at all at once one gets the distinct impression that the
> > Earth has expanded and the sea floor spreading zones are the massive
> > stretch marks.
>
> If you ignore all the subduction zones, which are as abundant as the
> spreading centers.
That's a null content statement which you are trying to make pregnant
with armloads of assumptions. In fact, what one calls subduction
zones really are orogens which subsided and are continuing to subside
pulling one of the margin (sides) down with it.
I see mountain chains as the product of core origin high momentum
sheets which diapirically drive up the upper mantle and lithosphere.
They have lots of momentum during their rise. As sheet momentum
declines (which produced the orogen) the leading edge of the sheet
reaches its maximum height then gravity drives it back downward even
while the bottom portion is still rising and this produces lateral
spreading. As the lateral spreading cools the central belt of the
orogen is still far out of isostasy and the whole central belt of the
system is mechanically locked out of isostasy. The whole orogen system
including the valley systems on either side are in isostasy but the
central mountain belts are not.
So when an expansion episode occurs the lithospheric tension worldwide
goes way up and the first places to fail are the already stressed
basements or roots of the orogens. One side of the mountain chain will
fail first and that side then will rapidly subside and it pulls the
whole orogen down with it. That's what a subduction zone is. Its a
big stretch to insist that all the new sea floor created at the
spreading zones has all been swallowed up at the subduction zones.
First, its is simply a belief and not an item of certain knowledge.
The data, which you would rely upon would be (as you insist) all gone,
subducted. You are nearly forced to insist on this if you are ignorant
of the mass generation process that can occur in any macroscale EMT and
simultaneously insistent that mass must be created by conservative
processes.
In a way there are conservation elements in mass creation but it isn't
in the mass itself but rather in the property of charge. Mass comes
into being in the form of charge conjugate pairs, not matter
anti-matter pairs. Matter anti-matter pair generation is a
conservative process transformation, not necessarily a mass creation
process. Matter is primarily created in the form of flux loop systems
and in the core of the Earth such flux loop systems are at the quantum
scale as neutrons.
> > In fact, the biosphere has undergone tremendous devastation again and
> > again and the primary cause of mass extinctions is a major expansion
> > episode.
> In the history of our own genus there have been several dipole reversals,
> but the only mass extinction appears to have occurred at the end of the
> Pleistocene.
>
> Show me *please* a single mass extiction that can be laid at the doorstep of
> a dipole reversal. AFAIK, none of the mass extinctions can be dated
> precisely enough to correlate to a single event.
I'm certain that I could point one out to you but I doubt that you
would have sufficient courage to acknowledge it in public and in
keeping with the spirit of most of the denizens who haunt this
newsgroup you'd probably resort to mockery.
One I'll point out is the Greek legend of Phaeton. You can assume that
such a legend was made up to amuse children or to teach them an object
lesson in how child-like enthusiam can be over reachingly dangerous but
I think that the legend was the proffered explanation of why the Earth
was scorched by the sun during prehistory. As I mentioned in another
post that there were found 70,000 proton tracks through the tailings of
worked chert and flint, etc. at a Paleo Indian site in Northern
Michigan.
> > There are a number of websites which have information on Earth
> > Expansion and even though geologists have the evidence for Earth
> > expansion staring them in the face they refuse to accept the facts.
>
> There are also a number of websites devoted to flat earth theory. That is
> no guarantee of credibility. "Geologists ... rewfuse to accept the facts" -
> now *you* are sounding a little paranoid.
I wasn't suggesting that because there were a number of websites which
have information on Earth Expansion that somehow that fact made Earth
Expansion real. I mentioned it because you might want to make use them
as a source of information. I realize that there are probably
thousands of websites where you can get the standard regurgitation on
Big Bang theory, Black holes, etc. also. That does not mean that
because there are great numbers of such sites that such information has
anything at all to do with the actual physics of the universe. I don't
even agree with all the things that are found on EE sites. I'm a
pariah among EE people too because while some may be ardent believers I
likewise show them no mercy when they proffer inane explanations.
Maxlow, for example, still uses his sea floor spreading chronology when
in fact, if there is a mechanism for mass creation in the core then the
whole science of the radiometric dating of rocks is founded upon
incorrect assumptions and one can't differentiate a 4000 year old rock
from one might suppose is 4.5 billion years old. Maxlow believes that
the sea floor spreading data indicates that the Earth was once so small
that the entire present continental crust covered the entire planet.
Carey believed that, and so did Klaus Vogel and others. If no new mass
was added to the Earth then the Earth at a radius of 2139 miles would
have been almost twice as dense as uranium. It would have been a
supercritical mass unless there was some means to prevent if from
detonating. So, some of these people are forced to acknowledge the
reality of Earth Expansion by mountains of data which the interpret as
'evidence' but then are stuck using radiometric dating when it makes no
sense at all to do so.
> > My own research has allowed me to discover the mechanism for mass
> > creation in the universe. This is hard to believe especially if you
> > were raised with the conservation law mantra drilled into your head.
>
> Show me. Please explain how, design an apparatus, test it, and demonstrate
> the production of a single neutron from the collapse of your magnetic field.
I never said it was from the collapse of a magnetic field so please
don't remanufacture what I did state so that it conveys ideas which are
not consistent with my discoveries.
I suggest you first read "Project Sherwood". Then you can reinspect
the Scientific American Article. And then you can take a look at the
article by S. Shah, H. Razdan, C. Bhat, and Q. Ali, "Neutron Generation
in Lightning Bolts," NATURE, 313, 773 (1985).
Of course, the Nature article doesn't suggest the 'creation' of
neutrons but only their 'generation' ostensibly from some other
mechanism whereby pre-existing neutrons might be stripped from the
nuclei of atoms in the atmosphere.
> > In fact, conservation laws only express that energy and matter can be
> > transformed one into the other without gain or loss. The truth of the
> > matter is that they say nothing about the origin of mass in the first
> > place. Conservation laws don't address the issue of the origin of
> > matter. Some think that the mythical Big Bang answers the question of
> > the origin of matter but it doesn't. First, it doesn't because it
> > isn't a belief that can be made subject to verification. Second,
> > that's exactly what it is - a belief. It's not valid or legitimate
> > science.
>
> If the earth had been increasing in mass throughout its history, its orbit
> would have changed SIGNIFICANTLY, as would the orbit of the moon, and any
> other planet (such as Jupiter) which has a magnetic field (unless you are
> also willing to discard the conservation of angular momentum). Yet the
> earth has demonstrably been within the "zone of habitability" - the zone in
> which water can exist on earth as a solid, liquid, or vapor - for almost all
> of its existence.
You're supposing that I would posit that the Earth changed in mass
while the Sun or other planets did not. I've read that according to
studies of some supposedly ancient coral that the ancient Earth had an
18 hour day. What could cause a slowing of the rotation more than mass
created in the core and moving outward (conservation of angular
momentum)? Of course, they may have given a mistaken interpretation of
the data also. If the Earth were to increase in mass then one might
argue that such increase must cause an orbit change (longer, larger)
but if the Sun also increased in mass then the change might not be that
great.
> The astronomical data does not support your thesis.
Nonsense. Your interpretation of astronomical data may not but don't
for an instant presume that your interpretation is necessarily correct.
It just happens to be the interpretation that you are comfortable with
at this time.
Presently you don't have enough information about the nature of mass,
the nature of the gravitational field, or the process by which mass is
created in the cores of stars and planets to submit an informed
opinion.
That you are nevertheless not deterred from proffering one anyway
speaks against your ability to learn. When you think you know it all,
how in the hell could it be that you could learn anything new?
CC.
Jonathan Silverlight
writes
>
>OK I'll give you that. It was an imprecise communication. I should
>have said there's a 1:1 correlation between spreading ridge events
>whereas in retrospect we look at a striping zone and recognize that
>this was a ridge spreading event or process. We might suppose that the
>spreading is continuous and that magnetic dipoles reversals merely
>leave their mark on a dual moving conveyor belt system. But I'm
>suggesting that we interpret sea floor spreading as episodic which
>kicks in for a while (because it is driven by the episodic creation of
>mass in the core of the Earth's electromagnetotoroid which occurs
>during the EMT's H-loop mode) and then turns off. In reality the
>spreading and therefore Earth expansion may not actually stop but only
>be reduced to such low levels that the error margins on the measurement
>process may be larger than the expansion magnitude at the time of
>measurement.
Doesn't your "theory" say that the creation of mass is not happening at
the moment? But sea floor spreading is demonstrably happening.
Everyone else seems happy with the idea that sea floor spreading is
balanced by subduction, which is another observed process.
Don Findlay
Bibbity-stick:- The upper crustal layers rotationally skate on their
substrate (e.g., <http://users.net.au/don/ee/alaska.html> ) as well
as dilate by ocean floor spreading. GPS records of movement
therefore could have less to do with ridge creation (sea floor
spreading) than some would like to think. In other words, the lateral
movements of continents may be simply reflecting flat dislocations
between the crust and the mantle, rather than pull-apart splits at the
ridges. (e.g. western America overskating Eastern Pacific).
DF.
CC
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <$C9bx0vM...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>, Jonathan Silverlight
<jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Doesn't your "theory" say that the creation of mass is not happening at
> the moment? But sea floor spreading is demonstrably happening.
> Everyone else seems happy with the idea that sea floor spreading is
> balanced by subduction, which is another observed process.
> --
> mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
My 'model' (not 'theory') does have it that because the Earth's EMT is
presently in the E-loop mode that it is not now producing mass in the
core of the Earth. However, there is some time lag from the production
of mass and the expansion which ultimately can be traced back to the
mass production.
When the mass is produced it is created in the form of neutrons right
at the poloidal axis of the Earth's EMT and because the Earth's EMT
generates a monolithic gravitational field (along the toroidal axis of
the EMT is the gravitational terminus line [which is closed] of the
monolithic 'field' produced by the presence of the EMT) then any new
mass falls toward that terminus line. Because of the charge separation
effect of a gravitational field any protons which result from the decay
of neutrons will accumulate along with neutrons to the terminus of the
monolithic field. Electrons will be absolutely excluded (because of
the charge separation effect of the gravitational field). Thus, along
the terminus of the Earth's EMT a new type of matter which is composed
only of protons and neutrons will accumulate. I call this new
superdense matter which is not differentiated into various atomic
species, "Isaacium". Isaac in Hebrew means 'laughter of disbelief' or
'mocking laughter' and since I predict that most mainstream physicists
upon hearing of Isaacium will laugh in mockery at the suggestion that
such matter can exist it has its appropriate name. Nevertheless,
Isaacium rings are ubiquitous in the universe and essentially
constitutes the 'dark matter' or 'missing matter' that cosmologists
have now predicted exists.
It is dark matter because the strong gravitational field produces the
charge separation effect and hence excludes electrons from the
Isaacium. Without electron associations where electrons are able to
fall to ground states no emission of photons takes place and therefore
the matter (Isaacium) is necessarily 'dark'.
Any major fluctuations in the main flux loop (EMT) of the Earth can
allow some electron associations to occur with the Isaacium. Such
events allow the Isaacium surface to begin to differentiate into a
variety of atomic species. Immediately there is a rapid volume
increase as layers of Isaacium acquire electrons and differentiate into
an assortment of atomic species. This process (of acquiring electrons)
not only releases energy in a broad spectrum of photons but also endows
such created elements with upward momentum (because of the volume
increase).
Since the Earth's EMT would likely be experiencing quite a bit of
fluctuations it is likely that the surface of the Isaacium ring can
acquire electrons and hence peel off in hot high momentum sheets of
high Z matter. As this high Z material moves away from the terminus
region it is likely to acquire more and more electrons and produce more
and more decays events as it differentiates into lighter elements.
As soon as the matter begins to acquire electrons and obtain atomic
volume that volume increase will be transmitted to the entire
lithosphere as increased lithospheric tension.
I agree that many present day so-called geologists or geophysicists are
'happy' with the idea that seafloor spreading 'seems' to be balanced by
subduction. But what we're seeing today if any expansion is occurring
(and some must be occurring related to the decay of ordinary
radioactive elements) is at best the last bit of run down from the last
expansion episode. As I stated earlier the amount of expansion
presently going on is likely smaller than the error margins of the
equipment used to measure such expansion. Last, I'm certainly not
convinced that anyone is seriously looking for 'evidence' of expansion
since the prevailing paradigm that grad students are expected to
endorse does not include that as a possibility.
CC.