Science contradicts itself..Questions

[astroboy77]

These are very interesting questions from Geoscience ... if the earth powers itself around the sun in orbit , how did it become in perpetual motion in orbit, and why does it stay this way? Why cant we recreate this same setup for free energy? I think Ed Leedskalnin of Coral Castle fame, made mention of this in his Magnetic Currents book or was quoted as saying it, in regards to his perpetual motion machine. http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8172093674121637649

If mainstream scientists say energy cant be created or destroyed and the law of Thermodynamics applies, but in the same way dictate that the entire universe magically 'evolved' from a single dot preceeding the 'big bang', this is a paradox. How can you have both? How can you get something from nothign to start with? Most ppl who believe this story only do so because the alternative to the long winded evolution theory, is 'special creation', and most presumptiously discount that.

To understand more about biofuel scam (food as fuel), and why we are addicted to oil, see the documentary "Endgame" by Alex Jones, available free on google video. Also "who killed the electric car" interesting eye openers as to why our world is how it is. As a brief example of things that run counter to common sense;

-A world addicted to carbon fuels, while plenty of alternatives are suppressed or stiffled, like Tesla and many more. Why and who profits?

-Military machines and wars that keep growing, U.S. as example. Why and who profits? The world over theres national instability, civil wars, assassinations, Cu Deta's (however its spelt).... Gov't overthrows. Who always profits? The war makers.

-Food shortages the world over, yet politicans are calling for using BioFuels! As you suggested in yoru previous post, using Corn for fuel is a bad idea (sugar, maybe not so bad considering how overly sugar induced western society is). There are food riots going on around the world... if we start pumping food into our gas tank this is going to kill millions more. Which by modern standards isnt that bad to many ppl. i.e. to drive my car i might have to kill by starvation a poor village in a 3rd world country, who I will never see and can not be blamed for. This sounds sick and it is, but I'm sure there are pletny of people who would see no problem pumping food into their tank for the pleasure of driving! Evolution = law of the jungle, survival of the fittest (the richest?)

-Drug wars! e.g. despite marijuana being an excellent crop for food, fuel and medicine and grows easily, it is attacked by Govt as the root of all evils. Again who profits from its vilification? and why is the C1A constantly linked to the importation of heroin? John Kerry said it in his investigation.

This is only scratching the surface ... but modern science is run like a dictatorship, morals and dogmas are clinged to like religious tablets... going against the status quo is to risk your career. And often commercial interests rule the outcome of many studies.. like Dr. George Carlo (EMF), or Phyllis Mullenix (fluoride).. sorry I digress...

Truth in science is like using  'magnetic sticks and balls' to build a house, you have to piece it together yourself, all the stuff in the middle is just air and when its linked together it'll make a solid interconnecting structure. ;-)

Pete.

[GeoscienceStudent]

These are very interesting questions from Geoscience ... if the earth powers itself around the sun in orbit , how did it become in perpetual motion in orbit, and why does it stay this way? Why cant we recreate this same setup for free energy? I think Ed Leedskalnin of Coral Castle fame, made mention of this in his Magnetic Currents book or was quoted as saying it, in regards to his perpetual motion machine. http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=8172093674121637649


Pete.

According to theory, and pardon begged if I misquote something, but when a supernova exploded somewhere else, particles from it spread across the universe and those particles began a new galaxy.  Particles began to swirl around to create the Sun,  4.7 billion years ago, the largest, and by fusion produces energy, that eventually will become a black hole and cause the outside membrane to cave in then explode, and another supernova occurs.  There are other kinds of black holes too, some dissapate, some just stay black holes, depending on their sizes.
The particles swirled also the began to compress against each other forming the earth 4.6 billion years ago.  Nuclear forces cause some elements to move toward the outside such as silicate rich substances while  Iron and nickel is left in the middle.  Now gravitational forces cause us to continue to revolve around the sun.  It seems that our revolving is eliptical but less so recently according to a National Geographic show about global warming (telling the whole story, not Al Gore's).  At first, the poles switch alot and quickly and the rotation was faster, the outside of the Earth Methane gases and lots of volcanic eruptions, but over the billions of years, this has slowed down, the last polar switch somewhere around 600,000 years ago.  I found a lab showing quantum computer model of the dynamo effect and polar switch of the Earth (they mathmatically considered nuclear decay in their model that best considered the slowing rate of polar switching ) and also information showing the inside electromagnetic polar position has been moving over the past 100 years.  Because the inside one rotates faster than the outside, it maintains, and prevents the outside one from switching before the inside (inside is stronger force than outside).
The earth is in motion because something set it into motion, (former explosion, then attraction and gravitational forces) but the attraction of the Sun is involved here too, then also, slowing down over time is also happening (geological time). So the Earth's inner core decides the polar swithcing, but the Sun is involved with the revolution due to the gravitational pull. 
Now Question:  Is there a relationship between gravitational pull of planets and magnetism?

[Koen1]

According to theory, and pardon begged if I misquote something, but when a supernova exploded somewhere else, particles from it spread across the universe and those particles began a new galaxy.  Particles began to swirl around to create the Sun,  4.7 billion years ago, the largest, and by fusion produces energy, that eventually will become a black hole and cause the outside membrane to cave in then explode, and another supernova occurs.  There are other kinds of black holes too, some dissapate, some just stay black holes, depending on their sizes.

Well actually, as far as I know, stars don't all go supernova, that depends on their mass, and I seem to recall the "line" was at the Chandrasekar limit (spelling probably off) of 1.4 solar masses or close to that. Not all stars go black hole, those below a certain mass just "pop".

Nuclear forces cause some elements to move toward the outside such as silicate rich substances while  Iron and nickel is left in the middle.

That is what the theory says, but I still think it slightly odd that our sun should consist mostly of the lightest elements in our solar system while
theory claims the heavier elements like iron would somehow stay in that same region...

Because the inside one rotates faster than the outside, it maintains, and prevents the outside one from switching before the inside (inside is stronger force than outside)
The earth is in motion because something set it into motion, (former explosion, then attraction and gravitational forces) but the attraction of the Sun is involved here too, then also, slowing down over time is also happening (geological time). So the Earth's inner core decides the polar swithcing, but the Sun is involved with the revolution due to the gravitational pull.

Doesn't seem to explain why the poles need to switch. According to your story, the situation seems pretty stable and should not require any switching of the
magnetic poles at all...

Now Question:  Is there a relationship between gravitational pull of planets and magnetism?

Probably.
I think there's a link between gravity, light, and electromagnetism that has not really been discovered yet.
We're starting to head in the right direction with electrokinetic/electrogravity experiments, and with experiments
that show direct interaction between electromagnetism and light (negatively refractive metamaterials for example,
and experiments converting tiny amounts of photons in a multiple tesla magnetic field into "ghost"photons that
can penetrate walls and be undetectable untill reconverted back into normal photons in a reversed magnetic field,
that kind of thing). We've only recently begun to study "magnetic current" (official terminology: "spin current") effects.
We've recently made a metamaterial lens that can bend light around it at the right frequencies, effectively making
it invisible.
I think there's still a whole branch of electromagnetic theory left to discover, that deals with these direct interactions
between electromagnetism as we know it and light, gravity, and spacetime itself.

[GeoscienceStudent]

why the poles switch.  Don't know WHY they need to, but the rate is actually calculated by Uranium decay rate, weakening of magnetic field rate, and there has been some other calculations and theories on this, what would explain the rates seen further down on this post, and since it's too complicated I'm not even going to try to explain that.  It's all theory anyways.
A good explanation and has more defined numbers than my notes had by NASA on Pole switching can be read in:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

"Sometimes the field completely flips. The north and the south poles swap places. Such reversals, recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks, are unpredictable. They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows. "
"Using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with conducting fluids and magnetic fields, Glatzmaier and colleague Paul Roberts have created a supercomputer model of Earth's interior. Their software heats the inner core, stirs the metallic ocean above it, then calculates the resulting magnetic field. They run their code for hundreds of thousands of simulated years and watch what happens."
"What they see mimics the real Earth: The magnetic field waxes and wanes, poles drift and, occasionally, flip. Change is normal, they've learned. And no wonder. The source of the field, the outer core, is itself seething, swirling, turbulent. "It's chaotic down there," notes Glatzmaier. The changes we detect on our planet's surface are a sign of that inner chaos. "
(see web site for complete note)
As far as the stars, yeah, there are all types, but I was really just wanting to talk about our sun, I don't get into Astro Physics much, although it is facinating.

From Canada Geological Survey:  http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/index_e.php


"The Earth's magnetic field (or geomagnetic field) is an ever-changing phenomenon that influences human activity and the natural world in a myriad of ways. The geomagnetic field changes from place to place, and on time scales ranging from seconds to decades to eons. These changes can affect health and safety, and economic well-being. The geomagnetic field, along with its associated phenomena, can both assist and degrade navigation and surveying techniques; it can impede geophysical exploration; it can disrupt electric power utilities, and pipeline operations; and it can influence modern communications systems, spacecraft, and more."

Also, the sun's solar flares can cause disturbances to the electromagnetic field on the outside.  It also causes disturbances with GPS, power lines, etc.  Don't tell Al Gore, he might cause a panic that we have to do something to change the heavens. 
I have heard that the sun has reduced solar flares over the past 8-9 years.  Some think this will lead to a cooling effect vs. Global Warming.  I've noticed that with increased pole switching in the past, also volcanic occurence increase, but I still don't know of any models yet that would show the relationship vs. correlation.  If we had several volcanic eruptions, it causes a cooling effect, also because of the particles shielding the Earth from the sun, however, the particles are also dangerous to life and reduces growth of food and other plant life as seen in the forest tree rings in Ireland around the time of the "Little Ice Age." (circa 1400-1700's)

I don't think it's a good idea to panic, and do things that harm population (burning needed food) as a whole because it increases the uncertainty of negative impact in the future.  A sane careful approach seems more reasonable, decrease use of fossil fuels by staying home when you don't need to go out, turn off lights, use cloth bags instead of plastic at the store, $1.00 at Walmart, increase efficiency of current mechanisms, consider everyone can't go out and buy a new car today anyways, but you can do things to get better gas mileage, like take care of your car, (how many don't bother to change oil, etc....) use things that aren't high needed resources for food, like sugar, apply renewable resources where capable, (Not all places can use geothermal, solar, or wind, but is useful where obtainable).  I read that the change from warm to cooler water in the ocean can also be tapped for energy because of the currents it creates from the movement, but is expensive presently.  Fusion has been contained by the addition of a Toroidal Magnetic field to contain plasma, but it is unstable (keep the drunks away) and still uses too much energy to maintain, so they are still working on that.

from:   Encarta

"Progress in fusion research has been promising, but the development of practical systems for creating a stable fusion reaction that produces more power than it consumes will probably take decades to realize. The research is expensive, as well. However, some progress was made in the early 1990s. In 1991, for the first time ever, a significant amount of energy?about 1.7 million watts?was produced from controlled nuclear fusion at the Joint European Torus (JET) Laboratory in England. In December 1993, researchers at Princeton University used the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor to produce a controlled fusion reaction that output 5.6 million watts of power. However, both the JET and the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor consumed more energy than they produced during their operation.

From:  Encarta:  http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558960_4/Nuclear_Energy.html

If fusion energy does become practical, it offers the following advantages: (1) a limitless source of fuel, deuterium from the ocean; (2) no possibility of a reactor accident, as the amount of fuel in the system is very small; and (3) waste products much less radioactive and simpler to handle than those from fission systems"


Interesting...

[Koen1]

Yes, that Joint European Torus project was one of the previous ones.
In the mean time the ITER has been started, that's the one most of the funding was pulled
from by member nations in order to fund their anti-terrorism security measures.
(Quote from Wiki about ITER funding: "In December 2007, the United States zeroed funding for ITER in fiscal year 2008."
Yes, that's right zeroed. Yet using food crops to produce ethanol is worth investing
billions in, as is shooting US-trained Mujahedin in some big dirt box? I don't follow that reasoning
too well... )
The original plan was to make that really large and actually produce electrical energy
for consumption. But that didn't fly so it became yet another very large test reactor
that might be able to produce significant output. Or it might not.
There's other plans for the so-called DEMO reactor which is to follow ITER, and the
DEMO is now planned to become that first actual fusion power plant (for which
ITER was originally intended). Tests with the JET and ITER did provide more insight into
the size and energy density needed for safe sustained fusion, so they weren't useless,
but it could have been done more efficiently.

For more info:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/international/europe/28cnd-fusion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

So actually they're indeed still working on it, but they could have been quite a bit
further down the line already if our politicians would just dedicate themselves to
what is best for our collective countries instead of their own bank accounts and
private concerns.