Science contradicts itself..Questions

[GeoscienceStudent]

Thanks for the update.  I went into the ITER website and they have a lot of stuff for educators and students too, so I ordered it to see if it would help with my research project (even though that has taken a turn towards present fossil fuels available presently, economic and political and physiological problems in obtaining it)  Some day I hope I can narrow this all down to something presentable for when I apply for my masters after I've taken the GRE.

{GRE= a wigwam is to a &^%#% as a *%^$% is to a A)^%$%^ B)&%*^$ C)^TT&*TU or D)JKT^&JH  pick one and hope you know GREEK  } They don't have one that actually questions you on Geography or GIS.

http://www.iter.org/a/index_use_1.htm

There's a fly through animated design on the ITer project here, you can see and power point presentations on their plans and work.. I believe 2006 updates.  I saw Japan, Republic of Korea, EU, USA, Russia, and China were all working on this project. 

New question:  If there is relationship between Sun/Earth or even Earth/Moon gravitational force and magnetic, could there be the same relationship like when you take a strong magnet against the weaker magnet and the weaker magnet always acts like the opposite pole due to stealing or borrowing (I'm not sure which it is) by the stronger that makes the weaker magnet still attract?  Would that happen also between the planets and Sun, no matter what poles are facing the Sun that the strength of the SUn would always cause the planets to act like an attraction force like the magnets.  Of course that considers, that I don't know which way the Sun is rotating if at all. ( I hope I made sense here) Wondering if it acted the same.  \
Would that not mean there are weaker magnetic fields away from the sun where the planets are?  Would the revolutions of the planets cause any magnetic field rings around the sun?  or vise versa ( the sun's magnetic field is what the planets are in)?  or have no effect?

What causes the sun to self sustain its fusion?  Is it the chemical and physical occurance and decay only or does in involve the magnetic fields around it ( like when they put the magnetic field to contain the plasma in fusion)?  And Could it actually need the solar system to maintain it or are there stars that can sustain it without a system of planets around them?  Do you know?
It appears that that is going on in the (the nuclear activity) Earth that the magnetic dynamo effect helps to increase pressure and heat and contain it along with  also decay rate of Uranium and I saw some information that antimatter is involved here in nuclear reaction both in sun and Earth and they made a scope that can measure   neutrinos  when mixed with Chlorine to make Argon or something and are working on something to measure antiprotons from space:   http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR99/CENT99/abs/S6715006.html

Hope I'm not making it more complex than it is 

[GeoscienceStudent]

Just came across this:
"It has been known since 1983 that the star Beta Pictoris is surrounded by a disk of gas and dust. Spectra of Beta Pictoris show absorption features which are currently believed to be due to cometary like clouds of gas occultating the star from the debris left over from planetary formation. Though it's far from certain it is believed by some that planets may already have formed around Beta Pictoris.
HST has  observed Beta Pictoris (right) and found the disk to be significantly thinner than previously thought. Estimates based on the Hubble image place the disk's thickness as no more than one billion miles (1600 million kilometers), or about 1/4 previous estimates from ground-based observations. The disk is tilted nearly edge-on to Earth. Because the dust has had enough time to settle into a flat plane, the disk may be older than some previous estimates. A thin disk also increases the probability that comet-sized or larger bodies have formed through accretion in the disk. Both conditions are believed to be characteristic of a hypothesized circumstellar disk around our own Sun, which was a necessary precursor to the planet-building phase of our Solar Systems, according to current theory.

More recent HST observations have shown the disk to be slightly warped as might be expected from the gravitational influence of a planet. This has been confirmed by observations at ESO.


Recent observations at radio wavelengths of a gas cloud known as Bok Globule B335 have produced images of material collapsing onto a newly born star (only about 150,000 years old). These observations are helping to understand how stars and planets form. The phenomena observed matches the theory of the formation of the solar system -- that is, a large gas cloud collapsed to form a star with an attendant circumstellar disk in which, over time, planets accreted from the matter in the disk and orbited the Sun."http://www.nineplanets.org/other.html

but there's discrepancies, it says the sun is only 4.5 billion years old??
There was some info saying the sun DID indeed rotate.  Sounds like you have to have a sun for a planetery development but not vice versa.  You don't necessarily need planets around the stars.

[Koen1]

{GRE= a wigwam is to a &^%#% as a *%^$% is to a A)^%$%^ B)&%*^$ C)^TT&*TU or D)JKT^&JH  pick one and hope you know GREEK  } They don't have one that actually questions you on Geography or GIS.

A wigwam is to a Greek what an Acropolis is to a Guarani indian: an incomprehensibly ugly structure. Oh that wasn't in the multiple choice was it? nah kidding

New question:  If there is relationship between Sun/Earth or even Earth/Moon gravitational force and magnetic, could there be the same relationship like when you take a strong magnet against the weaker magnet and the weaker magnet always acts like the opposite pole due to stealing or borrowing (I'm not sure which it is) by the stronger that makes the weaker magnet still attract?

Whatwhatwhat?  Let me look at that again...
So you are saying we compare a large and a small magnet to the sun and Earth or the Earth and the Moon? Well we know there's gravity that acts between the Sun and Earth, and there is some magnetic interation also. The large and small magnet do not compare as they are not massive enough to attract eachother gravitationally. Gravity is not magnetism, and magnetic attraction is not the same as gravitational attraction... but I guess I just don't really get your question...
If you meant to ask "does a permanent magnet with a strong enough field "overpower" the magnetic field of a smaller and weaker one that is brought into
that field", then the answer is yes. The exact effect of this stronger field "overpowering" the smaller field can vary. If the weaker magnet is a permanent magnet
with zero internal conductivity and zero ferromagnetic characteristics, then it should not demagnetise in a stronger opposing field, and it would experience
a repulsion such that the smaller magnet will "flip over" in order to align its magnetic field with the stronger one. If the smaller magnet cannot flip over (because
it is fixed somehow) there should merely be two opposed magnetic fields. If the smaller magnet is made of ferromagnetic material like iron, it can demagnetise and remagnetise due to the stronger magnetic field and also ends up with its field aligned with the stronger one (in theory).
So when the larger magnet is flipped over, the smaller magnet can either flip over too, or it can remagnetise oppositely, both ending up with the smaller magnets field aligned with that of the larger one, or it can just not flip over but then whatever keeps it fixed in place should feel a force acting on it.
Or at least, that's my 2 cents.

Would that happen also between the planets and Sun, no matter what poles are facing the Sun that the strength of the SUn would always cause the planets to act like an attraction force like the magnets.

Well if I understood you correctly and the above is in any way (a start of) an answer, then I think it does matter which direction the poles are facing, but instead of them
facing the sun the poles should align with the magnetic field lines of the suns field.

Of course that considers, that I don't know which way the Sun is rotating if at all.

I though it did, or at least it seems to me that whatever was at the center of a spinning accretion disc must also spin...

( I hope I made sense here) Wondering if it acted the same.

Well I also hope I'm making sense to you and wondering if you meant what I understood your question to be.

Would that not mean there are weaker magnetic fields away from the sun where the planets are?  Would the revolutions of the planets cause any magnetic field rings around the sun?  or vise versa ( the sun's magnetic field is what the planets are in)?  or have no effect?

As far as I know the solar magnetic and radiation fields are the strongest fields and highest energies in our solar system. Makes sense, it being a huge big
fusion reactor that only keeps running due to its own gravitational pressure... No planet can even come close to outputting that much energy. It's like comparing
a fireball to a glass marble. Obviously much more energy is produced and radiated by the fireball.
So it seems unlikely that things as small as our planets can have effects on the solar magnetic field. Only Jupiter perhaps, it being massive, could have
magnetic fields strong enough to make the sun "feel" them a little. But even Jupiter doesn't compare to the sun in size and energy output...
So I think the planets all revolve in the Suns magnetic field and interact with that.
But hey, I'm not Einstein and even he made mistakes.

What causes the sun to self sustain its fusion?

The sheer pressure of its own mass and the heat that produces in its core, where all these atoms are pushed together with such force that sooner or later something's got to give and they fuse? That's what I was taught and it still sounds reasonable.

Is it the chemical and physical occurance and decay only or does in involve the magnetic fields around it ( like when they put the magnetic field to contain the plasma in fusion)?  And Could it actually need the solar system to maintain it or are there stars that can sustain it without a system of planets around them?  Do you know?

As far as I know solar fusion has little to nothing to do with chemical occurrance nor decay nor the magnetic fields around it, but with the enormous
pressure inside due to the enormous mass...

It appears that that is going on in the (the nuclear activity) Earth that the magnetic dynamo effect helps to increase pressure and heat and contain it along with  also decay rate of Uranium and I saw some information that antimatter is involved here in nuclear reaction both in sun and Earth and they made a scope that can measure   neutrinos  when mixed with Chlorine to make Argon or something and are working on something to measure antiprotons from space:   http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR99/CENT99/abs/S6715006.html

I'm not sure why you brought up the neutrinos and antimatter, but with regard to the nuclear element my opinion is that it is nothing more than an explanation
for the fact that our planetary core is still liquid and moving: the heat trapped in there by decaying radioactive isotopes kept it hot for so long. In contrast to Mars for example, which probably did have a liquid moving core long ago but did not have as many radioactive elements in its crust/mantle/core so that cooled down
a lot faster, solidified, and gone was the martian magnetic field.
I think the main thing to keep in mind is: rotating plasma (sun) or very hot liquid iron (earth) generate a magnetic field. That's how radioactive elements in the earth contribute to the earth magnetic field.

But again, I may be wrong eh. I didn't build the thing so I can't be entirely sure.

[cameron sydenham]

the world was flat -
everything revolved around the earth -
man cannot fly -
if a human ran a 4 minute mile, he would die! -
the soud barrier is impossible to break-
many more
I would like to add that Centrifugal/centripital force - a fictitious force that can not be used, - will in fact be utilized and used as an energy source.
cameron

[Koen1]

many more

Hmm yeah, I always liked the claim that the steam locomotive would kill people because it was claimed
at a speed of 50 kilometers per hour people would no longer be able to breathe for their air supply would be
cut off by the speed. It was also claimed cows would die from stress after seeing such a machine thunder
past at such speeds, or if they didn't die at least their milk would become sour.
All complete nonsense of course.

I would like to add that Centrifugal/centripital force - a fictitious force that can not be used, - will in fact be utilized and used as an energy source.

Would you care to elaborate on that statement? What makes you think so?