Science contradicts itself..Questions

[GeoscienceStudent]

I agree that you should prove out something before accepting it and too many times I see theories as status quo, while admitting it's not proven but it's the curriculum anyways. 
As far as Heiseburg, this could be when dealing perhaps with Probability Math often used in calculations for proving theories and predictions based on uniformitarianism?  I have a problem with probability math, and believe me, I had to take the whole shebang and math courses to learn it and the more I know, the more I distrust it.  What is the probability that a tornado picks up various sand, minerals, and item, forms a perfect working 747, sets it down again, with self thinking mind?  Greater than the probability of an electric bolt hitting primordial goop, turning it into 21 amino acids and creating life that "accidentally" gets mutations out of nowhere, (even though there has been testing showing a relationship of foreign RNA proteins causing DNA replication causing mutations, that some can be passed down generation to generation, but that goes against the theory) then it changes and Oh by chance the environment changes so only the fish with capability of breathing outside of water survives.  Yet we accept the theory without definite proof.  It would happen over 4.6 billion years?  Well let's speed it up and purposefully hit that there goop with electric.  Now why are we just getting ashes and gases?  They managed 17 amino acids that fell apart again last I heard.  I'm still not convinced.  So then they say the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't apply.  Well where did the electric bolt come from then?  I'm a bit confused.
When trying to predict earthquakes exact momentum and position seems to be off on the predictions, then Heiseburg sounds likes he's on to something.  But then, there are some things that just seem to be absolute.  Maybe if we just throw the math of probability out...just joking.  I don't understand it all.

Classic physics,  Quantum theory agrees with you because geophysics, chemistry, and space all need quantum physics to be explained.  It's just to complicated for classic.
I like your analogy of the scientist and farmer.  I have seen geologists arguing with biologists about global warming.  Thing is, both were right, both were wrong, because they kept looking at it from only one point of view instead of looking at the big picture.  Here is another analogy
Patient has a stroke.  His B/P is 160/80.  The neurologist writes order:  Keep systolic B/P 160-180.
Nurse who does not know critical care sees B/P:  160/80.  Family sees B/P 160/80.  They think, norm for systolic is 90-140.  What do you think happens.  See thing is, when dealing with neurology, you have to move off the norm for cardiology. When you have a stroke or brain damage, we purposefully keep up the B/P to help tissue perfusion to encourage healing and prevent residual.  But someone with critical care knowledge would not know this.  That's why they argue.  They just don't know what it is that they don't know.
It's ok with me to rant.  I started it so it's my fault.  "pat pat"
We are all just learning, and when we think we know it all, we stop learning.  If we are not allowed to see all the options, whether right or wrong, whether good or bad, then how can we possible make and informed decision?  This would not be freedom to think for ourselves to come to our own conclusions.
Imagine a surgeon coming to you,,says "you have to have your kidneys removed."
You ask  "why?"
He says  "because I'm the expert and that's the way it is."
You ask  "what's my other options?"
He says " You all always show scepticism when we try to give you the answers without understanding."
You ask " what are the adverse action because of this?"
He says  "You just have to trust in my science.  I know what I'm doing."

Can you imagine?  Yet governments do this all the time.  With knowledge and decisions on science, and if a scientist disagrees or says "wait just one minute before you do something drastic, what's the adverse reaction if we raise the biofuel production on world hunger?"
Then the politicians say,  "They don't believe Global Warming is real."
Scientist tries to say.."It's not that there is no warming, but it's more complicated than just reducing emissions."
Politicians then jump on a band wagon and suggest blowing sulfuric acid into the atmosphere.

WHAT?
"Oh, it's not harmful."
"Then let me see you drink it."
"Oh now, you're not a scientist, don't argue with us."

Without an open mind you will not be able to see the big picture.  I'm trying to be open minded, I have learned alot and things brought up have lead me to look up things, then ask more questions.  I get challenged and something else is brought up, then I go look that up, learn something else, ask more questions.  Maybe all this will make some order of sense eventually.

Question:  If you have two electromagnetic fields (Dynamo effect) and one switches poles, would that not force the other to also switch poles, thus causing rotation to continue to spin same direction?  If you have only one field and switch poles, I get change of rotation, but the Earth has two and I can't imagine it changing rotation, or what would be the result of it, seems too bizarre, but would not the outside and inside field both have to switch?  because you would have two of the same magnetic direction and that would cause repellation so the other, it would seem would have to switch and so if I turned my battery, as well as my magnets, I should get the same direction of rotation.
Bear with me because I'm working on trying to understand Geophysics.  They tell the actions and why on the surface, but you don't know the laws related to it or the fundamentals of the dynamics, so now I'm trying to get a concept of that, so maybe if I can get an understanding by something I can see, I might better understand what you all are talking about based on what I cannot see.
Do you see what I'm getting at? I need examples or analogies to base all these theories and laws on related to my own field before I can understand by yours.  I don't want to sit arguing simply because I didn't bother trying to understand where you're coming from. I just don't know what you know.
But if I can grasp even a little, then maybe I'll be a little better informed on what is all the hollering about on the energy and why it's so difficult to come up with a better solution.  Two cannot walk together lest they be agreed, but you need some kind of foundation to build an agreement on or you'll never come to an agreement.  That's whats wrong with congress most the time.  They're too busy pointing fingers, trying to put each other down instead of listening and considering all the issues they are dealing with.  They jump to conclusions too when they think bio fuels is the best answer and we aught to pay oil companies monies and tax breaks to come up with more ways to create fuels more efficient and environmentally friendly, and they keep only talking about biofuels when we're having droughts and food shortages.  This just seems crazy to me.  Am I wrong?

[GeoscienceStudent]

Have you seen the news lately about stores rationing food in California?  It's getting bad on the biofuels.  Hydrogen would be ok if they used a renewable resource to make it and made it available to us.  I can't find any shape files or anything on Geological Survey about Hydrogen fuel distribution.  There is and active map through the GIS for Indiana website on biofuels and ethanol for our state, though
The problem though is they often burn fossil fuels for hydrogen.  But they could use solar, and magnetic can make it more efficient. Japan and Germany use magnetic on their trains along with another source to make them faster and more efficient.  The magnetic alone doesn't do it because apparently it loses its magnetism after awhile or something.  But they can help, like in Germany it helps the speed.

More than 25% of total energy consumption is by less than 5% of the world's population and guess where that is?  The USA.  We just guzzle it down.  Some 2002 numbers I was looking at shows only less than 41 year petroleum, 80 years natural gas, and 234 years coal, not considering the rise in demand since and that you don't get every drop out.  There is some shale oil and we have 1/3 of the World's shale oil supply in the Green River area of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. We have 60% of the World's total oil shale.  but it's some trillion barrels, (1.3 or something like that) and that would last "snap" that long the way we use it, and the way we get it from the kerogen is still not very efficient.
Personally I'm beginning to think solar is the way, and I'm wondering how those photovoltaic cells are coming that are supposed to be more efficient?
But you're right, its a "Political Crusade.." right into global hunger in exchange for a nobel peace price for getting people to make rash decisions due to emotional panic.   And with our dollar being almost worthless.  price of gold $1000 and no gold standard on the money.

Does anyone know more about "Heaviside " Component and why is it considered "black energy?"

[GeoscienceStudent]

As far as considering it "Black Energy", that would be for the same reason as
"Dark Matter".  Not existing in Standard 3D space, therefore kinda hard to work
with or measure.  There is a user with the handle of the more conventional current
and I have a feeling he could offer more insight.  Beardon offers a good theory, but
it can get very deep at his level, and that's way beyond what most would want to
know.

To put a simple definition out.  If you can imagine the energy flow down a wire.  Now
realize that the "Electron" flow that most accept is an effect of that energy flow, not
the actual cause.  (There can be many disagreements there, but for this simple
explanation, that's the easiest I can put it.)  The size of the Energy Flow is much
greater then the size of the wire.  (Think surface effect, that's why it exists.)  The
energy most of us use is the resultant electron flow / in wire potential flow.  The
"Field?" of actual energy is MUCH larger than the piddelly amount contained in the
wire.  This is where dipoles and the whole Potential energy shuttling stuff comes
from.  (To the more knowledgeable than I, please don't shoot me too badly for this
simplification.  I'm not interested in writting a paper.)  This is also the easy way
of comprehending RE  (radiant energy) as it's the 90 degree phase of the same
potential field moving the electrons.  Because of that 90 Degrees, the Mag field
from electron movement ends up 90 degrees directional.  (Phase is the wrong
word to use there, but I'm avoiding multiple dimention analysis.  KISS Rule.)

I realize that this "simple" definition has errors and will not be fully accepted by
most in the field, but to get the more proper details in their proper perspective
would take me hours, lots of typing, and major extra thought on how to put the
concept into words to get the correct idea across.  Many people still use the old
"Water through a pipe" explanation for electron flow, however, so I guess this is
close enough for a start.  As I said, there are many here who could offer a better
explanation, if they happen to read the thread and type a response.  Until then,
I hope this offers a somewhat gray idea of the concept.

You're right, it's gray.  I'm still trying to contemplate it.  Bearden had described an analogy of Heaviside potential as the wind across an ocean.  Diverged energy like what your sail catches and nondiverged what you miss.  But the problem is, since it is obviously not that simple, how do you apply something to catch nondiverged energy.  Is the radiation 90 degrees what you're saying is nondiverged energy?  I know when a pipe of water is hot and you hold your hand over it you can feel the heat.  I know when you place a metal ring near the copper wire of a motor, close enough produces a spark or attraction when its running.  It is radiating energy, or are elecrons just jumping from the diverged line and moving across to the metal?

THere are some young folks measuring the voltage of the Earth with copper and other wires, coils in the ground.  You only get like .035,  .01, .07 etc.   Someone thought they could obtain energy from the radiation off electrical wires once but it took so much energy to even use that energy to light a lightbulb, it was not effective.  The ground itself doesn't hold its heat, not really considered a good conductor, though there is magnetism in it.   That is why in the desert, where you don't have water, (that does hold heat, or cold longer)  It gets hot fast in the day, and extreme cold at night.   I don't think the idea of obtaining energy from the ground will work, however, its a neat geological experiment that could teach them about the Earth.  If they devise a plan that makes a controlled effect, and then set up the variables so the experiment's data would be more organized and make sense.  I offered to look into getting soils types for them so they'd know their soils, and their discussing what to use as a control. 
Regardless of what someone might think of such an experiment, the best way to learn and understand is to do experiments to find out what does work, and also what does not work, and then why.  Then when you work on something, and you see the wrong results, chances are you'll recognize them and know how to correct them.  My teacher in computer programming said, purposefully mess it up and fix it, so you'll know what to do if you run into problems later.  This is how I learned GIS.  And it has come into use even to assist my instructor in fixing problems.  No such thing as failure...those who never fail, never learn.  I'm wishing them luck and hope they get something out of it. (understanding)
I think it would be interesting to know where there is more voltage and where there is less, then look around to see if there are other factors as to why (petroleum feilds in area, earthquake area?) and maybe if schools design more outside experiments, kids would understand the world around them better than just sitting with the face in a book talking about impossible probabilities.

Beck