Science contradicts itself..Questions

[GeoscienceStudent]

A wild frenzy went up amongst scientists when Alfred Wegener stated his theory of continental drift.  He was a meteorologist and came forth with proof showing how the continents fit together and fossils of same-types in now separated continents.  Scientists argued he was not a real geologist, did not know what he was talking about because he could not explain the mechanism how the continents moved.  In the 1950's the mid Atlantic ridge was discovered proving Wegener but reassessed and changed into what is now known as Plate Tectonics.
Darwin, who failed math, failed medical school and theology school finally was given a job thanks to his father-in-law as a naturalist.  On Galapagos Islands he noticed a variety of fossils but similarities to other species.  He wrote several books describing his theory of evolution. Another scientist, while suffering delusions from a malarial fever, wrote the same theory, but with greater detail.  The two met, but it was decide that Darwin would receive all the credit.  Biologists today admit his theory goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics but state that under the curriculum accepted by Universities they have to teach the Theory anyways.  A physicisist argued that the 2nd law of thermodynamics when applied to the theory of evolution was debunked because it just showed what occurs due to the radiation and heat of solar rays.  He suggested that at the time electric bolts were flashing through methane gases and primordial goop that the solar rays had no effect on the results.  They have tried to copy this but only came up with 17 amino acids (it takes 21 to make a complete protein) and then it immediately fell apart, being too unstable. 
Scientists argue that the effects of man on the Earth are too insignificant and would not make any difference on Plate Tectonics, Volcanic Eruptions, or Earthquake.  This was a geologists.  Then in the very next sentence he describes how in Colorado they were having earthquakes and discovered it was due to putting contaminants, trash into a fault in Colorado.  They stopped the dumping, the earthquakes subsided.
Scientist disproved the bumblebee could fly.  It went against some law (I don't know which one).  The bumble bee refused to bow under the pressure of politically inspired scientists and continued to fly.
Scientists are arguing that perpetual motion is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Yet in the same breath they send out shuttles loaded with satellites.  When they move at a particular speed at a particlular direction desired (previously calculated)  they let loose the satellite and it keeps moving that speed, that direction, not by any motor, or fire, or propulsion, until finally gravitational forces bring it down.  Where is the change from a hotter environment to a colder environment in that?  I'm still trying to figure this one out.  I suppose maybe one guy was right and really they are just Hollywood devised movies like Star Wars and the satellites aren't really out there and the World is flat, tomatoes will kill you if you eat them because 100% people who eat them die from car wrecks, strokes, heart attacks, murder, accidents, etc.  Heaviside component of energy is black voodoo energy and if a black cat crosses your path you'll have bad luck! 
Energy cannot be created, it is the 4th state of matter, but scientists are apparently speaking out of two sides of the mouth when they say it can't be destroyed.  If it can't be destroyed, then you should be able to recapture it, recycle it, thus use it over and over and over by regenerating your battery with it.  You should be able to capture energy while your driving from the circular movement of your wheels or even turbines set up to capture the wind you face while you move and resend the energy harnessed back to your battery or generator.  Why is this impossible and we are all called a bunch of crackpots saying we just broke the 2nd law of thermodynamics when we suggest this?

[Low-Q]

Well, tey say now that the bumblebee in fact can fly according to scientific proovs.They now understand why it can fly.
When it comes to satelites, they are floating in an almost non matter space, hence extremely low friction. If you try to pull out some energy from it, the satelite will slow down and eventually fall down to earth.
Energy can for sure be reused. You can power your car with electricity, the breakes are replaced by a dynamo that charge the battery. The only energy loss you then have is the friction in tyres, motor, air etc.
Science has been wrong many times, but when it comes to these two laws of thermodynamics, I'm not sure they are false.

Vidar

[GeoscienceStudent]

Well, tey say now that the bumblebee in fact can fly according to scientific proovs.They now understand why it can fly.
When it comes to satelites, they are floating in an almost non matter space, hence extremely low friction. If you try to pull out some energy from it, the satelite will slow down and eventually fall down to earth.
Energy can for sure be reused. You can power your car with electricity, the breakes are replaced by a dynamo that charge the battery. The only energy loss you then have is the friction in tyres, motor, air etc.
Science has been wrong many times, but when it comes to these two laws of thermodynamics, I'm not sure they are false.
Vidar

I don't think they are false, either, but I wonder if we consider all the possibilities before immediately arguing out against new ideas, like Wegener's.  He could not explain the mechanism, and it was more complicated than he realized but he was not completely wrong.  Same with the bumblebee, they just did not understand the mechanism.
I was just looking into quantum physics and it stated that classical physics is better used to describe everyday life like in our atmosphere, and tv's, radios, etc, but quantum physics better describes chemistry, geophysics, space, and computers.  When I learned about plate tectonics there was an issue at the time I think Quantum physics would better explain why when during subduction the plate goes down and extreme pressure is applied, and the plate turns to magma.  Now usually above, temperature and pressure are proportionately related.  But in this case, there was some argument that it would not be enough to cause the extreme temperature.  Could this involve zero point energy?  It is stated that the earth has an electromagnetic field from within and that electromagnetic fields are involved in creating a vacuum.  Can you explain this better to me?

Geoscience curriculum does not include physics and I'm convinced this is a mistake because I'm finding that I'm misunderstanding alot of concepts, I've seen a geologist arguing with a biologist, and I'm sure it's because of what we don't know.  If we got a better understanding, of how it works then I think we'd probably understand one another better.  I'm really thinking of going back and taking physics until I get to Quantum physics.  Has anyone met climatologists or geologists, or geographers that misunderstood physical concepts because of lack of knowledge in this area?  Or is this just around here where the schools are pro liberal arts and make you take alot of foreign language and philosophy and literature and fine arts instead of concentrating on math and science, even if you're working on a degree in science?

This is really frustrating, but thanks for being patient with me while I try to remain open minded and learn, and will cross reference you when you bring up issues that contradict things, however, I have found that the contradictions have came out right.

Dyson says you have to fail 300,000 before you get it right, but each time is not a failure, it's an opportunity to learn.  Be patient with me.   

Thanks
Beck

[GeoscienceStudent]

I have another question:  Actually several:

There is some discussion about a study at the University of Utah that it is thought that the poles of the Earth may switch by our children's time or grandchildren's time.  (I don't know how they are coming to that conclusion)  If the poles switch,  what causes that switch?  And what would be the result on plate tectonics?  Could we have more incidences of Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions for awhile from the sudden switch?  They said it would occur over the time period of only a day. (I don't know how they came to that conclusion)

Also, I just read that there is some Quantum equation that would prove that you can't calculate an exact amount of energy because sometimes electrons are as waves and sometimes as particles.  Can someone clear this up for me?  If that is so, then how could scientists ever predict extactely when a volcanic eruption is going off decades ahead of time, or earthquake as they're predicting in California in the near future or even when the poles are going to switch?  Unless they are looking at uniformitarianism and guessing by the amount of time that has passed and the number of millions of years ago each pole switch was (the last one was Pleistocene 0-1.6 years ago it switched (this is approximate) a little more than 0.5 million years, <1.0 million years, then again just before 1.0 million years, just after 1.5 million years then 6 more times before 2.0 million years.  They are not even, some are thicker than others, some are really really thin.  This is measured by a magnetic profile as recorded by a magnetometer (Wicander, R. & Monroe, J, Essentials of Geology, 1995, pg 25)  I have other editions since but this information has stayed the same.

Question:

If the Earth has... let me quote from former book  " The magnetic field of the Earth has lines of force just like those of a bar magnet.  The strength of the magnetic field changes uniformly from the magnetic equator to the magnetic poles.  This change in strength causes a dip needle to parallel the Earth's surface only at the magnetic equator, whereas its inclination with respect to the surface increases to 90 degrees at the magnetic poles."
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_Theory
how the Earth sustains its electro magnetic field.  Why can't we copy the same way the Earth does it?  If the model is true, it should be able to be somehow reproduced, if we have the knowledge and actual understanding of how. .. and the right tools.  I don't know about the magma ... don't see reproducing that   At least not for a motor.

Question:

If with perpetual motion that using energy from it would slow it down,  would this not be the same for the Earth too?  They say it is slowing down, a German scientist bringing this up, but then does all this energy use from the ground, petroleum, gas, coal then burning it, does it effect the rotation?  Considering we are quite insignificant.  But we are changing it a little.  What about changing the atmosphere with all this pollution. I heard a scientist mention we could send particles in the air to stop global warming (that scares me because I keep thinking--Asthma, allergies, cancer, emphysema, overdoing it, and they tell me 5 volcanic eruptions could lower the temp 5 degrees C. which could lead to another "little ice age")  They also mentioned sending up sulfuric acid?  I hope I misunderstood. But sulfur is released in volcanic eruptions and the ash causes alot of problems, even for the respiratory system.  I'm feeling a little nervous here.

Beck
Beck

[Koen1]

I have another question:  Actually several:

There is some discussion about a study at the University of Utah that it is thought that the poles of the Earth may switch by our children's time or grandchildren's time.  (I don't know how they are coming to that conclusion)  If the poles switch,  what causes that switch?  And what would be the result on plate tectonics?  Could we have more incidences of Earthquakes and Volcanic eruptions for awhile from the sudden switch?  They said it would occur over the time period of only a day. (I don't know how they came to that conclusion)

I have no knowledge of what goes on at Utah Uni, nor of where they got that figure of one day, but I do know that various measurements including sattelite
imagery over the past decade clearly show the earths magnetic poles to be slowly moving off their "normal" positions. The last pictures I saw of this
were sattelite images showing the southern magnetic pole to already have shifted significantly off the "mark", and the northern one was also off, albeit less
drastic. Regional measurements on southern Africa (where I lived for a few years) supported those observations. Extrapolations of the measured shift
came to an estimate of between 10 and 50 years before a magnetic pole flip would become reality. Or at least, that's what I recall from several articles a couple
of years ago.
Whether or not it really is related I don't know for certain, but I have also read a book called "the Maya Prophecies" written by a Maya-obsessed astrophysicist
who had studied the solar micro- and macro-cycles and worked out their periodicity, only to discover the almost identical cycle calender when he was on holiday
visiting a Maya temple. He cross referenced the two and concluded the Mayan calender does not end for nothing: it ends exactly at the time the sun is to
complete its current macro-cycle, as he had calculated during his studies. That author claims the end of a solar macro-cycle involves the flipping of the
suns magnetic field, which will cause the magnetic fields of other bodies such as Earth to experience opposing magnetism and finally demagnetise and
remagnetise oppositely. This means: flipping magnetic poles. This means the Earth magnetic field must first decrease to zero and then build up again
until it is fully reversed. And that means that there will be zero Earth magnetic field for a while. Although there is no consensus about it, many scientists
believe the Earths ionosphere, the layer of charged particles that shields our planet from most of the deadly cosmic (solar) radiation, is caused and/or maintained
and/or strengthened by the magnetic field (combined with the planets rotation). If the field goes, so does the ionosphere. That will result in a nice long
overdose of lethal cosmic radiation raining down on the planetary surface. And that will kill most organisms on Earth. (One of the periodic occurrences
over the millions of years of history of our planet that the author actually uses to partially substantiate his theory.)
Also, and again there is no consensus, it seems to be quite likely that a reversed solar magnetic field opposing the Earth magnetic field may have severe
consequences for the tectonic plates and especially the earth core. If the core is really a big magnet, obviously it will experience strong opposing
forces, and if possible simply reverse inside the mantle&crust causing a mere violent magma current. But if it can't easily reverse (due to possible
viscosity, density, pressure, etc of the magma?) it may convey this opposing "push" to the mantle&crust and cause extremely violent earthquakes,
volcano eruptions, etc.
Whatever is really going to happen, it seems the end of the Maya calender may be involved and if so,
I'd pick a really good spot for my 2012 new years eve.

Also, I just read that there is some Quantum equation that would prove that you can't calculate an exact amount of energy because sometimes electrons are as waves and sometimes as particles.  Can someone clear this up for me?

Nope, sorry, don't know that effect... Are you perhaps confusing it with the uncertainty principle? That says that we cannot measure (not calculate) both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. We can measure the speed of a particle, but then we can never accurately obtain its exact position, and vice versa. As far as i know my quantum physics, electrons are always particles and never waves, although it is possible to make waves of particles, but that's not what you were talking about. It seems more likely that what you read referred to photons,
and those buggers are both particles and waves at the same time. That's just for photons, though: they have no mass, yes they are considered to be particles
in a certain interpretation, but in another they can clearly be shown to be waves. In contrast to electrons, which are particles with mass and can clearly be shown
not to be waves. (An electron version of the famous "two slit experiment" proves this.)

If that is so, then how could scientists ever predict extactely when a volcanic eruption is going off decades ahead of time, or earthquake as they're predicting in California in the near future or even when the poles are going to switch?

Well that's easy: they can't. They can make quite good educated guesses, but I have yet to see an exact prediction of volcanic eruption decades in advance.
It's like the weather: if you have good computer models you can make quite good educated guesses of what's going to happen... but not decades in the future...
As far as I know all even remotely accurate predictions of volcanic eruptions are based on extensive study of that specific tectonic region, comparisons with
other detailed observations of other regions and situations of volcanism, a bit of guesswork, and many very recent measurements fed into the model...
But to get back to the original matter: I don't think they use any quantumphysics to calculate those prediction models. That's macrophysics and quite
large scale as well. Macrophysics works, and you don't need to use any QM to calculat macro-physical systems and processes correctly. Only if you're
going to do stuff on the quantum scale do you need to switch to quantumphysics, becasue at those tiny scales our macrophysical "laws" don't all work
in the same way anymore. Just for example: in the quantumworld, two particles can be at the same place at the same time, or one particle can be at two
places at the same time. Clearly that is not so with macrophysical object such as baseballs, for example.

Question:

If the Earth has... let me quote from former book  " The magnetic field of the Earth has lines of force just like those of a bar magnet.  The strength of the magnetic field changes uniformly from the magnetic equator to the magnetic poles.  This change in strength causes a dip needle to parallel the Earth's surface only at the magnetic equator, whereas its inclination with respect to the surface increases to 90 degrees at the magnetic poles."
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_Theory
how the Earth sustains its electro magnetic field.  Why can't we copy the same way the Earth does it?  If the model is true, it should be able to be somehow reproduced, if we have the knowledge and actual understanding of how. .. and the right tools.  I don't know about the magma ... don't see reproducing that   At least not for a motor.

I don't follow your point. What exactly do you want to copy, and what exactly is it that is not copied in the example of a dynamo, in your opinion?
Please clarify.

Question:

If with perpetual motion that using energy from it would slow it down,  would this not be the same for the Earth too?  They say it is slowing down, a German scientist bringing this up, but then does all this energy use from the ground, petroleum, gas, coal then burning it, does it effect the rotation?

well, it is remotely possible that our pumping of petroleum and gas has an influence on the Earths rotation due to the shifts in mass division over the
surface of the globe, but the amount of mass in all those fosil fuels is negligable compared to the total mass of the Earth, isn't it? No, the slowing
down of the Earth as mentioned by that scientist, probably describes the "magnetic drag" that a rotor can experience when moving through a magnetic field in
a dynamo. If you've ever spun a dynamo you know you must input energy for it to output electricity, and this energy expenditure causes the rotor to slow
down, experience "drag". Well, if the Earth is a rotor and the ionosphere the result of a dynamo effect caused by the Earth rotating in its own magnetic field,
then that should indeed cause some "drag" on the rotor.

Considering we are quite insignificant.  But we are changing it a little.  What about changing the atmosphere with all this pollution. I heard a scientist mention we could send particles in the air to stop global warming (that scares me because I keep thinking--Asthma, allergies, cancer, emphysema, overdoing it, and they tell me 5 volcanic eruptions could lower the temp 5 degrees C. which could lead to another "little ice age")  They also mentioned sending up sulfuric acid?  I hope I misunderstood. But sulfur is released in volcanic eruptions and the ash causes alot of problems, even for the respiratory system.  I'm feeling a little nervous here.

lol checkout the "chemtrail" phenomenon and see if you're still only a little nervous...