open-source-energy.org
Open - Source - Research => Open-Source Research => Cold Fusion => Topic started by: Rass on January 30th, 2017, 01:52 PM
-
If you go visit the NASA website for information about solar anatomy expect to be misled. Our Sun is NOT mostly made of hydrogen and helium. It is in fact abundant in heavy elements similar to what you would expect to find on planets. With the latest advances in technology, NASA is in the best position to know what is really going on when it comes to our Sun. Interestingly, they continue to chose to ignore the liquid and semi-solid characteristics that point to a more liquid-plasma arrangement. Why is this significant? Imagine a perfect natural example of cold fusion that can be observed and understood with some basic analysis. Gentlemen, we have such an example and it is the Sun!
(For now, let's stick with the technical details and ignore the political motives that led NASA to mislead the public.)
Forget the exotic theories and exotic materials for cold fusion experimentation. We should look at the Sun and how gas/plasma interact with molten metals. As a starting point, look into catalysis science and how electric currents are generated from molten metals. Volcanic lightning is a great example.
With the liquid-plasma solar model taken into consideration, I sincerely believe the H-Cat experiments are on the right path when it comes to cold fusion. These are simple experiments where one can take a catalytic converter from a car and run hydrogen/HHO gas through it to create an immense amount of heat. The catalytic properties of every metal is different. Some require pre-heating while others are quick to react.
Just skimming the surface here(pun intended). There is another heretical and ignored scientific model that points to natural cold fusion of Earth. More on that later. Any comments?
-
Simple question for anyone willing to answer. Assuming there is a constant supply of hydrogen to react with the metals for cold fusion; how many grams of transmuted elements will I have in the mix? After 15 minutes? After 1 year? After 1 million years? After 4.5 billion years?
-
If you go visit the NASA website for information about solar anatomy expect to be misled. Our Sun is NOT mostly made of hydrogen and helium. It is in fact abundant in heavy elements similar to what you would expect to find on planets.
Hydrogen: 71%
Helium: 27.1%
Oxygen: 0.97%
Carbon: 0.4%
Iron: 0.14%
Silicon: 0.099%
Nitrogen: 0.096%
Magnesium: 0.076%
Neon: 0.058%
Sulfur: 0.04%
57 other elements in trace quantities.
The above data was empirically derived by analysis of the solar spectrum, which comes from the photosphere and chromosphere of the Sun. Yet again QM proves itself useful... it is the quantization of photon energy levels and the resultant spectral emission lines that are different for every element which was the underlying basis for QM, after all... so this is very basic science, in terms of how much else QM has revealed.
It is thought to be representative of the entire Sun with the exception of the solar core because of the degree of mixing which takes place between the layers of the Sun's interior. Obviously, we can't see the core, so knowing what's there is more of an educated guess, but knowing the fusion processes taking place, the rate at which they take place, the temperatures at which they take place, and how long they've taken place, we have a pretty good idea.
For instance, we know the solar core is far too cool to fuse much more than hydrogen to helium, so carbon production will be pretty low. We also know total solar mass is right at the cusp where CNO (carbon-nitrogen-oxygen catalyzed) fusion can take place (only 1.7% of He produced in the sun is via the CNO process).
What you're proposing is that our sun is predominantly a CNO fused star, and that's not the case, nor will it ever be the case unless the sun takes on at least 30% more hydrogen from some source. Our sun fuses via the proton-proton reaction.With the latest advances in technology, NASA is in the best position to know what is really going on when it comes to our Sun.
- Dr. Oliver Manuel, formerly of University of Missouri... but he... how do I put this delicately?... he's had several personal problems. He also thinks our sun has a "pulsar core" made of iron... I'm sure you can spot the problems in his belief, not the least of which can be easily discerned by simple orbital distance calculations.
- M.A. Padmanabha Rao · Former Professor of Medical Physics, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehra Dun, India... he apparently claims the sun is a giant chunk of uranium, giving off "Bharat Radiation".
In fact, the sun's composition was confirmed by neutrino emission, which lead to the discovery that there are three types of neutrinos (electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino). The combined neutrino emission confirmed the sun's hydrogen proton-proton fusion cycle.Interestingly, they continue to chose to ignore the liquid and semi-solid characteristics that point to a more liquid-plasma arrangement. Why is this significant? Imagine a perfect natural example of cold fusion that can be observed and understood with some basic analysis. Gentlemen, we have such an example and it is the Sun!
As for your "Birkeland Sun" research, Birkeland was studying the auroras, that spiral of charged particles which are magnetically induced toward the poles as they seek the lowest energy potential. His finding that the sun emitted a stream of plasma tends to coincide with the fact that the sun is plasma, in the strictest definition of the word. The Quantum Vacuum Zero Point Energy field is an extension of the stars, a paramagnetic cold plasma of entropied energy from those stars.
Many believe that Birkeland found two stable plasmic rings around the 'poles' of the terella in his experimental set-up... but what they don't know is that to simulate the effect for demonstration purposes, he often painted the sphere in his experimental setup with radium bromide in the regions he wanted to show an auroral effect. He also used phosphorescent or fluorescent paint, or pump oil to create smoke that rose from the sphere when hit with high voltage.
Birkeland also claimed that the planets throw off matter which produced these plasmic rings, citing Saturn as an example. We know today that Birkeland was wrong. The auroras are merely charged particles (air molecules excited by solar emission of plasma) spiraling toward the pole of the planet's magnetic field, fully in accordance with Faraday's Law of Induction.
-
Very good points Cycle and as a explorer of QM, I am sure you are aware of the great paradoxes that plague gravity bound stars? The unknown center of stars can play a great importance on how a stars fusion is maintained and its important to test possibilities. Condensed matter and electrical phenomena are very over looked in mainstream cosmology. Its really quite unfortunate if you ask me that we feel the need to separate physics into constituent parts. As if the universe operates on randomly devised terms that have no coherency throughout all orders of magnitude.
To say Birkeland was wrong about matter expulsion, what do you think happen to hydrogen and helium gases on our planet? How do you think Hydrogen and helium gases are isolated on our planet? You do bring up a lot of very good empirical facts though, I appreciate that very much.
-
Ummm, no. The sun consists of approximately the following, by mass:
Hydrogen: 71%
Helium: 27.1%
Oxygen: 0.97%
Carbon: 0.4%
Iron: 0.14%
Silicon: 0.099%
Nitrogen: 0.096%
Magnesium: 0.076%
Neon: 0.058%
Sulfur: 0.04%
57 other elements in trace quantities.
The above data was empirically derived by analysis of the solar spectrum, which comes from the photosphere and chromosphere of the Sun. Yet again QM proves itself useful... it is the quantization of photon energy levels and the resultant spectral emission lines that are different for every element which was the underlying basis for QM, after all... so this is very basic science, in terms of how much else QM has revealed.
It is thought to be representative of the entire Sun with the exception of the solar core because of the degree of mixing which takes place between the layers of the Sun's interior. Obviously, we can't see the core, so knowing what's there is more of an educated guess, but knowing the fusion processes taking place, the rate at which they take place, the temperatures at which they take place, and how long they've taken place, we have a pretty good idea.
For instance, we know the solar core is far too cool to fuse much more than hydrogen to helium, so carbon production will be pretty low. We also know total solar mass is right at the cusp where CNO (carbon-nitrogen-oxygen catalyzed) fusion can take place (only 1.7% of He produced in the sun is via the CNO process).
What you're proposing is that our sun is predominantly a CNO fused star, and that's not the case, nor will it ever be the case unless the sun takes on at least 30% more hydrogen from some source. Our sun fuses via the proton-proton reaction.
Assuming all of the important reactions originate in the center and not on the surface or plasma atmosphere was the biggest mistake. With LENR research we now know that the magic can occur on the surface. Thanks to the most recent satellite observations we also know there are electric arcs of iron and silicon that play a role in the plasma atmosphere. The fact that temperatures get hotter as you get further from the core is substantial evidence that should not be ignored. Cmon, the surface is 3,800K while the outer atmosphere(Corona) is 1-3 MILLION Kelvin!
Thanks to direct satellite observations we can see the liquid and persistent surface features of the sun. These are simply not possible from a chaotic nuclear plasma core. There is visual evidence supporting tsunamis, quakes and shock waves. (Reference: http://thesurfaceofthesun.com) I am surprised you didn't ask for images or videos. Again, observation is more important than hypothesis. Can you show me experiments that can give a gas or plasma liquid properties? without violating Boyle's law?
-
In case something untimely happens to me, here are some more references. Sorry for the chaos guys. I want this information available to the public.
Professor Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
The Surface of the Sun
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com
A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-12.PDF
SAFIRE Project
http://www.everythingselectric.com/safire-project/
http://www.safireproject.com/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XmiW4fkGU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71rA_361RxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFsTttzh0oA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K_GBBspZjs
-
All this is very interesting I love the vast expanses of our universe I'd like to run by them you know jumping and gliding soar and stuff like that.
but there is one big problem I am too small and the universe is too big for any thought
-
Basic H-CAT garage experiment using HHO and catalytic converter from a vehicle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2q0Yrlm368
-
a very good friend of mine
-
Simple question for anyone willing to answer. Assuming there is a constant supply of hydrogen to react with the metals for cold fusion; how many grams of transmuted elements will I have in the mix? After 15 minutes? After 1 year? After 1 million years? After 4.5 billion years?
Here is the real kicker! An underground 'ocean' was recently found (Reference: http://www.iflscience.com/environment/huge-underground-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/) and there is an old scientific model called 'Expanding Earth' that was long discarded by the mainstream establishment! Should we just call it a coincidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U
This is a whole new can of worms to consider and it may be the answer to how dinosaurs and other animals were able to grow so big. Reduced Earth mass during prehistoric times = less gravity! It may also explain why some dinosaurs slowly evolved & shrank into birds https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/. And,.. why their powerful skeletal structure supports hopping as the main mode of travel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a39tVzLeqos
Hopping is a more practical form of travel than walking for low gravity environments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnjcZ4XU1DQ
-
Expanding Mars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d44Jj_3gp-M
-
Dr. Konstantin Meyl also has set up the theory that earth is permanently growing by sucking up neutinos emitted from the sun and comes to the same dinosaur conclusion.
-
I came across this video of a solar flare from 2012 taken by a satellite in earth orbit ( SDO nasa)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlWmwWy0yZ0
Its quite amazing to watch, it appears as if matter is being produced at the top of the flare and falling back to the sun, the explanation though is condensing of hot plasma which follows the magnetic field lines back to the surface of the sun. The plasma being produced by the solar flare.
The time scale is approx 30mins ( its timelapsed).
There is another video shows the scale of the earth compared to the flare, somewhere between 5 to 10 earths would fit from the bottom to the top of the plasma rain structure.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011100/a011168/G2013-012_Raining_Loops_FINAL_appletv.webmhd.webm
More info the the spacecraft is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Dynamics_Observatory
Its seems they are also studying the internal structure of the sun also, I expect the data is available via research papers which can be searched on the internet. I dont think any conspiracy theories to worry about.
-
Yes, NASA is probably not lying about anything, just physics that are not fully understood. Isn't that the way good science goes, trying to unravel the patterns in nature? :)
-
One can say, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
However, the corollary, "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by malice.", cannot be disregarded.
We live in interesting times. Discernment must always be injected into any data gathered. Hopefully what comes out is factual information.
Something I've learned from our Russian ambassadors is that we cannot throw just any data into our physics and declare our physics is always correct. The tools of physics we use are just tools. You can call them laws, but that would be imprecise. The data must be appropriate for the tools we use; if they are not, the tools break or give us useless results. Our tools of physics have very limited applications and must be properly selected. You can use all the "scientific method" you want, but without the experience necessary to pick the right tool, you're sunk before you even start.
You've all heard of lies, damn lies and statistics. Which leads me back to how I started this post. It's quite possible to pick the wrong tools and still get the results you want or expected. This can be done intentionally as well as accidentally, lacking experience. It's the end user that needs the discernment to determine whether the results are accurate and why they are accurate, or not. I've read a lot of pages on Wikipedia over the years and I'm most certain not all of it is correct. Some is in error due to poor analysis and some is put there with the hope people will accept it when it is known to be incorrect. After a while, you grow a nose that can sniff propaganda. Once you've got the scent, it's difficult to forget and more difficult to reset.
-
Despite the Sun's crazy magnetic field it has a consistent surface pattern of hills and valleys due to oscillations. This is characteristic of a liquid and not plasma!! I am still waiting for an experiment that can violate Boyle's law by giving gas/plasma liquid properties.
Magnetic field
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g1epPppIOM
Solar surface oscillations
(https://www.noao.edu/education/ighelio/SolarMusic/slide3.jpg)
Liquid oscillations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmQynxqGjY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F95Oowfg4pA
References:
http://soi.stanford.edu/press/961217.AGU/merc.121896
-
What you're proposing is that our sun is predominantly a CNO fused star, and that's not the case, nor will it ever be the case unless the sun takes on at least 30% more hydrogen from some source. Our sun fuses via the proton-proton reaction.
Water found on the Sun.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/news/sunwater.html
-
Rass, Many are doing experiments on this matter to be sure. Been my primary focus for about 1.5 years now. There are many of us working on these types of models for stars. I try not to speculate too much, but most of what you are saying I have been interested in for some time now. Its just about proving phenomenon empirically and doing the work. Then helping make energy truly free for all of life on this planet is the next logical step. If we grow wings, it will be difficult to keep us down ^^ Its not an easy feet of engineering by any means though when one considers the lack of industry behind it. How does a corporation make money off of abundance?
Keep exploring new possibilities my friend and please keep the information flowing ;)
-
In the liquid-plasma model of the Sun, we are dealing with a liquid metallic core and plasma atmosphere. Heavy elements will be underrepresented due to the atomic weight sorting caused by the strong gravity.
The spectral profile of the Sun shows us that all heavy elements are present.
Unfortunately, it cannot give us the overall abundance of each element.
(http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/SolarAbundance.ssp.log.gif)(http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/SolarAbundance.html)Temperatures get "cooler" as we go toward the core. The closest we can measure from the core are the sun spots and they have temperatures of about about 3,800 degrees K. What we can measure and observe is more important than hypothesis. The fact is, the core remains a mystery where hypothesis tries to fill in the blanks. Most of what you cited is hypothesis.
Assuming all of the important reactions originate in the center and not on the surface or plasma atmosphere was the biggest mistake. With LENR research we now know that the magic can occur on the surface. Thanks to the most recent satellite observations we also know there are electric arcs of iron and silicon that play a role in the plasma atmosphere. The fact that temperatures get hotter as you get further from the core is substantial evidence that should not be ignored. Cmon, the surface is 3,800K while the outer atmosphere(Corona) is 1-3 MILLION Kelvin!
Thanks to direct satellite observations we can see the liquid and persistent surface features of the sun. These are simply not possible from a chaotic nuclear plasma core. There is visual evidence supporting tsunamis, quakes and shock waves. (Reference: http://thesurfaceofthesun.com) I am surprised you didn't ask for images or videos. Again, observation is more important than hypothesis. Can you show me experiments that can give a gas or plasma liquid properties? without violating Boyle's law?
Iron being the most stable of elements, speaking in nuclear terms (elements lighter than Fe can be fused, elements heavier can be fissioned, there is no energy output available from either fusing or fissioning iron), the presence of a large amount of iron in a star indicates that it has a very short time to live, as it has used up most of its fuel. That is quite obviously not the case for our sun.
-
Cycle is correct, and this is the comparison of known abundance in our solar system. It also shows the Atomic number in accordance with a nucleosynthesis scale. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=946&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=most+stable+elements+in+the+universe&oq=most+stable+elements+in+the+universe&gs_l=img.3...459831.466294.0.466405.36.25.0.11.11.0.151.2644.13j12.25.0....0...1c.1.64.img..1.27.1801...0j0i67k1j0i24k1.Kqu9PunlW4U#imgrc=Q4imevENWtxPIM:
Fission or Fusion, Fe certainly seems to have a universal stability about it, doesn't it? I missed where Iron came from out of that though Cycle? A molten (liquid) metal core doesn't necessarily mean Iron(Fe) does it? Hydrogen does take on properties of an alkaline metal having only one valence electron. My "crazy" theory is that hydrogen has other phase states that are not completely understood yet. It has recently been found (as I predicted before discovering Eugene Wigner and Hillard Bell Huntington) that hydrogen demonstrates super fluid properties much like helium.
Citation:
http://people.physics.illinois.edu/Ceperley/papers/115.pdf
In metallic hydrogen where the H2 is aligned by either outer electron influence (ie shock waves) or extreme pressures, there is still much to learn. Just a matter of connecting the dots rather than compartmentalizing all the sciences.
-
In some cold fusion models the metallic lattice behaves as a prison for the gas atoms to fuse. The kinetic energy(heat) added from the liquid metal might be an important component. Mostly everyone is working with solid state metal because it is easier to observe and safer.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how some complicate a recipe given from nature. Every exploded star in the universe has an abundance of heavy elements (Iron, nickel, and silicon!) located at the core of their guts with lighter elements surrounding it. There is also an abundance of water in stellar nurseries and many stars including our sun. Funny how hypothetical models are given priority over empiricism leaving humanity further in the dark.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how some complicate a recipe given from nature. Every exploded star in the universe has an abundance of heavy elements (Iron, nickel, and silicon!) located at the core of their guts with lighter elements surrounding it. There is also an abundance of water in stellar nurseries and many stars including our sun. Funny how hypothetical models are given priority over empiricism leaving humanity further in the dark.
Our sun doesn't have sufficient mass to fuse much more than carbon, so any heavier elements are due to infall. It will never explode, as it's simply too small, eventually becoming a red giant then a white dwarf. So unless you're stating that our sun has somehow swallowed whole the core of a star that had previously gone supernova (a star that would be at least 8 time larger than our sun, and thus the core would be at least 8 times larger than the original core of our sun, which would affect the mass of the sun, and thus the orbital distance of the planets), what you're proposing cannot be reality.
Now, that's not to say that the infallen elements aren't in the core... heavier elements will tend to settle to the core, disrupted only by magnetohydrodynamic pumping (which would tend to throw those elements away from the sun during CME events), and the heavier elements in the sun would amount to approximately the mass of 300 earths... but then, that's tiny in comparison to the total mass and size of the sun, and thus has a negligible effect upon the sun.
-
..what you're proposing cannot be reality.
The standard model of the sun is one big fat lie. NASA is full of it when they disseminate such B.S. Even the convection zone has to be revised in order to reflect current measurements (100 times slower than originally predicted). That is, assuming it even exists because we can't observe it directly. Ref: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected
Here is a radical idea; Why don't we gather the most basic scientific observations and build a framework around it? Whoa. Nature has given us a recipe and we decided to butcher it by assuming some parts were unimportant. Thanks to LENR research, we know better.
-
You forget where the center of gravity is and its strength. Of course the heavier elements are going to be in the core. For any significant amount to escape regularly would be an incredible feat.
Methinks you're not cognizant of just how energetic things are during a CME.NASA monitors specifically for iron and silicon spectral profiles. Is it all just for fun? To assume heavy elements don't play an important role AND there isn't more underneath the surface, is ludicrous. Yes, it is easier to ignore these basic principles in order to fit preconceived models but it is still WRONG. Boyle's law is a law for a reason and elements are naturally sorted by weight, even in plasmas. The same physics found on Earth should apply to the Sun.
The standard model of the sun is one big fat lie. NASA is full of it when they disseminate such B.S.
Before you know it, you'll be redefining standard definitions in attempting to make your crackpot theory work, just as every other crackpot does... oh, wait... you already have with your "electric arcs". :-[
In other words, you're a waste of valuable time. You might have a gander at just how good I am at destroying crackpot theories... Wheelerism, for instance. Have a good day.
-
Cycle, you are being silly. Misinterpret and continue to nitpick. I don't care. Continue to ignore the importance of the heavy elements. Continue to have faith that our Sun is 99% Helium and Hydrogen. Good luck building a working fusion device.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/717609main_sun-wavelength-171.jpg)
-
easy dose it, we can all agree do disagree :)
keep pressing on! ~Russ
-
Cycle, you are being silly.
Misinterpret and continue to nitpick.
Continue to ignore the importance of the heavy elements. Continue to have faith that our Sun is 99% Helium and Hydrogen.
Good luck building a working fusion device.
Garage-based cold fusion won't work... the technical requirements to get excess energy are so rigorous that even the Naval Research Labs had to run over 300 experiments before they got it working. Yeah, LENR works, they know how to do it now, there's no need to do further experimentation. They achieved over 10,000 joules of excess energy from less than 1 gram of cathode material.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/717609main_sun-wavelength-171.jpg)
-
Garage-based cold fusion won't work... the technical requirements to get excess energy are so rigorous that even the Naval Research Labs had to run over 300 experiments before they got it working. Yeah, LENR works, they know how to do it now, there's no need to do further experimentation. They achieved over 10,000 joules of excess energy from less than 1 gram of cathode material.
-
If the conditions for LENR exist in any planet's core then the same physics should apply. Is that not logical? If the build up of transmuted elements can occur, should we not consider its consequences? especially if there is a time scale in the billions of years? I didn't discover the expanding Earth model. I am merely suggesting it as a possibility due to some basic deductions. Like the deduction that dinosaurs weighing many tons (heaviest known dino is 96 tons!) wouldn't be able to travel in today's gravity. In addition to the deduction that shrinking dinosaurs into birds must have came out of necessity. Basic evolution in response to gradual change in environmental conditions over millions of years! Expanding Earth is just icing on the cake. It complements the liquid-plasma model. There are many consistent observations here covering various scientific disciplines. I may not have all of the answers but coincidence at this point is extremely unlikely.
That last attached image is highly relevant. If you look at it from a circuit perspective we have thin metal filaments (coronal loops & other phenomenon) carrying huge electric currents. Guess what happens when you pulse a huge amount of current down a thin filament?
Now check out the Z-Machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaopaLJk3-Y
If you still doubt the electrical nature of the Sun, I encourage you to review all of the TRACE (& other satellite) videos that show it in grand detail. The crazy magnetic fields alone should be sufficient evidence.
-
Garage-based cold fusion won't work... the technical requirements to get excess energy are so rigorous that even the Naval Research Labs had to run over 300 experiments before they got it working. Yeah, LENR works, they know how to do it now, there's no need to do further experimentation. They achieved over 10,000 joules of excess energy from less than 1 gram of cathode material.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/
"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" Kelvin, Lord William Thomson
-
I've leanred quite alot about the sun, just from this short thread, its good to have different views, nothing wrong with that.
Its good to get some perspective also, we are privilaged generation, that we are witnessing new knowledge as it unfolds, the idea that there is a man-made satellite orbiting the earth, its purpose being to gather information on the sun is amazing in itself. Then to think that this massive structure is one hell of a light display, completely dwarfing anything us humans are capable of creating, and then to think there are trillions upon trillions of these structures out there, it should humble all of us.
-
The T-Rex evolved large hind legs with a skeletal structure geared for hopping. Can you imagine a 5-12 ton dinosaur hopping around in today's gravity?
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/everythingdinosaurs/images/5/51/Rex_size_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140416204137)
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder524/65598524.jpg)
“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, 1991
-
You can do a simple test to prove whether earth is growing.
-
You can do a simple test to prove whether earth is growing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNhCWasoxLw&t=571s
I don't have a precise number at the moment but ~200% total growth was estimated based on how the continents fit. So that's 200% growth over 4.543 billion years. The Earth's current diameter is 12.74E6 meters. Diameter in the beginning (estimated) ~ 6.37E6 meters. For simplicity, let's assume growth was linear. I really doubt it was linear since we know surface area is an important component to LENR. 6.37E6 meters / 4.543E9 years = 1.402 millimeters per year.
According to recent measurements, America moves one inch away from Europe and Africa every year on average. Emphasis is from me, hint ;) . This rules out linear growth. We can probably take a look at existing LENR experiments and find a formula to estimate growth but we are missing the surface area of the Earth's core.
The standard model will explain this phenomenon as a result from subduction. Should we ignore how all of the continents fit together like a puzzle? Should we ignore where all of the new material(magma) originates and how the pressures are generated? Basic mass displacement applies. It would be awesome if we can monitor total overall diameter of our planet. Do you have a method?
Source:
https://www.quora.com/Is-North-and-South-America-slowly-moving-towards-or-away-from-the-European-landmass-How-many-millions-of-years-until-they-join-together
-
the link you give ( which you call source) is talking about standard theory for plate movements,
not expanding earth, plate tectonics and movements seems pretty well established theory.
-
For crying out loud...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXjXFKdRb7g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQAc5HpvyEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbIJ_GIaGUo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf0o9ocmQwE
If you're Neal Adams, you should be ashamed by your attempt at using the forum to promote your nuttery-for-profit via DVD sales on your website.
If you're Neal Adams, you should be doubly-ashamed at having tried to censor scientific truth, all while you claimed some vague conspiracy to censor the truth, which only you hold, and which anyone can get their hands on via DVD for a small payment at your website... as evidenced by your attempt at having that last video removed.
Remember, matter has 25 terawatt-hours of energy bound up in each kilogram... so the "expanding earth" nuttery must account for a tremendous amount of energy. Earth weighs 5,974,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms... the "expanding earth" proponents claim the planet expanded by 1/SQRT(3) from its original mass, so the original mass according to them was 3,449,090,508,138,824,317,177,654 kilograms, for a difference of 2,524,909,491,861,175,682,822,346 kilograms.
Thus, it would require 63,122,737,296,529,392,070,558,650 terawatt-hours worth of energy to create that mass. This means that at current solar insolation levels, it would require 708,812,898,763,285,084 years to accumulate that heat. That's older than the universe.
That's equivalent to ~92 years worth of the total solar output of the sun.
But let's go with your figures... "So that's 200% growth over 4.543 billion years." That means we have to account for 2,987,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms of mass. This means you'd need a solar insolation rate that is 26,299,801,893,022 times higher than current solar insolation, meaning the sun would be so large and energetic as to be physically impossible. Even Population III (very low metallicity) stars at the start of the Stelliferous Era were only a maximum of ~1000 times larger than our sun, and only ~17 times hotter... and they burned out far faster than your quoted 4.543 billion years, which is why a sun putting out 26,299,801,893,022 times as much energy would be physically impossible. That solar insolation rate would also be sufficient to plasmize the entire planet.
We know the planet receives approximately 10,166 terawatts per hour, which would be sufficient to create 406 kilograms per hour... except the planet, being in radiative equilibrium, is radiating back to that infinite heat sink of space the same amount of energy... so we can't use the sun as a source of the mass-energy.
We also know the sun was cooler in the distant past, and increases its solar output over time:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Solar_evolution_%28English%29.svg)
We also know that if the planet had been smaller in the past, it would have received less solar irradiance due to less area for that sunlight to fall on.
So let's look at Uranium-235 decay, the by-far largest contributor to core heat... U-235 contains 2e13 joules per kilogram, requiring 8.15e18 kilograms of U-235. That's 1.4 ppm concentration by mass of U-235, throughout every kilogram of earth's matter... and that's doable... except natural Uranium is 99.3% U-238... so you'd require instead 200 ppm of U-235 to generate that amount of energy... enough to irradiate everything to death in short order, given that radiation levels would be ~5000% higher than current background.
And that's not to mention that mantle rock composition is iron and silicate, which is why olivine is often found around lava outflows... and that's incompatible with Uranium. The olivine can't hold Uranium in its crystalline structure, so the Uranium is concentrated into crustal rocks by magma flow. That's why Uranium concentration in mantle rock is measured in ppb (parts per billion)... so that avenue is scotched, as well.
How about Uranium in the core? Well, we know from seismic wave propagation tests that the core consists primarily of iron, nickel, silicon and sulfur. And we also know the Uranium concentration ranges from 1/100 to 1/10,000 of crustal Uranium concentration. We also know that the only naturally-occurring materials which can thermalize neutrons from un-enriched U-235 fission such that it reaches criticality are graphite and heavy water... and there isn't enough of either in the core to sustain criticality. So random fission events of U-235 can't be the power source, either.
So... just where is all this mass coming from? Did you not know the planet is losing mass, to the tune of approximately 50,000 tons per year?
http://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/
Did you not know that the heat loss from the core amounts (in mass-energy equivalency terms) to 16 tons per year?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-arguments-against-expanding-earth-theory*Studies of earthquake waves passing through the interior of the earth showed that significant parts were molten and much of the rest was only semi-solid.
* Gravity studies showed that there was barely any excess gravity above continents, so they had to be floating like icebergs.
* Estimates of radioactive heat showed that it would bring the interior to the point not just of melting but convecting, which would tend to stir up the innards and drag the surface along as well.
* Studies at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and similar places showed that there was a line of volcanoes on the seafloor, the sediment got steadily thicker away from the ridge, and the magnetic fields frozen into the rocks were symmetrical on either side, so new ocean floor must have been getting created.
* At the same time other places (like the Himalayas) fitted the idea of plates coming together, and other places fitted a scenario plates sliding edgewise. These two didn't really fit an expanding earth.
* No one ever found a convincing mechanism for the earth to expand.
-
Stop wasting everyone's time with this silliness, and get down to the business of finding how to generate clean, cheap, renewable, safe energy. That's the whole point of this forum, as detailed in the forum name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TosyS9j4qXo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiCMFzpMnZM
-
How some can't make the most elemental observations really blows my mind. The continents fit together to form a smaller planet. You opted to completely ignore this fact and replace it with hypothesis and mathematical models. Best example of mental masturbation. Must feel great but accomplishes nothing.
-
your nut-jobbery cannot reflect reality.
-
Do the continents fit together? Yes or No? Perhaps you are living in an alternate reality where they don't. Anyone can perform this observation for themselves. It is reproducible. Observation takes priority in science. Sorry, but that is the rule.
The land masses used to fit together... because of plate tectonics, they have since moved. In fact, several times the continents have come together and pulled apart.
The United States sits on two previously-continental plates... but those plates fused. This rift formed during the breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia in the Neoproterozoic Era (about 750 million years ago), then fused, leaving a weak spot in the crust. You know it today as the New Madrid fault line. It generates some of the most energetic earthquakes known to man, and in fact did just that 200 years ago, in 1811 and 1812.
From ~145 MYA to ~75 MYA, the middle of North America was seismically active... the Farallon tectonic plate was subducting beneath the North American plate at a steep angle, causing the Western Interior Seaway along the middle of the US, an ocean which stretched from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean.
From ~80 MYA to ~55 MYA, plate collision built the Rocky Mountains as the Farallon Plate (and the Kulu plate in Canada) subducted beneath the North American plate. The North American plate was really deep just north of the Colorado plateau, so the Farallon plate hit it at such an angle that both were pushed upward, creating the Rockies. Further south, the North American plate wasn't as thick, so the Farallon plate slid beneath it, leaving the Colorado plateau relatively undisturbed. Much of the western US is the remnants of the terranes carried by the Farallon oceanic plate and now accreted to the North American plate. The Farallon plate itself is nearly completely subducted now. So the Rockies and westward were created from the ancient islands that resided upon the Farallon plate.
You'll also note the Pacific plate extends all the way across to New Zealand, generating earthquakes where it meets the Australian plate. The Pacific plate rides over the Australian plate in the south of NZ, and subducts under in the north, generating a condition whereby the plates are gradually locking together, making for very powerful earthquakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Nyr78Mqyg
None of that can be explained by your "expanding earth" silliness, and in fact, the documented Western Interior Seaway (which is why I saw seashells in the limestone where I grew up, which is currently more than a mile above sea level) isn't even represented in the Neal Adams videos, nor is the accretion of large sections of the western US from islands residing upon the Farallon plate as it subducted beneath the North American plate... he just assumes that North America was always its same shape.
So... explain the formation of mountains in your "expanding earth" nutjob hypothesis... you can't. There is no mechanism in your hypothesis (it doesn't rise to the level of a theory, after all) for the creation of mountains. So either those mountains have existed since the planet was created (which means you deny erosion takes place), or your hypothesis fails.
Explain the upheaval of land around New Zealand (ironically after an earthquake brought about by plate tectonics, quite ironically on an island built from land upheaval due to plate tectonics and the volcanoes that exist at the edges of the tectonic plates)... you can't. There is no mechanism in your hypothesis for the genesis of earthquakes or land upheaval. Thus, your hypothesis fails.
https://youtu.be/Lno8Rpbe57c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRdXmS-LTP4
-
Expanding Earth is controversial since it challenges the mainstream model. I totally get it. It was included in this thread so others can follow where my research has led me. I prefer to build frameworks grounded on solid observations and not mathematical models. Only with practical experimentation may we get to the truth of the matter.
-
Expanding Earth is controversial since it<SMACK>
-
The T-Rex evolved large hind legs with a skeletal structure geared for hopping. Can you imagine a 5-12 ton dinosaur hopping around in today's gravity?
And now, we'll finish this bit of off-topic drama off once and for all... dinosaurs were not "super heavy" despite being "super large". Remember, it's been found that modern birds are descendants of the dinosaurs... and birds have much lighter bones without sacrificing bone strength.
In a 2011 paper on sauropod gigantism, paleontologist P. Martin Sander and coauthors briefly debunked the proposal that Jurassic gravity was weaker. It's a function of their anatomy, not of gravity. Even the largest terrestrial dinosaur (Supersaurus) likely didn't weigh over 40 tons.
These light bones allowed the dinosaurs to evolve the long necks they had, without unduly stressing the bone due to leverage. Those long necks also accounted for much of the total length of the dinosaur... so while they looked big, it was a lot of neck and not a lot of weight. They also usually had really small heads and teeth, which were light. Just like birds, they didn't chew their food... they relied upon stones in their gizzard to grind the food up, just as birds do... if you've ever wondered why a chicken eats pebbles, now you know. They're called gastroliths, and they've been found in among dinosaur fossils.
As for the "breathing through a long straw" problem... the sauropods had air sacs in their necks, which acted to allow intake of a large volume of air through a narrow windpipe without tracheal dead space that would have caused some of the air to be re-breathed. Breathe in, expand the neck air sacs, contract the neck air sacs to force that air into the lungs, breathe out with the neck air sacs contracted so all the air gets expelled. Modern birds have the same feature (although most have the air sacs in their bodies, rather than in their necks), which they use to breathe more efficiently at altitude. Those air sacs are auxiliary air pumps to force more air through the lungs.
Now, let's not let OSE turn into OU... let's get down to the business of discovering and implementing some method of providing clean, cheap, safe, affordable, renewable power to the planet.
-
Pay no attention, just gonna drop this link here for some future reference. It's all just one big whopping coincidence of course. Let the maths and computer simulations tell us what reality is instead of observation.
New Research Suggests Earth's Mantle Might Be Hotter Than Anyone Expected
http://www.sciencealert.com/earth-mantle-is-60-degrees-hotter-than-anyone-ever-expected
-
Next thing you know, you'll be emphatically stating that because the Earth has a Schwarzschild radius of 1 cm, that there's a tiny black hole in the core keeping it hot. :roll:
-
Liquid Metallic Hydrogen: A Building Block for the Liquid Sun
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-26-07.PDF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7Ik9f8
-
Liquid Metallic Hydrogen: A Building Block for the Liquid Sun
-
At time ~9:00, he's wrong... since liquids have little shear strength, they cannot support transverse waves. Nor can gasses. Thus, the picture he showed cannot be a transverse wave.
Hmmm... now what could mediate a transverse wave other than a liquid or gas, which is also prevalent in the sun? Perhaps a magnetic field? Or didn't he realize that all electromagnetic energy propagating from the sun does so in the form of transverse waves?
Light is, after all, a double transverse wave with the electric and magnetic fields at 90 degrees. You can prove this for yourself by polarizing light... in order for light to be polarizable, it must be a transverse wave.
The only other explanation is that it's not a transverse wave at all... it's a circular wave, otherwise known as a surface wave... it's not just a surface phenomenon, it's a long tube of longitudinal disruption from the solar flare, terminating at the optical surface (not a physical surface) of the sun, whereupon it becomes a surface wave.
It's somewhat akin to the ocean... if you have an undersea earthquake, the wave will travel in the depths as a longitudinal wave... once that longitudinal wave breaches the surface, it becomes a surface wave. You're seeing the 'breaking waves' of those sub-surface longitudinal waves breaching the optical surface of the sun.
Since the sun is a gas, and we know that thermal upwelling is occurring, it's somewhat akin to having a thrust fault suddenly thrust upward under the ocean... you have a giant bolus of water thrust upward in a longitudinal wave. It breaches the surface and that water rolls away from the upwardly-thrusting region via surface waves.
-
I mean no disrespect cycle but light is a transverse wave which is not polarized, is it not? It is a neutral "particle" that has no true measurable mass, though that is hotly contested now in physics. It is much like the neutron, which comes out of a dense invisible mass and presents itself after high energetic interaction, but has no affinity towards positive or negative. That at least I am aware of or we have observed in laboratory experiments.
You seem to contradict your own statement towards the end as you talk about depth and bring into account a 3 dimensional object of which the sun is at the very least don't you? Surface tension can facilitate transverse waves with the field interactions of material (atomic) densities can't it? Like your example of the interactions of solid, liquid and gas with your representation of the ocean. Am I mistaken in how this argument is flawed due too conjectures of organized supposition?
The truth is we don't know and we are attempting to figure it out right? Or do we already know and we shouldn't even bother?
-
30+ seconds in is a very important bit of information. Isn't this kind of emission of electrical interaction with other cosmic bodies?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g1epPppIOM
-
Cycle, although I respect your opinion in this rather interesting thread as well as other's opinions, I find it odd that you attack Rass for his beliefs in a belittling manner that is not in the spirit of this forum. Calling people crackpot's and conspriracy theorists just because they have an alternative viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours does not make them a crackpot.
In fact, it is usually the people who start labelling others conspiracy theorists and crackpots are the one's that usually have something to hide or are trying to stop something in its tracks before it develops steam. I remember reading that Tesla was labelled a crackpot at some point in his life but only after JP Morgan found out that Tesla was planning on supplying free energy to households which couldn't be billed and payed for.
So Cycle, what are you trying to hide? What is really getting on your nerves about this theory? and lastly, why do you feel the need to destroy this theory at all cost?