nuimshaan wrote:Are you saying that man's knowledge is insufficient to answer whether the sun is powered by the movement of all bodies revolving around It? What is fusion? I thought it was the result of excited particles (bodies revolving around a core). Can you answer this: If all planets and all moons in this solar system cease to move...will the sun dissipate?
nuimshaan wrote:If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system started speeding up......would the intensity of the sun increase?
If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system slowed down......would the sun shrink and burn slower?
midwestphysics wrote:....No. I won't even bother explaining anything because, well, you sound like a quack. Go study physics for a few years, like everyone else here, and then come back....
bfollinprm wrote:nuimshaan wrote:If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system started speeding up......would the intensity of the sun increase?
If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system slowed down......would the sun shrink and burn slower?
Absolutely. This is the well-known Kepler-Dikshit result for rotating bodies, experimentally verified by Walter Bishop at Harvard University.
nuimshaan wrote:Someone had mentioned that the sun would not dissipate unless it lost it's fuel....could it be that the fuel is the combined kinetic, electrical, and heat energy from the movement of the planetary bodies in this system? What if the movement of the solid bodies in this system were traveling through a resistive fluid called space, and this movement through the resistive fluid caused heat, and electrical discharges...thus fuel.
As for the center of the Earth...could it be that the magna flow near the surface only acted to fluctuate the power of the core ball magnet inside the Earth...since heat effects the strength of a magnet? And there are "hot spots" around the core where the magnetic field of the ball magnet inside is somewhat less, and "cold spots", where the ball magnet core is not effected in less strength, and those cool spots are where the magnetic field of the core magnet are experienced very strongly?
nuimshaan wrote:..In the situation of an atom, doesn't it have a hot core, and solid bodies revolving around it's core? Is this a micro version of our macro atomic system?
nuimshaan wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that around the north and south pole there is most likely very little magna flow...very few volcanoes, if any, therefore the ball magnet's strength is stronger in those areas.
Perhaps the magna flow around the Earth moves around the equator mostly, and this is where the strength of the ball manget core is reduced due to heat applied to the magnet around the equator.
So if the Earth's core is an approximate 800 mile across solid iron and nickel ball magnet, but has some hot fluid moving around it, those locations where the magna flow are more prevalent would be the locations where the magnets strength is lessened because of heat.
Those locations would the equator, and not around the north and south poles.
The north and south poles would be where the ball magnet is the strongest. Solely because there is less magna flow around the the ball magnet in those locations, the cooler you keep a magnet the stronger and longer it's force will be.
I think this is what I'm trying to say...if it has been proven there is in fact an 800 mile across super NIB at the center of the Earth...
nuimshaan wrote:A similar situation can be done here on Earth wheras we take some nuclear fuel and place it in a location where it reacts in such a manner as to produce a third thing: Energy.
If we take this sun of ours...remove it from this solar system...and place it alone in deep space...would it decrease in size and power to the point where it went away fairly fast? A lot of people are telling me no, it wouldn't really damage the sun that much...and I hear why they say it would make it...i just don't think they know for sure what's going on, and it may be a totally different fuel source or maybe a different kind of fuel than we think.
Perhaps the properties of space act on a magnetic body differently than one that is just ice or rock.
Let's say for instance that space is just like copper...and when you move a magnet around in a copper field...watch out...move several magnets around in one copper field...watch out...might see some "lightning bolts"...or places where arcs of light are seen because electrical energy is transferring after a big build up...moving from path of least resistance to the next path of least resistance.
Then this system of ours could be a 9 phase electric generator powering the lightbulb we call the sun.
When oscillation speeds are increased in this "lightbulb" chamber...we should see an increase in orbital velocities of the planets.
Or, visa versa...if the magnets spin up faster and move faster through the copper field...the lightbulb gets brighter...
That's all I'm saying...no one has yet to prove what is actually happening...but we have interesting theories.
nuimshaan wrote:I also enjoyed your explanation of how the Earth gets it's magnetic field. You were true to form. However; it is has been shown experimentally that when heat is applied to a magnet...it loses it's magnetism. So it is quite true to assume the magma flowing around the Earth has very little magnetic properties at all...because the sheer intense lava like liquid just burns all that magnetism up...and the real reason the Earth has a definite location for North and South poles, is because the Earth has an 800 mile sized ball magnet inside of it. Who knows...but we do know that lava will destroy every magnet in it's path...you can just watch them fridge magnets slide right off and melt away.
The number one way to make your household magnet weaker is just apply heat...experimentally true. Since heat is the sole source for reducing magnetic power...these hot spots are not magnetic or so very little magnetic it does not provide the north and south magnetic poles, and the magnet which is still a magnet with magnetic properties...is radiating it's field through the dirt and heat around it to produce the north and south poles our compass works on.
Perhaps my theory is more conceivable now that we understand the effect magma has on magnets.
If the layer of magma flow around the Earth is fairly far away in terms of layers...from the core ball magnet...to whereas the magnet is still powerful, even though it's field is reduced in the magma flow layer where heat decreases magnetics...but it's powerful field is still able to be felt in areas where the magma flow did not go...then those would be strong magnetic areas, because the lack of heat or very little in those did not weaken the field as much as the magma flow areas did.
I thought you had said that magma flow caused magnetism. It is obvious you had forgotten how heat removes magnetism.
nuimshaan wrote:Heat destroys magnetic currents and magnetic fields. This has already been proven. Not a theory.
Therefore; magma flow is NOT a significant source of magnetic power...in fact is a significant source of destroying the power of a magnet due to the immense heat.
nuimshaan wrote:I think you may have tackled yourself on this one. I admit the magma will "scatter" those magnetic alignments...I guess that would be the quantum reality...just like seeing a magnet get weaker when we heat it up in the oven.
Also you admit there must be a change in the magnetic field to make an electric field....but you also admit the magnetic field is destroyed by the immense heat of the magma...so in the magma flow there are magnetic fields to change. They are all scattered and never allowed to join in such a fashion to produce an electric field...no matter how much you shake them up or slosh them around...because they are so hot they cannot form magnetic fields in order to form electric fields...therefore;
The magma flow is NOT a significant source of our Earth's magnetic field. The immense heat of the magma acts to destroy magnetic fields, which then in turn destroy electric fields...because the electric fields are powered by the magnetic fields.
nuimshaan wrote:You said this river of charged particles moving around the Earth's crust would create electricity which would then create a magnetic field...yet you know this is in violation of the EM theory...that is why I said you may have tackled yourself on this one...
Simply put...the heat of the magma destroys any chances of electricity being produced solely because the heat destroys the magnetic fields. Em theory states you must first have a change in the magnetic field in order to see an electric current. It does not state that the act of destroying a magnetic field causes electric current.
Yet you admit the magma destroys the magnetic field of all solid body magnets, and randomly scatters all magnetic particles. Therefore; you admit there are no magnetic fields in the magma because a magnetic field is when those particles are NOT scattered, and are in fact MAGNETIC. The heat makes them no longer be magnetic, therefore you will never have an electric current to create it's own "magnetic field".
Just because those randomly charged particles scattered from immense heat of the magma moved in waves or currents...these waves and currents do not produce electricity because the Em theory states you must move magnetic fields around like waves and currents to produce electric currents....and because the heat removed the magnetic field...it doesn't matter how the magma moves...there will never be electric current...because there's no magnetic fields. They were destroyed by the heat remember.
nuimshaan wrote:The Em theory also supports my theory of our nine phase electric generator system powering the lightbulb we call the sun..
There are large ball magnets moving around a large magnetic field. They are creating an electric current, because an electric current is produced when there is a change in the magnetic field..and these planets are doing just that..moving around quite fast, and they are quite large...I can't even imagine the total power Jupiter creates by it moving around in a magnetic field. My gosh that would make one hell of a lightbulb in and of itself.
Because these planets have nice orbital paths...or oscillating frequencies...we have some nice electrical currents being produced...however many cycles per second their combined oscillations are.
Em theory states that the movement of these magnetic bodies cause a consistant change in the overall magnetic field of our solar system, and thusly produces a consistant electric current whilst it happens. This electric current will move in the path of least resistance, which is the center most pivot point of all planets in this system...the center of our system...where the sun is located...this is where those currents will tend to build up charge and then discharge in the form of heat waves and ultra violet cosmic rays.
The faster these magnetic bodies cause changes in the magnetic field of our system...(the faster they orbit around and spin around)...will increase the electric current in our system, and make the lightbulb burn bigger and brighter... The sun is the location where the electric currents interact with each other, letting off waves of heat, light, and ultra violet cosmic rays.
The sun is not burning up a big pile of nuclear material some cosmic force dumped there millions of years ago...perhaps the sun was formed by the movement of large magnetic bodies moving around rapidly in a magnetic field, causing millions of changes in the magnetic field every year, and causing millions of units of electric current as a result.
Perhaps this is a nine phase electric generator...whereas the nine planets are the nine large magnets moving around in oscillating patterns producing electric currents in the copper like environment in which they move, like the space they occupy is one big magnetic field. And they are producing the phenomena the famous EM theory is describing.
nuimshaan wrote:I'm not trying to state anything we can't observe..it's because I observe what's happening...I know the planets create electricity while they move.
nuimshaan wrote:I believe the sun to be a very good, very large conductor for electrical currents. Like if the sun were made of pure silver.
I believe the planets and moons to be very good magnets. Like if they were giant NIB magnets.
I believe they move very fast around the "pure silver ball"...and so I believe the sun is powered by induction.
I believe the planets induce a current in the sun, it gets hot and bright as a result...does anyone have any questions about what I'm stating, or if my theory violates EM theory?
nuimshaan wrote:Then you are not in fact knowledgeable in elementary physics..because the sun is the best nuclear reactor we can think of, and the largest one in this sector.
Ever heard of a superconducting supercollider? I toured one as a child in Texas...its' the South Texas Project...STP. A superconducting supercollilder. 32 mile radius on the rings...liquid nitrogen cooling chambers...atom smasher...
"unfortunately for you, the sun is not a superconductor until it dies"...
These statements show me you are not knowledgeable in elementary particle physics when it comes to atom smashing.
Without the propulsion power of the rings...there is no smashing...
The immense amount of power to produce such a "sun like" situation is incredible...but the output power is incredible too, and that's why we proceed with research in how to make a larger but safer atom smasher on the Earth...to simulate or harness the power the sun creates with it's atom smashing.
The theory I have stated is where the sun gets it's immense power of propulsion to cause those smashes to produce the incredible amount of power it creates.
Until you study the elementary physics of nuclear plants you will not understand how good of a conductor the sun is.
nuimshaan wrote:If roosters don't lay eggs...but only fertilized eggs hatch into roosters...then the chicken with self fertilizing eggs came first, and that's it! I've answered it once and for all for all.
midwestphysics wrote:nuimshaan wrote:If roosters don't lay eggs...but only fertilized eggs hatch into roosters...then the chicken with self fertilizing eggs came first, and that's it! I've answered it once and for all for all.
Ah, very clever, but riddle me this... And if you can quantify it for me, I'll give you a cookie.
Precisely....How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
grae313 wrote:Wow guys. All these deep thoughts in this thread have really got me thinking now...
midwestphysics wrote:Beyond just hypothetical questions, what if hypothetically there were no normal questions?
nuimshaan wrote:Your turn...you explain to the audience what you think is happening...don't just say it's burning hydrogen...tell us where it gets the hydrogen from, or don't even bother trying to give us your explanation.
nuimshaan wrote:....Your turn...you explain to the audience what you think is happening...don't just say it's burning hydrogen...tell us where it gets the hydrogen from, or don't even bother trying to give us your explanation.
negru wrote:nuimshaan, you've proven them wrong. Some of the best minds of Physics are on this forum, and no one has been able find a flaw in your arguments. They're just trolling now with funny pictures because they're not able to answer you with actual PHYSICS answers. Did you start thinking of going public with some of your ideas? Maybe you can start writing a book? You are clearly on to something, if i had some of your ideas i'd be dedicating the rest of my life to promoting them. Good luck!
nuimshaan wrote:Ironically...the Bible states the creation process as solids forming first...then there was fuel to burn. And we find this to be true.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest