Journey to the Center of The Yellowstone Caldera

[Pincho Paxton]

“At this point, it’s worth putting together an accurate equation of state over the entire pressure range for planetary modelers to use,” says Bill Nellis, a physicist at Harvard University. Nellis notes that while the new study has generated reliable data for the conditions in question, more work is needed to determine how the new numbers will tweak existing theories.



That particular part of your article stood out to me at least. AlexG has some validity in the source of this planet's magnetic field, but he's only giving us part of the picture. In fact, if we take into account Mars having no detectable magnetic field and also the lack of magmatic flow, that is seen to hold water (no pun intended.) Mars also has little water compared to the Earth, so your article has some merit as well. The point it makes, though, is that every atom has a magnetic field of some strength and all of them contribute to the field. It is the atoms in motion that generate increased strength in the field, yet more vulnerability to outside influence from other particles in motion.

AlexG does not seem aware that the central core of this planet is a solid iron sphere about 900 Km in diameter. Not unlike the core of the sun, it rotates a bit faster than the surface. The molten magma, on the other hand could be imagined like a river. It has eddy currents only the eddys are also in motion around the iron core, thus the field fluctuates.

It can all be compared to music. When all the notes are complimentary, the instrument resonates in its own local harmony. When a sour note is emitted from say the tea kettle, it affects the resonance of the instrument as well. This is the difference between constructive and destructive resonance... beat frequencies in synch or out of synch.

The way I came up with it was completely different. I came up with it because of how the particles work in my theory. My particles always collapse into magnetism, and then get pushed into space. The particles pushed into space eventually come back again as gravity.

[HectorDecimal]

http://www.space.com/418-marsquakes-...et-rumble.html

http://geology.about.com/od/mercuryp...curyplanet.htm


This never ceases to amaze me. We spend billions on these missions, but nobody save for the Russians seem to think it just might be a good idea to measure potential seismology on Mars or Mercury. Mars has no magnetic field. Mercury does. I can't speculate on these, but if we had some seismic data from both, or even from Mars right now, we could establish beyond a doubt whether the planet's magnetic field has any effect on its seismic activity. Both are volcanically dead.

[AlexG]

AlexG does not seem aware that the central core of this planet is a solid iron sphere about 900 Km in diameter

Yes, it is solid, According to Miaki Ishii and Adam M. Dziewonski, ( http://www.pnas.org/content/99/22/14026.full.pdf+html )the inner solid core is 300 km.

[HectorDecimal]

[QUOTE=Pincho Paxton;2914495]The way I came up with it was completely different. I came up with it because of how the particles work in my theory. My particles always collapse into magnetism, and then get pushed into space. The particles pushed into space eventually come back again as gravity.[/QUOTE]

Everyone who belongs to the church of the big bang will throw fecal matter at you for suggesting something like that

I don't belong to that church or belief, so what you are saying probably makes more sense. The outlined portion is probably more on topic in a discussion about "free lunches." I see the universe as one big eternal free lunch, but I'm trying to bring this disussion back to it's oringinal topic. With the focus on the magnetic field, it may be heading toward that connection between solar actvity and volcanoes.

[Pincho Paxton]

Everyone who belongs to the church of the big bang will throw fecal matter at you for suggesting something like that

I don't belong to that church or belief, so what you are saying probably makes more sense. The outlined portion is probably more on topic in a discussion about "free lunches." I see the universe as one big eternal free lunch, but I'm trying to bring this disussion back to it's oringinal topic. With the focus on the magnetic field, it may be heading toward that connection between solar actvity and volcanoes.

Well, if Mars has no magnetic field it is doing something very exciting, and probably the best prediction I have ever come up with. Olympus Mons will blow its top off, and mars will have a new moon. Or Mars will just blow out all of its magnetic field all in one go. So how's that for a prediction!

[HectorDecimal]

Well, if Mars has no magnetic field it is doing something very exciting, and probably the best prediction I have ever come up with. Olympus Mons will blow its top off, and mars will have a new moon. Or Mars will just blow out all of its magnetic field all in one go. So how's that for a prediction!

I find it proliferous. By that I'm expecting some other commentary not as kind as mine.

Certainly it has a collective quantum magnetic field, but nothing a probe can measure including the rovers.

[Pincho Paxton]

I find it proliferous. By that I'm expecting some other commentary not as kind as mine.

Certainly it has a collective quantum magnetic field, but nothing a probe can measure including the rovers.

In my theory Gravity is an in-flow, and there has to be a pressure release which is equal to the gravity. It is usually magnetism, if it was gravity it would blow you off the planet, and if it was a build up of magnetism the speed change would blow you off the planet as well. If there is no pressure release at all my theory is wrong, but it has never been wrong before.

[AlexG]

but it has never been wrong before.

[Pincho Paxton]

Well it hasn't, it's amazing! And if nothing is found as an outflow on Mars I will admit I am wrong. You can even call Gravity attraction again if you want to. But there will be a pressure release from Mars, so I doubt I will have to do any of that.

[HectorDecimal]

In my theory Gravity is an in-flow, and there has to be a pressure release which is equal to the gravity. It is usually magnetism, if it was gravity it would blow you off the planet, and if it was a build up of magnetism the speed change would blow you off the planet as well. If there is no pressure release at all my theory is wrong, but it has never been wrong before.

I don't have a problem with gravity existing as an inbound flow of(likely) gravitons. The classic problem with that is, as you say, there should be a pressure build-up. To resolve that, you may wish to look into string theory. You may also want to look into LeSage and Fatio for the comparison to mass attraction.

If there was a build-up, matter would never accrete. 4.3 billion years of build-up certainly would have blown everything into a galctic orbit by now.

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't have a problem with gravity existing as an inbound flow of(likely) gravitons. The classic problem with that is, as you say, there should be a pressure build-up. To resolve that, you may wish to look into string theory. You may also want to look into LeSage and Fatio for the comparison to mass attraction.

If there was a build-up, matter would never accrete. 4.3 billion years of build-up certainly would have blown everything into a galctic orbit by now.

Well, I don't need to look into LeSage and Fatio, because I have my own computer model of it. I also only need to look back to about 1970 for some sort of detection. So it would be a 42 year old build up, which I think would be very extreme. Anyway, I can't trust my theory with a flaw in it, so I have to wait. I am about nature, and the truth, not nature and a load of bollocks.

[AlexG]

Well, I don't need to look into LeSage and Fatio, because I have my own computer model of it.

Bullshit. It exists only in your head. And it doesn't work there. Nothing seems to work there.

[HectorDecimal]

Bullshit. It exists only in your head. And it doesn't work there. Nothing seems to work there.

Time out! I don't think Pincho was calling you a bollock...


I mean Keyyyy Rhyste!! This thread is reaaaally about the Earth and it's been everywhere else except the metagalactic center of the universe.

[gmilam]

Well, I don't need to look into LeSage and Fatio, because I have my own computer model of it.

What makes you think this program models reality?

[Pincho Paxton]

What makes you think this program models reality?

Because it has no formulas, it is written like 'The Game Of Life', so it creates its own physics. Because it creates its own physics I figured that it had to be right, as I am not telling it to do anything. It is imitating the actual universe, just moving energy to a lower state of energy somewhere else.

It's a bit like this, but instead of showing it a pendulum, or feeding it with data, it just creates the energy for the pendulum from energy propagation, and also creates its own data, and it does it at the quantum scale...
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102329

[Pincho Paxton]

Time out! I don't think Pincho was calling you a bollock...


I mean Keyyyy Rhyste!! This thread is reaaaally about the Earth and it's been everywhere else except the metagalactic center of the universe.

It's not really about the Earth. It's about the physics of outflows connected with the sun. If someone said "How much radiation from the sun reaches the Earth?" The thread would go into radiation outside of the Earth. I think it's what you call comparative thinking.

[HectorDecimal]

It's not really about the Earth. It's about the physics of outflows connected with the sun. If someone said "How much radiation from the sun reaches the Earth?" The thread would go into radiation outside of the Earth. I think it's what you call comparative thinking.

Pincho,

This thread is about some research I've performed over the history of Yellowstone Park in the current era and how I have been and continue to compare that data as well as how I've drawn a rough conclusion that states the supervolcano has actually been errupting and the erruption may escalate in the next 10 to 20 years.

I appreciate your keeping civil. I don't know what to think about your theory. I do know that what you are demonstrating isn't much different than what I do in the aspect that many in here want to see some math. What you describe would involve primordial, autogenic software. If you use someone else's I'm sure we'd all like to know what and how you programmed it. If you wrote it yourself, I'm sure we'd all love to see it in action.

I personally have no equation editor that does what I want, so I've been writing one in Pascal with some parts in EBasic because it has a nice collection of 3D graphic routines. Like most coding monkeys will tell you, being a one man software developer is a lot of work.

It's going to be in the 70's for the rest of the month here. (Still about 20 degrees above the norm which is 45 and 50 in March) In that, I have a lot of real world work to get done and finishing up that editor is part of that, so I'll be in here less often.

If you want to beat this thread silly with origins type material, be my guest.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho,

This thread is about some research I've performed over the history of Yellowstone Park in the current era and how I have been and continue to compare that data as well as how I've drawn a rough conclusion that states the supervolcano has actually been errupting and the erruption may escalate in the next 10 to 20 years.

I appreciate your keeping civil. I don't know what to think about your theory. I do know that what you are demonstrating isn't much different than what I do in the aspect that many in here want to see some math. What you describe would involve primordial, autogenic software. If you use someone else's I'm sure we'd all like to know what and how you programmed it. If you wrote it yourself, I'm sure we'd all love to see it in action.

I personally have no equation editor that does what I want, so I've been writing one in Pascal with some parts in EBasic because it has a nice collection of 3D graphic routines. Like most coding monkeys will tell you, being a one man software developer is a lot of work.

It's going to be in the 70's for the rest of the month here. (Still about 20 degrees above the norm which is 45 and 50 in March) In that, I have a lot of real world work to get done and finishing up that editor is part of that, so I'll be in here less often.

If you want to beat this thread silly with origins type material, be my guest.

OK, well you need to post the Data then. I can only estimate the physics from other planets, and then tie them into Earth. I looked for your data, and couldn't find the same dates. I couldn't even find the same months.

[Ophiolite]

Mars has no magnetic field. Mercury does. I can't speculate on these, but if we had some seismic data from both, or even from Mars right now, we could establish beyond a doubt whether the planet's magnetic field has any effect on its seismic activity. Both are volcanically dead.

Mars has a remnant magnetic field, an order or two magnitude greater than the Earth's. There is good evidence for volcanic activity in the last few million years on Mars, which would suggest dormant rather than dead.

Minor points, but just for clarification. On Mercury you are quite right that activity seemed to end about 3.8 Ga ago.

[origin]

Mars has a remnant magnetic field, an order or two magnitude greater than the Earth's.

I think you meant less than Earth's.