A stupid idea, but could it ever work?

well thats news for me protostar...never knew that Pluto had an atmosphere...nice...That gives hopes...I wonder how dense an object as Pluto must be with such a small size to have an atmosphere...wow...must be really dense

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On August 27, 1998, a 5 minute long gamma ray pulse arrived from a Galactic source located 20,000 light years away in the constellation of Aquila. The event was strong enough to ionize the upper atmosphere and seriously disrupt satellites and spacecraft. It triggered a defensive instrument shutdown on at least two spacecraft. Astronomers acknowledged that this marked the first time they became aware that energetic outbursts from distant astronomical sources could affect the Earth's physical environment.

It is known that electromagnetic fields can change polarity. Consequently, this applies to a planetary electromagnetic field, as well. The ridges on the ocean floors bear witness to this statement. Those ridges were formed one after another during major cataclysms that struck this planet. The direction of the magnetic particles in the ridges' lava shows that these major cataclysms were accompanied by shifts of the poles' locations. A ridge builds up as lava flows out on to the ocean floor. As the lava cools down the magnetic particles in it become stabilized in their respective locations. Therefore, measurements of the directions of the magnetized particles enclosed in the ridges' lava show the location of the poles at the time when the lava cooled down. Measurements of the magnetic particles included in the various ridges' lava by the research vessel Glomar Challenger show that the direction they point to changed diametrically at least 170 times in the last 70 million years

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Electromagnetic forces determine the location of a planets poles and the configurations of planetary systems. To state this very clearly: the planets, the moons, the rings of matter, the asteroid belt as well as comets and meteors; everything within the solar family owes its respective cosmic location to the force of electromagnetism. If the location of a planets poles and its orbit is determined by its electromagnetic role in the concert of cosmic bodies within the Solar System, what happens when something changes drastically in its electromagnetic structure?

An electromagnetic field forms according to the factors, which contribute to it. If these factors change the electromagnetic field changes accordingly. This means that adding or discharging energy changes a planet's energy potential resulting in a different electromagnetic field. Such changes in energy can diminish or strengthen the electromagnetic field locally and, thus, produce a different configuration. This field determines the location of the poles. So, when the electromagnetic field changes enough the locations of the poles change, as well. Therefore, an addition or discharge of energy and local changes in the strength of the field are the logical explanation for a shift of the location of a planet's poles. It can also be the explanation for a change of orbit! - At first sight, this seems a far out claim. But the laws of electromagnetism are the same for small and big bodies of matter.
A planets orbit is determined by the same principles as an electrons orbit: by its charge, which allocates to the planet an orbit within the solar systems electromagnetic structure. Consequently, it is logical to assume that planets can indeed change orbits when their charge of energy changes sufficiently.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my underline

Protostar, why do you think major cataclysms are necessary for magnetic pole shifts?

 

man thats so cool...about the Pluto's atmosphere...wow...made of mostly nitrogen with water vapor and seasons!....wow....I would never have thought that Pluto would be anywhere close, always read in the books it as a cold icy planet/asteroid....amazin...
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/pluto.html

 

If a jump of the poles is accompanied by an orbital jump the temperature range of the entire planet changes. The rotational plane changes and forces of inertia take effect probably starting with the continental shelves slamming into the ocean floor.
Couldn't energy from gamma ray outbursts or Galactic Burst waves give energy to our earth? If planets receive energy from collisions with cosmic bodies, couldn't what I call rogue energy (electromagnetic energy w/ particles like glass and such) be received here introducing a "new" type
of electromagnetical energy into our system?

 

No.

 

Hey, Ophiolite, looking up a few figures, Methane isn't as much of a Greenhouse contributor as CO2, if I read them right. Is that your understranding too?

Gases relevant to radiative forcing only (per IPCC documentation)
Gas Alternate Name Formula 1998 Level Increase since 1750 Radiative forcing (Wm2)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 365ppm 87 ppm 1.46
Methane (CH4) 1,745ppb 1,045ppb 0.48

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases)

So even if each molecule of CO2 were turned into CH4, there would be a net benefit?

Surely also, carbon locked into a solid form, in wood, removes a far greater volume from the atmosphere, so overall, there has to be a net benefit here too?

Just half thought musings, please feel free to throw stones!

 

Are you saying that every magnetic pole reversal results in an orbital jump? If planetary orbits were controlled by "electomagnetic forces", then wouldn't you expect the orbits to be circular, rather than eliptical?
Also, I'm not aware of any geologic evidence for "rotational plane changes" and hyperactive tectonics at magnetic pole reversals. What you are suggesting is a major paradigm shift in the earth sciences- do you have some credible research showing these sorts of changes in the geologic past?

 

NASA's confirmed the notion that the universe is a gigantic electromagnetic structure with the discovery that the gas planets' systems of rings and moons are arranged along the lines of their electromagnetic fields. Cosmically and physically speaking, electromagnetism determines the location of matter and, therefore, the location of the poles, as well. Hence, changes in a planets electromagnetic structure are responsible when the poles jump.

When an electron receives or releases a photon its energy potential changes and it jumps orbit. Planets receive energy from collisions with cosmic bodies like hits by a comet or a meteor. Planets release energy in volcanic eruptions. In either case if the change in a planets electromagnetic charge is significant a jump of the poles or even an orbit jump can take place. This is confirmed by reports from the distant past. The Maya and the Chinese claimed that after a major natural disaster the sun appeared smaller and the moon appeared bigger. This was possible only if the distances between the Earth and the Sun respectively the moon had changed in the course of such an event.
This means that just like electrons planets experience jumps of their poles and possibly even of their orbits in a split second, for energy is not subjected to the limitations of space and time. Such jumps take place during the energy phase while the entire planet is energy as it exists in the so-called quantum vacuum. In the quantum vacuum there is no time, no space and everything is interrelated. Thus, a planet experiences a jump of the poles or changes over to a new cosmic location in the energy phase, which experienced the discharge or the addition of energy. After this dramatic energy phase the planet appears in its next matter phase with a new location of its poles and possibly even in a new cosmic location, the one it belongs to because of its new electromagnetic field and new electromagnetic charge.

 

Sanity Warning:
Those unfamiliar with geology, geophysics, physics, electromagnetism, astronomy, astrophysics, planetology, quantum mechanics, orbital mechanics etc, may be unaware that protostar is promoting a weird and fallacious stack of drivel.

You may safely ignore all of his posts and miss nothing of value, unless you enjoy a good laugh.

Do not be misled by the 5% of his statements that are valid facts. These do not compensate for the 95% of rubbish.

Protostar - feel free to offer evidence in support of any of your ridiculous contentions.

 

Seconded, Protostar is taking a few facts and extropolating ad absurdum, and spouting complete horse puckey.

Anyway, Ophiolite, any thoughts on the co2 vs methane and net benefit question?

 

I've been thinking about that. I hadn't forgotten you had asked. I beleive that methane is simply a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I was not sure if your figures, which I found slightly confusing at first glance, were negating that belief. I plan to look more closely over the next day or two so that I can convert the belief to facts or to rejected speculation, and will respond accordingly.

 

I think the more widespread use of the term is global climate change. Global warming alone was a belief of the past. We now know there is also a glocal cooling mechanism at work as well. In fact the two theories are sorta like a reversible chemical reaction where the actual state is dependent on their equillibrium.

So countering only global warming may cause problems with global cooling. I would just prefer not to touch anything, learn everything, and react only when we need to or know what is really going on. ps your idea wont work.

 

I am not well versed in this field- but I'll have a go at this. The lower methane radiative forcing may be due to the relative concentrations, not the efficiencies as a greenhouse gas.

 

told ya...the amount of methane and its affect on greenhouse effect is almost nothing compared to CO2... Whant an example? Why moon Titan, the recent Cassini Huygens mission discovered that the atmosphere of Titan is made out of methane, so duh...then the whole planet should be scorching just like Venus, shouldnt it? well no...the Huygens probe and spectral analysis showed the moon as cold as Mars, so wheres your greenhouse effect now Ophiolite?

 

Dragon, you are progressively revealing yourself as a bit of a dickhead. Would you like to tell me what the proportion of sunlight reaching Titan is compared with that reaching Venus? I rather doubt you can, and the figure is not in my head, but we are talking something approaching two orders of magnitude difference.

And yes, there is a greenhouse effect on Titan. If it were not for the atmosphere it would be several degrees, probably several tens of degrees cooler.

Stop reaching your beliefs because I said the opposite and you don't like me, try basing them on facts. This is a science forum after all.

 

yes it is a science forum, so expression of an idea, can either be proven or disproven, no need for "dickhead" stuff...Yes moon Titan is farther from sun then Earth...but there is also sunlight reaching the moon...so why cant this sunlight be trapped on the moon as well, to create a thermal effect?...Once again this is a science discussion...

 

Er, because the Moon is too small and gravitationally weak to hold a significant atmosphere?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

buddy...havent heard the news? Cassini Huygens discovered atmosphere on moon Titan, a very thick atmosphere made of methane, and yes it holds significant amount of atmosphere...you cant see the surface because of the clouds...so thats pritty significant...