Dwayne i do not intend to provide a histroy of atomic science. That is completely unnecessary. What you need to provide is the link between the ozone, el nino, and nuclear testing in order for your argument to have any validity. I don't see that. i assume that i will have to exsplain the entire creation of the earth No need, here are a few basics which you might find useful: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/press_releases/song/basic-facts.html to exsplain that the earths core is hallow and it's magnetic field are created by hydrogen and helium The Earth's core consists of a fluid outer core and a solid inner core. Because the outer core contains iron, when it flows it generates a magnetic field. This is the source of the Earth's magnetic field. http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html
For the first link, I was redirected to the home page for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. Being as my time at present is limited, I must ask what it is you wish for me to look at on the home page as there seems to be quite a few choices. The second link goes to blast pressures at a given radius for a given size blast. These are normally used to determine what would be left standing after the blast had occurred. In other words, training material. The last link deals with the effects of a bomb blast and the radiation. How long it takes to disperse the radiation. I did notice that there is a disagreement between the sites. One says that the radiation will stay in the upper atmosphere for “tens of years” the other says that it falls out relatively quickly. Nowhere did I see connection to El Nino. Nowhere did I see connection to the ozone hole. On the picture posted on currents, one can obtain this from any ocean current site that gives such data. Given the volume and the depth of the oceans, that is a lot of water to disperse radiation. How does this link to the El Nino currents? In my opinion, the currents would carry any radiation global wide and not concentrate it in one area, such as the intermittent El Nino current. Hydrogen and helium are superconductors only when they are supercooled. You will again have to show where this is the case in the earth's core. (Q) has already shown where this is not so. I will agree that any radiation from nuclear fallout is not a good thing. I fail to see where this is triggering ozone depletion, as your links do not mention anything about this. Nor does it mention anything about El Nino. I am not heckling you but asking you to show where studies have linked this to what you claim. Without that linkage you are spinning your wheels. I thought it fair that you be given a chance to show where this was possible. As I stated earlier, I don’t know it all and am willing to learn, but you have to show the connections and so far you have failed at it. If it helps, we have experienced a solar magentic pole shift within the last year or so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Magnetic Field Change
In my last post I stated Nor have I argued to the contrary. I argued for presentation of facts. Quite different from denial. I have asked you to present the facts that connect your claims to what is. You have shown that you can with the solar links. By omission, you have shown you can not support your stance with the connection to El Nino and the Ozone. What can I say? It was your claim and your assertion.
Dwayne Plainly if you understood the laws of gravity you would know that thier is no way that the earths core could be soild furthur if your branch of study was different if field of study for instance cosmic or universe you would know that universal forces such as the universal backgroung constant does not allow for such event of a soild core. When earthquakes occur around the world, they create waves which can be detected in various other parts of the world. Some of these waves travel ONLY through solid materials. If the Earth's core were hollow, these waves could not be detected. http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/interior.html Q's argument is redundant, and ametrure At least I have an argument. At first , you piqued my interest with your theory linking nuclear testing to that of el nino and the ozone. But you've not shown any evidence whatsoever to support your claims. Now you're claiming the Earth is hollow. Sorry Dwayne, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to take you seriously.
I just can't help asking... How do "the laws of gravity" lead to your conclusion that the earth's core is... let's see... a hollow, cool, void with (incompatibly) superconducting metallic hydrogen (and helium)? Please include the terms "hydrostatic equilibrium" and "convective transport," with their appropriate, scientifically accepted definitions. Let's see: 1) You don't understand gravity. 2) You don't understand radioactivity. 3) You don't understand climatology. 4) You don't understand solar models. 5) You don't understand electromagnetism. 6) You don't understand energy. 7) You don't understand geology. ...I'm sure there are more fields you don't understand, too. What's really funny is that Frencheezy is picking on Dwayne. It's like watching a second-grader picking on a first-grader -- it shouldn't be funny, but it is. Be careful, Freencheezy -- you're going to end up like Dwayne if you don't. - Warren
What evidence do you have that the Earth's global climate is controlled by its magnetic fields? Most climatologists seem to think the problem is a lot more complicated than that. Last I heard in the last ice age the ice sheets only got as far as Northern Europe. So where did the ice come from then. You might not be aware but ice occupies about the same volume as water. To get global ice sheets 5 Km thick you need the same amount of water. Put another way, this only works in a water world. Please give a viable working model on how this works? Nope. The Grand Canyon was formed by the Colarado river cutting through the rock. That much is right. I suggest you compare the Fjords and valleys carved by glaciers to other valleys no where near glaciers. They are hugely different leading most geologists to think they where formed differently. Think rift valley Vs. Fjord. You evidence please? Evidence? This is so wrong it's ludicrous. There are mountains with rocks dating back 4 billion years. Homo Neanderthals roamed Europe 10,000+ years ago during an ice age. They did not live on top of 5 Km deep ice sheets.
Dwayne That's THED by the way. Dwayne, your the one posing a radically different scenario to global geology and it's features. So the onus is on you to prove your theory that every 5,000 years the Earth is covered in Kilometers deep ice sheets that creates a new surface. It is up to you to prove those sheets can get that big, that the rotation of the Earth speeds up to compensate for the axial tilt being changed and even that it would change. It is up to you to prove that the weight of these sheets is enough to compress the crust. It is up to you to prove the Earth's magnetic field has such a large effect in climate. This is so far off the scale my bogosity meter is more than pegged, it broke the peg.
Well, being a quartermaster in the USN has got to count for something! so here goes my little talk on the earths magnetic field. In it's simplest terms, the earth can be thought of as a dipole magnet. Charged particles become traped along the magnetic field lines forming the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere extends into the vacuum of space from approximately 80 to 60,000 kilometers (50 to 37,280 miles) on the side toward the Sun, and trails out more than 300,000 kilometers (186,500 miles) away from the Sun. Now this is all well and good, but an interesting question pops up. What is the earths core really made of? Some new and startling insights into the makeup of the earths core could be very near on the horizon. The standard school of thought is that the earths core is made up of predominantly Iron metal (Fe). We find it has a significant amount of the element Nickel (Ni, about 4%) and a light element to make it less dense (about 10% by mass). This light element is either mostly oxygen or sulfur, with the arguments for oxygen (too detailed to go into here) being more believable in general. But there are others who believe a much more radical view of the core. Earth, says geophysicist J. Marvin Herndon, is a gigantic natural nuclear power plant. We live on its thick shield, while 4,000 miles below our feet a five-mile-wide ball of uranium burns, churns, and reacts, creating the planet's magnetic field as well as the heat that powers volcanoes and continental-plate movements. It's hard to say what camp I sit in. I guess it's really just a work in progress.
The magnetosphere affects how much radiation from the Sun and from space bombards our planet; this must have very large effects over a long time. It affects how animals migrate and such. I have heard theories that the magnetosphere on Mars was possibly disrupted by a large impact, or that the cooling of that planet's interior simply shut down the magnetosphere because there was no longer any liquid metal circulating, and then radiation was able to bake the place. *shrug*
Dwayne So lets talk about whos going to be alive! Instead, let's talk about who's going to agree with your claims. Cite some supporting observational evidence. Without that, you're just flapping your gums in the breeze.
Dwayne i assume that for you Q i would have to post the events of the suns activities, the record of the sea floor, etc... No Dwayne, you must post evidence which support your extraordinary claims, of which you've made many, and which fly in the face of accepted theory and observational evidence. name a point of evidence that you do see to understand its connnection. i locate it. I already have asked for references, others have as well. You've not provided any references which support your claims. just to point i will see if ican find you information on the super volcanos of earth. I'm not interested in super volcanoes. I'm interested in your evidence which I have already outlined. Please go back through this thread and read for yourself. By the way do you take the time to read my post? Yes I have read your posts, all of them. Why do you think I constantly ask you to verify your claims with supporting evidence. I get the feeling it is you who is not reading our posts.
1) You've presented no evidence. You've presented a long string of delusional opinions. Your inability to understand the definition of evidence is what squarely identifies you as a crackpot. 2) If you can't tell us what to read, observe, or calculate, we certainly can't appreciate your view. 3) There's nothing obvious about anything you've said. - Warren
Yes, Dwayne. Please state a formula for us. Did your caps lock key get stuck there, Dwayne? It seems rather funny you'd say that volcanoes don't exist... since Venus, Earth, and Io all have active volcanism. Hell, you can walk up to a volcano on any continent you'd like on this planet. Mars, the Moon, and many other bodies also show evidence of extinct volcanism. Since they're all cold inside, could you please explain the origin of the hot lava we see flowing down the sides of these volcanoes that don't exist here on earth? - Warren
But wait, Dwayne, didn't you just say that ? We all know that anything written in all caps is undeniably true. Why are you backing off now to include only the Earth as being volcanically active? - Warren
Seems to me that Mars is simply old, and smaller than Earth, and cooled down inside. Same as our moon, if it ever had such interior activity. There isa actually volcanic activity elsewhere in our system. Venus I think, several Jovian moons.
