Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I believe that atoms contain protons and neutrons which can logically be described as subatomic "particles" or different forms of the same particle forming a nucleus. The rest of the Standard Model appears to be largely silliness. The Aether has many modes of energy transfer.Do you believe that nuclei are made of the aether?
Someone always has to be the leader.Wow, it's the Circular Reasoned News!
Gee, how convenient! How scientific! Having no pesky peers to worry about independently reviewing or testing:
The answer in the link above uses the word static to describe the energy stored in a gravity and magnetic field, so I'm not the first to coin the term.Jupiter and Saturn currently remain quite bright and close on the western horizon here.
I don't associate static with heat at all. I normally think of static as a built up electric charge, either positive or negative, producing a static or self-perpetuating electric field of significant duration. Static electricity is then any DC discharge of of that field's energy, especially any quick (disruptive) discharge resulting in visible sparking akin to that produced by a spark plug.
Static being used as an adjective, not in the noun form.Do magnets emit energy? Doesn't having a magnetic field cost energy?
Frank Heile's answer: It will take energy to create a magnetic field for the very first time, but once a STATIC magnetic field is created, no additional energy is needed. There is energy stored in a magnetic field, but static magnetic fields do not emit energy. This is similar to electric fields...qr.ae
The answer in the link above uses the word static to describe the energy stored in a gravity and magnetic field, so I'm not the first to coin the term.
adjective
- 1.
lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting.
"demand has grown in what was a fairly static market"
2. PHYSICS
concerned with bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium.
I was saying the nucleus has heat that is static. Those are the same semantics as this writer has used. anyways if the energy is described as static why is it so beyond comprehension that the source of that static energy, the nucleus, has innate static energy itself? searching the web for nucleus temperature makes it seem like there is a conspiracy about it.Static being used as an adjective, not in the noun form.
What he was saying is that it takes energy to produce a permanent "magnet" from a non-magnetic chunk of magnetizable rock or iron alloy. But then it will stay magnetic without needing additional energy, unless one bangs it with a hammer, heats it up, or stresses it in some other way causing it lose some or all of its polarity.I was saying the nucleus has heat that is static. Those are the same semantics as this writer has used. anyways if the energy is described as static why is it so beyond comprehension that the source of that static energy, the nucleus, has innate static energy itself? searching the web for nucleus temperature makes it seem like there is a conspiracy about it.
I wonder if someday they will just delete all the nonsense and the mess will be forgotten, or if they keep it around as a historic lesson sort of like the way they teach Kepler's retrograde motion of Mars. Meanwhile the QM people are everywhere, I call them back scratchers because they lower me to it.But first, they are simply paid to BS authoritatively, so I don't believe anything I read on Quora. Second, they will only provide a modern physicist/Einsteinian/QM explanation. They don't know what magnetism is to begin with. For that you need to go with Dollard or Wheeler.
So if energy can be static why do they say heat cannot be?Regardless of the type of field, if it remains just sitting there, without further energy input, it's a static field.
Good trick question since I didn't claim energy to be static. Fields can easily be, but "heat" is not a field (within my vocabulary), although one can always draw some analogies to just about anything.So if energy can be static why do they say heat cannot be?
It would make sense that heat can be static to explain how the inside of the earth is hot.Good trick question since I didn't claim energy to be static. Fields can easily be, but "heat" is not a field (within my vocabulary), although one can always draw some analogies to just about anything.
It makes sense to say heat is concentrated within the Earth's core.. by gravity, solid rock, water, etc.; but it's really just pressurized hot matter in constant motion, therefore (accurately speaking) neither "static" nor "energy." But you do you. Whatever floats your dinghy.It would make sense that heat can be static to explain how the inside of the earth is hot.
They've gotten increasingly efficient over time. I believe some (motors/generators) have gotten very close to 100% using the latest switching technologies. Why?Not to get off topic, but I asked on quora if they measure the efficiency converting the magnetic field spinning in a generator into electricity. In other words do they use 100% of the magnetic field or is there an efficiency loss? I researched the question and couldn't find an answer. just seein if you knew?
Ok but if the heat in the center of the earth was as you define it: radiation, conduction, and convection? anyways if the heat was one of those three it would reach the surface and the heat would be the same on the crust as the core. The heat doesn't radiate to the surface because it is the nucleus heat which is static. Please explain why the heat isn't radiating to the surface if its energy not a static field?It makes sense to say heat is concentrated within the Earth's core.. by gravity, solid rock, water, etc.; but it's really just pressurized hot matter in constant motion, therefore (accurately speaking) neither "static" nor "energy." But you do you. Whatever floats your dinghy.
A lot of heat does work its way to the surface one way or another. Much of that then radiates into space. But fission still takes place in the Earth's core. Add the Sun's radiation plus greenhouse warming and the Earth maintains a near balance. Used to anyway..Ok but if the heat in the center of the earth was as you define it: radiation, conduction, and convection? anyways if the heat was one of those three it would reach the surface and the heat would be the same on the crust as the core. The heat doesn't radiate to the surface because it is the nucleus heat which is static. Please explain why the heat isn't radiating to the surface if its energy not a static field?
To flesh that out more, what I really mean is the so-called "particles" comprising the Standard Model:The rest of the Standard Model appears to be largely silliness. The Aether has many modes of energy transfer.
Another, the "speed of light."
So you do think the aether determines light speed?The Aether itself is a unique, everywhere infinitely expandable and collapsible field that comes equipped with a certain set of rules, states, or skills.
Of course. The Aether supplies both the medium and means to transfer light energy. What else could possibly be responsible?So you do think the aether determines light speed?
I have seen this picture before studying how radio signals propagate space. Is that what that is?
Yes but the surface would be like a pan sitting on top of a hot burner in the core. All of the heat in the core would be radiating all the time if it was being supplied through some heat making process. I still think its a static gravity field that causes it.A lot of heat does work its way to the surface one way or another. Much of that then radiates into space. But fission still takes place in the Earth's core. Add the Sun's radiation plus greenhouse warming and the Earth maintains a near balance. Used to anyway..
Like I said, it's a good guess. I believe it's generally simpler in some ways and more complex in others. There's always a push and a pull at work, plus the roughly ninety degree phase angle between the dielectric and magnetic components. Then there's a coaxial, hyperboloid screwiness to the entire business allowing the Aether to accomplish its roll effortlessly. Losses occur due to interactions with matter such as air and water molecules.I have seen this picture before studying how radio signals propagate space. Is that what that is?
I largely agree, but no. You have to appreciate that the mantle and crust volume is large compared to that of the molten area. Hard, cold, and wet, plus losing heat to outer space constantly. Interestingly, the core itself seems to be solid:Yes but the surface would be like a pan sitting on top of a hot burner in the core. All of the heat in the core would be radiating all the time if it was being supplied through some heat making process. I still think its a static gravity field that causes it.
The pressure of Earth down towards its center causes those atom's to increase in time dilation pressure around the nucleus which increases the overall density of the aether in the core making it heat up.
theconversation.com
Nuts I watched a sort of eery interview with Michu Kaiku where he enthusiastically told everyone 'we now believe there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy' which is 30 year old news. Anyways he talked just as enthusiastically about the method of seeing inside the earth with seismic waves. I don't believe it. I would throw that one in the skeptical pile.I largely agree, but no. You have to appreciate that the mantle and crust volume is large compared to that of the molten area. Hard, cold, and wet, plus losing heat to outer space constantly. Interestingly, the core itself seems to be solid:
No fan of Michu Kaiku. Enthusiasm is what good teachers need to evoke but his has never struck as much more than an act -- a deliberate, practiced affectation. That said, I have little reason to doubt there's a black hole in the center of every medium to large galaxy nor that seismic waves can and do tell us much about the Earth's insides.Nuts I watched a sort of eery interview with Michu Kaiku where he enthusiastically told everyone 'we now believe there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy' which is 30 year old news. Anyways he talked just as enthusiastically about the method of seeing inside the earth with seismic waves. I don't believe it. I would throw that one in the skeptical pile.
It does explode out here and there.. like volcanos.Also if the heat were radiating and it gets too hot to drill at 6 miles, one would expect if all that heat was energy that the hot material would explode out like a bomb. Only 6 miles of temperate crust above 7,000 miles of molten iron and rock?
What can the world’s deepest hole tell us?
Well, at the bottom they found rocks from the Archaean age, rocks over 2.5 billion years old! That is rocks from when the Earth’s crust and layers had just formed!
Scientists also found water around 7km. This water isn’t your ordinary water either. It is far too deep to be groundwater. Instead, it is likely water that came from deep-crust minerals, locked under a layer of impermeable rock!
Then there is also the hydrogen gas that was boiling out of mud flowing out of the world’s deepest hole. Don’t forget the 2 billion-year-old microfossils of 24 ancient species that were found, or how the Earth’s temperature changes as a function of depth.
Heat is, in fact, the reason for halting operations. Scientists predicted the temperature 7.6 miles down would be 212F, but it turns out the temperature gradient isn’t linear. At about 10,000 feet deep it started to jump up and reached 356F by the time they got to the final 40,230 feet. This temperature was far too hot for the bore to keep on drilling, but decades later it still remains the world’s deepest hole!
Yes. Stay tuned..So the nuclei are heating up from within because of pressure I think. Do you think the aether is effected by the nuclei? how?
