Saturday, March 8, 2008

Life (continued)

Under my model of matter formation, all the objects that make up our solar system were formed hot out of the atoms with the highest number of units in the nucleus. As the objects that were to become the solar system cooled, these atoms broke down into the elements we find in the crusting planet. The rate at which a planet cools is naturally dependent on size, with the larger planets, read Jupiter, remaining hot and the smaller planets, read Mars, cooing faster than the Earth. That explains the moon. While anyone looking with fresh eyes at the solar system could not help reaching this conclusion, our ignorant science, blinded by Newton’s need for motion to be historic (science replacing Newton's God with perpetual motion) and therefore all these planets to be pretty much non-evolving (and result in the obviously recently arrived Venus as having been hot forever), science has to make up all sorts of improbable story lines to explain the elements. Elements are, the line goes, manufactured in the bowels of stars. How? Well that’s just a detail. The important thing is, the stars that produced the elements on Earth exploded just in time for the elements to become a part of the cloud of gas or dust out of which the Earth condensed. What’s the proof of all this? Volcanoes. Their heat is the result of uranium, having been manufactured in the bowels of a star, being scattered after the star exploded, and embedding itself in the crust of the forming planet. How else could the planet acquire the heat that powers the volcanoes? (I never wrote what the current theories were in The Copernican Series, but doing so now, I can’t help thinking I’m making up jokes as we go along.) Another way the Earth collects minerals is through bombardment from meteors and asteroids, which, of course, is just another way of appearing to answer the question where do the elements come from, by misdirecting us with an answer that appears to answer without answering. Where did the elements in the meteors and asteroids come from?
As the planet cooled and great fields of different elements formed, they were subject to the natural laws of physical reality, as opposed to scientific fantasy. The simple reality is that each element has a potential difference and the potential difference of one element is different than the potential difference of another element. Potential differences produce electricity. If we put two elements in a battery, connecting the potential differences produces a flow of electrons. In a car battery, the electrons flow under normal conditions, which is the climate the battery was designed for. However, if we get an unexpected run of freezing weather, we won’t be able to start the car because the change in temperature has changed the potential differences in the elements that make up the battery, reducing the potential difference in the battery so an insufficient number of electrons flow to start the car.
The surface of the Earth is a vast farm of various elements, and each of these elements has a potential difference with all the other elements. If the Earth didn’t rotate under the sun, electric currents would eventually establish balance among the various potential differences and that would be the end of it, a lifeless Earth. However, because the Earth’s surface is continually rotating between day and night, the potential differences of the elements are constantly undergoing temperature changes and thus changes in potential differences. These constantly changing potential differences allow the electric currents to constantly move back and forth between and among the various elements, and these are the telluric currents science measures but has no explanation for.
Without atoms and molecules of atoms, however, there can be no life to organize around these flows.
(To be continued)


I Use My Own Name said...


I'm not from a scientific background and I find your ideas simple and elegant - so simple in fact, I should be able to work out my own answers eventually!

Right now though, could you offer an opinion on Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity?

There's a fundamental tie-in with your ideas, but some important differences too (Tesla's belief/conviction of the aether being one).

Here is a summary:-

Nevertheless, could Tesla's ideas, as fleshed by one William Lyne, actually work, but not for the reasons given?

My overall angle here is this:

Could William Lyne's "electropulsion" ideas work, but not for the reasons he gives?



Peter Bros said...

I’ve always found Telsa, in spite of his real accomplishments, to be a bit beyond my understanding. In looking at your reference, it appears I’m not the only one:

"... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."
"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." — Nikola Tesla

“While this statement asserted that Tesla had ‘worked out a dynamic theory of gravity’ that he soon hoped to give to the world, he reportedly died before he publicized the details.”

As to applying Telsa to electropulsion concepts, these folks are carving out a pretty sizeable area of science, which for reasons that will become apparent, I don’t agree with.

Thanks for the comments.


I Use My Own Name said...

Thanks Peter. I certainly find William Lyne's re-construction of Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity difficult going, although much sincere effort has gone into it.