Jump to content

Why the Earth is a globe


 Share

Recommended Posts

From Wikipedia ...

 

Infrared (IR), sometimes called infrared light, is electromagnetic radiation (EMR) with wavelengths longer than those of visible light.

 

'If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck .........'

 

Edited by webtrekker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

I've lost track. How did this get from the Coriolis Effect to a discussion about the Electromagnetic Spectrum?


I was discussing magnetism as one point, someone else brought up magnetism being the footprint of electricity and so I went on to define electromagnetism which was then questioned (understandably), very glad it stayed polite rather than someone just getting furious.

Tesla “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” - often quoted and very seldom understood.

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Arnie said:

Yes you were "matter is just light at incredibly high speeds". I asked you to identify the experiments.

Speed of vibration is different to a speed of travel or induction. I wont go through the rest of the post as its all off topic and having been explained already. Most definitely related to the threads larger subsection. I also linked to the specific experiment I was referring to in the post :)

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

Sounded fine to me. 👍

 

???? You have rerally got me confused here. The consultant was the one who suggested the LED light on the remote was some sort of proof that IR was being used, because he inferred we could see it - he put up a picture of the red light.

 

Then YOU erroneously pulled me up for making that claim (when I 100% agreed with your statement, then you suggest his original explanation which you clearly don't agree with "seems fine". Could you possibly go back and reread it and clarify?

 

I actually only meant to dispute the urban myth about bog water spinning the other way in the Southern hemisphere, because it doesn't, then got embroiled in a discussion about EM radiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Arnie said:

he put up a picture of the red light.


do it yourself with a remote control to your eye you wont see anything, then try it through a camera lens :) has nothing to do with a visible LED or not.

Coriolis visualised:


Magnet bending water.
 


Does the earths magnetic field have no relevance to any physical phenomena what so ever? Or are we overlooking quite a lot of really basic stuff by overcomplicating fundamental parts of Physics. Force in Motion, Inertia and Acceleration and subsequent pressure mediation of those forces is what governs everything.

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheConsultant said:

do it yourself with a remote control to your eye you wont see anything, then try it through a camera lens :)

 

Ohhhh, THAT's what you meant. But I have to say, none of it relevant at all really. Have to leave it here. Nice chatting - got to water my plants before they ban keeping them alive with a hosepipe.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

Ohhhh, THAT's what you meant. But I have to say, none of it relevant at all really. Have to leave it here. Nice chatting - got to water my plants before they ban keeping them alive with a hosepipe.

All the best. and its very related :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheConsultant said:


Nightvision is infrared I think is it not? or at least used to be.

What I was referring to above: (try it out)
proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ftyim7m94mbq01.jpg&sp=1660483560Td3b41a60610c5fb99809b2cdc42738df45efb13c8e52d159cb9929ced90a50c0

Without a camera lens you will not see this at all. 

Yeah I wasn't thinking straight. I have UV a IR capability on my telescope

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

The whole point of my argument. There is a very good reason why things have labels in the EM spectrum.  They are not light, they are invisible and fall into different categories entirely.  

No they are light. Our eyes cannot see it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


That is very cool! I would love a telescope, have you ever seen andromeda? also you weren't wrong.

You can see andromeda with the naked eye. Its a bit fuzzy from where I can observe it but then it is light years away.

I've observed multiple galaxies, clusters etc. If you dont know about it, there is an app called starwalk 2. Its not the only reference material I use but the free version is spot on. Just point in the right direction and easily identify anything observable with the naked eye.

If you ever get into buying a telescope take your time. Its an absolute nightmare choosing the right equipment. I've spent too much money in the past buying gear which doesn't suit me afterwards. Much like dslr cameras the attachments are very expensive. And buying cheap is a waste of time.

 

I struggle sometimes to remember what is correct with things. I read so much that sources get jumbled and info skewed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bombadil said:

You can see andromeda with the naked eye. Its a bit fuzzy from where I can observe it but then it is light years away.

I've observed multiple galaxies, clusters etc. If you dont know about it, there is an app called starwalk 2. Its not the only reference material I use but the free version is spot on. Just point in the right direction and easily identify anything observable with the naked eye.

If you ever get into buying a telescope take your time. Its an absolute nightmare choosing the right equipment. I've spent too much money in the past buying gear which doesn't suit me afterwards. Much like dslr cameras the attachments are very expensive. And buying cheap is a waste of time.

 

I struggle sometimes to remember what is correct with things. I read so much that sources get jumbled and info skewed!


Any recommended beginner telescopes to look in to? Yes you can see it with naked eye I was wondering about seeing it through a telescope, and do you take photos? 

I use an app too! fascinating stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:


Any recommended beginner telescopes to look in to? Yes you can see it with naked eye I was wondering about seeing it through a telescope, and do you take photos? 

I use an app too! fascinating stuff!

My personal opinion is that you should always buy the best quality you can afford. Celestron telescopes are pretty good. I have a Nexstar 8se. There are loads of lenses, barlows etc with  low, mid and high range sets. Im pretty lazy so I bought a starsense sensor. You just type date and time and it auto aligns. It makes it tonnes easier.

Celestron do do other much cheaper telescopes but I have no experiense with them. Maybe there is a astronomy group near where you live. Might be worth going one night and checking out what gear they use

Yes I have seen Andromeda through my telescope. Deep space object are still pretty vague. Mainly with planets you get more for your money.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2022 at 9:02 AM, TheConsultant said:

Have you read some Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday, Maxwell? Tesla? Familiar with their works?

ah, the ubiquitous appeal to authority

 

as an aside, do you think a world being exploited by pirates has universities that teach truth?

 

anyway, here are some other authorities to peruse:

Kristian Birkeland

Halton Arp

Ralph Juergens

Immanuel Velikovsky

 

now, back to the weather on a globe planet:

GEC=global electric circuit

Quote

“You’re looking at the total integrated effects of all the electrified weather across the globe,” said Michael Peterson, a staff scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico who has studied the circuit with satellite lightning detectors. “People have described it as the electrical heartbeat of the planet.”

Researchers are paying more attention to that heartbeat these days. They are measuring the GEC in more detail, determining the roles of everything from layer clouds to the Sun’s magnetic cycle, and looking at incorporating the electrical circuit into global climate models. “Research on some questions was getting a bit stalled, but now we can use new technology, new methods, and new instruments to push it forward,” said R. Giles Harrison, a professor of atmospheric physics at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom.

https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/earth-global-electrical-circuit-carnegie-curve-ionosphere/

 

much more technical:

Quote

On the distribution of the electric charge in the global circuit

 

Historically, an analogy between the spherical Earth and a spherical capacitor has provided a useful conceptual geometry with which to represent the DC global circuit. It is based on two well-established observational findings:

the presence of a fair-weather electric field, directed downwards at the Earth's surface,

the presence of downward vertical current flow in fair-weather regions.

 

Two associated deductions can be made from findings (1) and (2), which are, respectively, that

(A)

a negative charge is distributed across the fair-weather part of the terrestrial sphere,

(B)

a sustained upper positive potential exists.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2019.0758

Faris Wald, brilliant young scientist:

Quote

Faris Wald, 15, Santa Fe, NM, won the $25,000 Prize, for his overall mastery of science and engineering as well as for his project, which found a correlation between coronal holes and cyclones. Faris has always been curious about the strength of the sun’s power and its effect on our planet, which prompted him to analyze data related to sunspot and coronal hole events. 

https://www.societyforscience.org/press-release/middle-school-student-researches-the-suns-power-to-affect-cyclones-wins-25000-top-award-in-the-national-broadcom-masters-competition/

curiously his research has been memory holed, maybe you can find more than i did

 

textbook on electric space by the worlds leading science authority the AGU

Quote

About this book

Electric currents are fundamental to the structure and dynamics of space plasmas, including our own near-Earth space environment, or “geospace.”This volume takes an integrated approach to the subject of electric currents by incorporating their phenomenology and physics for many regions in one volume. It covers a broad range of topics from the pioneers of electric currents in outer space, to measurement and analysis techniques, and the many types of electric currents. 

First volume on electric currents in space in over a decade that provides authoritative up-to-date insight on the current status of research

Reviews recent advances in observations, simulation, and theory of electric currents

Provides comparative overviews of electric currents in the space environments of different astronomical bodies

Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond serves as an excellent reference volume for a broad community of space scientists, astronomers, and astrophysicists who are studying space plasmas in the solar system.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781119324522

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, killing raven sun said:

ah, the ubiquitous appeal to authority


It would be remiss of me, or anyone for that matter to speak of this subject and our brief discussion of it and not mention them, we haven't really progressed since, you could argue our scientists are no longer scientists by the very definition of the term.

What do those people mentioned have to do with what I have said? or are you just recommending other peoples material to read? I assume Birkeland is the same as the birkeland current?

 

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, killing raven sun said:

as an aside, do you think a world being exploited by pirates has universities that teach truth?


Absolutely not.

Taken from your first link
"Even on the fairest of days, without a single cloud in sight, an electric current flows from the sky to the ground. Driven by the difference in electrical potential between Earth’s surface and the ionosphere, it is a crucial component of the global electrical circuit (GEC), which connects many electrical processes in the atmosphere."


Its not electrical, thats the schumann resonance. Electromagnetism. You are overlooking electricity as being a hybrid. We can artificially separate both magnetism and electricity but they are a hybrid, two sides of the same coin. Its also not flowing up, its a standing wave trapped between surface of the Earth and the Ionoshpere and  therefore travels both upward and downward as a standing wave. The planet is a circuit, as is a magnet. It isn't just electrical, to define it as such would be incredibly ignorant of what electricity is, and incredibly ignorant of what magnetism is.
 

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, i see you are really into the "magnetism" so i will go easy on you, but think about this, an electric charge creates a magnetic field, a magnetic field does not create electricity(charge)

 

for magnetic fields to produce charge you need to apply some vector change, the isolated magnetic field seeks rest, not charge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, killing raven sun said:

ok, i see you are really into the "magnetism" so i will go easy on you, but think about this, an electric charge creates a magnetic field, a magnetic field does not create electricity(charge)


Feel free to not go easy on me, I can handle it, and yes it does. Magnetic induction creates/expresses as electrical charge. It doesnt seek rest, its the loss of force in motion that creates what we call magnetism. A magnet is already a circuit itself. Its a point source object much like a laser is a point source object.

"Electric generators rotate coils of wires through magnetic fields created by permanent or electric magnets. As the conducting coils move through the magnetic fields, the electrons in the wires move, creating an electric current." - an electron being a singular unit of dielectric induction.

visually:
 

Ignore the lecture as its based on a lot of misunderstanding, but I linked to the poignant bit.

Magnetism, electricity, dielectricity are the same thing, just different expressions.

Try this video, you seem genuinely interested:


Not the best of examples but watch this too

 

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

its the loss of force in motion that creates what we call magnetism

Loss of inertia, my mistake.

On topic, A flat Earth doesn't have magnetic poles (it physically cannot due to how it works) or hemispheres

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

Feel free to not go easy on me, I can handle it

ok, you dont know shit about electricity and it appears you have a learning disability

 

8 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

Magnetic induction creates/expresses as electrical charge.

wrong.

 

8 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

A magnet is already a circuit itself. Its a point source object much like a laser is a point source object.

these two statements contradict each other, but they are also both wrong, amazing!

 

8 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

"Electric generators rotate coils of wires through magnetic fields created by permanent or electric magnets. As the conducting coils move through the magnetic fields, the electrons in the wires move, creating an electric current." - an electron being a singular unit of dielectric induction.

the key point here is that its the movement that induces current, magnets alone do not create charge

 

8 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

Ignore the lecture as its based on a lot of misunderstanding, but I linked to the poignant bit.

lulz

 

8 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

Not the best of examples but watch this too

no.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I stand corrected by your informative reply.

Either side of magnet is the inverse of one another, i.e. a circuit. Centripetal and centrifugal inertia terminating on each respective "pole". Let me guess you think its virtual photons or some other nonsense? Take a look at a magnetic field under a ferrocell. As you do not understand the difference between electricity and electromagnetism I do not expect you to understand magnetism. Learn some field theory.

A question for you to think about on your own, what makes a lump of metal become a magnet? and what gives rise to the respective "poles"? and please define a point source object.

All the best to you :)

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

A question for you to think about on your own, what makes a lump of metal become a magnet? and what gives rise to the respective "poles"?

the lump of metal already has a magnetic field, by various processes you can align the field

 

start a new thread if you need help understanding magnetism

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, killing raven sun said:

the lump of metal already has a magnetic field, by various processes you can align the field

 

start a new thread if you need help understanding magnetism

:)


No you aren't aligning the field at all, the field is outside of the object obviously so. You are aligning the atomic structure of the object by applying extremely high gauss and as such you get a vortex on either pole, one is the inverse of the other. Each terminating on either pole. i.e. A circuit. By doing so you get a point source object.

I wasn't asking you a few questions because I am unaware of what Magnetism is I was asking you to ponder on things yourself as you clearly do not understand.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/magnetic-vortices-come-full-circle

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-97334-0_3

I have a thread discussing far more complicated things than this, to understand the deeper concepts of that you need to understand magnetism and field theory. This conversation is informing me of your ignorance to really basic stuff.

proof of the vortex are inverse of one another.


Here have a previously banned book on magnetism. 
 


Also, try not to be rude to people especially when it is you struggling with the concepts, not I. 

Edited by TheConsultant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...