Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Taking Advantage of a Sharply Changing Environment -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1210)	12/30/2018 9:05:18 PM
From: Doug R	2 Recommendations Recommended By 3bar Hawkmoon Respond to of 6356

Hawk, It may be the same thing causing both. It may also be that as the Sun's dynamics move toward "micronova", the Sun influences the Earth in a way that brings about the magnetic pole flip first. If I put Rolf Witzsche's information into the mix, it may be a galaxy-wide event. Changes are being seen on other planets and there has to be a wider cause to it all. Also, I've come to the conclusion that "micro-nova" is a misnomer. Robert Schock uses the term "major solar outburst". Both "micronova" and "major solar outburst", to me, would be an enormous coronal mass ejection. Then on the crustal displacement thing, there's a lot of evidence of thousand-plus feet deep water rapidly flowing across different continents. Randall Carlson shows this in the following videos ascribing it to an impactor event. An enormous CME would also be considered an impactor event leaving the same type of astronomic traces as a cometary impact with the microspherules and microdiamonds etc. This one includes Michael Schermer - "Michael Shermer is a science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic." (except that Schermer uses the "consensus" falsehood that global warmists use notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com ) So if you're more pressed for time this would be the first one to watch but Schermer's not too bright so it may be difficult to listen to. But all are worthwhile. The cycle of catastrophe is actually well known among many geologists, historians and multi-disciplinary researchers looking into it. I've also looked into the research on mitochondrial DNA in regard to identifying population bottlenecks in human history. Some of which were quite severe. en.wikipedia.org I'm not sold on crustal displacement being a 12,000 yr repetitive event but there is a lot of evidence for a 12,000 yr. (with margin of dating error) periodicity of catastrophe of various types. And then there's the book, "Hamlet's Mill". A large reading project.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1210)	12/30/2018 10:07:49 PM
From: Doug R	2 Recommendations Recommended By 3bar Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6356

Hawk, The temperature at which a magnetizable substance loses its ability to retain magnetism is called its "Curie Point". Iron's is well below the accepted temperature of the Earth's core. I also happen to go by the plasma theory. My view of it is that the Earth's inner core is plasma. The outer core is molten iron. The Earth's surface magnetic field is a product of crustal and aesthenosphere magnetics. The interplanetary magnetic field is a product of both the Sun and Earth (and other planets) all interacting...with Earth contributing more at close distances and the Sun more at further distances....while other planets also contribute small influences. The total planetary influences on the Sun is exhibited by what is known as the solar system's barycenter. The mainstream ascribes barycentric motions of the Sun to gravity while the electric universe adherents would ascribe it to electromagnetic forces which they have found to be responsible for the effect we call gravity. So the Sun traces out its own orbit around the barycenter. This movement also influences how the magnetic fields within the Sun behave. And it's cyclical. Mark Adler, Retired NASA JPL System Engineer and Project Manager: "The Sun, the Earth, Jupiter, etc. are all "orbiting" the center of gravity of our solar system, its barycenter, which defines an inertial frame of reference. Just as in your simpler example, the two equal-mass bodies are orbiting their center of mass — not each other. Since the mass of the Sun dominates our solar system, the barycenter tends to be inside or very close to the Sun. The "orbits" in this many-body system are not simple ellipses, so the motion of the Sun relative to the barycenter (drawn here as the motion of the barycenter relative to the Sun) looks like this:" quora.com So, as for the Earth's inner core. A plasma sphere, surrounded by the outer core. The boundary between inner and outer core would be a surface. Just as the Sun has a surface. On the Sun, plasma is converted to all the elements up to iron. It is most likely a fusion process achieved within the granules, as they are called, seen in close-up imagery of the Sun. skyandtelescope.com The heaviest element possible for fusion to create is iron. So, having the greatest mass of the elements produced on the Sun, it would also be likewise on the surface of Earth's inner core. Also, having the greatest mass it would migrate away from the core at a much slower rate than say, silica (Which is found all over the planet's surface) thus producing the outer core. Since the plasma sphere at Earth's center is extremely small and much less powerful than the Sun's, it does not have the energy to blow away its formed elements in a "solar wind" so the elements accrete into a solid mass...a planet. This also explains the spreading of mid-ocean rifts as more mass is added and the Earth actually, very, very slowly, grows in size. The plasma input (exhibited by the aurorae at the poles) to the core is achieved at the poles due to the magnetic field lines observed for the planet. Likewise with the Sun.