Magnets, Whirlpools, and Time

Why There are No Monopoles

The following logic has been used for fractional charges being the same as magnetic monopoles; We don't see any monopoles, we don't see any fractional charges, therefore they're monopoles and we don't see them because we don't see them! This seems like saying we don't see T, We Don't see G, therefore they're the same...
....
No magnetic monopoles have ever been found. Dirac's famous comment was that if both the electric and magnetic fields are quantised, their product must be a magnetic monopole. This comment I take not to be proof of monopoles, This proof of monopoles can be rearranged to say, if there are no magnetic monopoles seen, then both electric and magnetic fields can’t be quantised. Electric charges are in quanta, therefore monopoles not only don't exist, Dirac's conclusion would also mean the magnetic fields are never quantized.
....
For particles like the electron, with each increase of flow of the field, to conserve quantity of motion there would be an increase in the solidity of the field nearby, for each increase of a scalar like the electric charge as it spins around, there would be an increase of the vector of the flow of the magnetic poles. I was reading a site the other day that concludes that all there is is waves and standing waves (the site is called WSM) would make the seemingly solid particles of physics. There seems to be no doing without intermediate particles, because while the basic field of waves indeed explains gravity and energy conservation well, intermediate energy particles that exert pressure seem more logical for gravity because we ask if there are only standing waves instead of particles causing the 32ft acceleration near the Earth, during the acceleration there would be force in the rest frame of the falling mass when the standing wave is changing, and at rest on the Earth there would be no force because a standing wave exerts less pressure than one in motion. Thus in my theory I name General Wave Dynamics, or GWD, the cause of no force felt when in acceleration at 32 ft is just that the particles around the elevator are flowing with the ship. And when at rest, the particles are exerting pressure on the observer. This also is how inertia would be caused, by changes in the ratio of the pressure of the waves to particles, in change of phase. When you move in uniform motion, the pressure of the particles around you is constant, only when you accelerate is the phase changed. Another objection to only waves of the standing wave theory of WSM, is how do we explain shielding? True, gravity doesn't shield, as we would expect. Even so if physics is made of waves only, we might expect there to be no force that shields, and no explanation for discontinuity. If the orbitals of electrons are caused by the resonances of standing waves, there would be no quanta. If there was implosion of continuous waves only, the waves themselves would have no way to create discontinuity. You may say, what about the problem of moving through the particles? They being discontinuous would exert pressure and calculations show the Earth would fall into the sun in a million years or so? Galileo believed this was caused by the particles mostly moving with the Earth, so when you toss up a pizza up (above the crust!) the mass rises and falls in radial motion. When you fall or are in uniform motion, the particles move with you and then when you accelerate, or are at rest in the old world, they exert pressure (your stomach feels Mamma IV has done you well!). Einstein believed the electron might put on weight when at rest in the Earth's field, and is continually accelerating through time. I believe in a two component field as I say on this page; a higher energy near electromagnetic field of the particles that may only move near the 32 feet acceleration, like the ship and the water to explain what WSM doesn't, and a lower energy much higher speed wavelike component that may be much faster than light because the strength of the gravity is lighter than light. Gravity would operate inside and around each bubble of the atmosphere of each mass as Galileo believed, and the atmosphere itself could cause the short range pressure of inertia. So inertia could be a sort of gravity without motive power.

WSM asserts that the implosion and reradiation of the standing waves is at the speed of light so relativity is involved, where relativity still asserts that all observers are equivalent. The problem here is that the Earth is more at rest than the moon and the sun is more at rest than the Earth, the problem with Einstein's belief about gravity is that if only the speed of light counts, all observers are indeed equivalent, so an observer at rest in the Earth's field should feel no more or less force than an accelerating observer too. This is the same with the WSM assumption of the implosion and reradiation at just the speed of light. The implosion and reradiation of the field at low energy seems necessary to conserve energy and unify and connect up the field at long range and low energy. In GWD a nonrelativistic cause of the acceleration outside of each might blendor in with each bubble of celestial pizza bread, because as Einstein proved, relativity is about energy conservation. The higher speed the motion in relativity, the more energy the mass has and this is energy conservation. Because relativity works much better for uniform motion and not all observers are equivalent for acceleration (just summa mamma mia, she's rich!) there seems to be another cause for acceleration, the high speed field that wouldn't operate by energy conservation and much more wavelike as in WSM. Energy conservation is caused by quanta, the more mass the more spin, the more energy goes with the mass, in exactly a way caused by Planck's constant. We feel no force when we fall because the higher speed field operates in the general area of the bubble and so the higher energy intermediate field common to both gravity and inertia in GWD wouldn't change much nearby, moving at about 32 ft in acceleration. Particles are needed to explain how we feel no force while falling and a force on the Earth at rest, and yet waves are needed for motive power for the particles which would otherwise wear out and run down via thermodynamics. If we imagine the atmosphere is much larger than the Earth, it's "aria code" is much greater so there might be many more particles slowing the Earth, thus the wave component with reduced friction to power the attraction of the sun and the Earth seems of worth. This would be how even with the particles the earth doesn't fall into the sun and yet how gravity would attract. (Particles without waves have the problem of radiation. Because they're discontinuous, they only radiate out; gravity however is implosive mostly (other than Einstein's idea that a low energy field also reradiates which I've tried to improve to explain stuff like cosmic acceleration and other problems Einstein hadn't yet seen at the opera with Ma Bell.).

My belief is that waves are indeed more fundamental than particles because gravity would be a wave from which all the other fields would be powered to conserve and unify energy conservation. One of the main reasons I believe in ultimate waves that may make the intermediate particles like for inertia and gravity is Einstein's comment that, "If there are fundamental particles, how do they emit and absorb waves?" They need further divisability to do this, no matter how small, and so on, leading to infinite wheels within mozzerella, and infinite mass not ever seen. Even so I believe there need to be intermediate particles for higher energy physics, like gravity as I say above. Gravity only attracts and thus is continuous like a wave and particles seem to have inherent contradictions relating to problems like Zeno's Paradoxes and other limits to particles being as elementary as waves. Though I believe particles alone create contradictions because they're discontinuous, the problem with using waves only is that a wave is a wave and in would be the same as out, the particles would be completely symmetrical and round. If your drop a rock in the pond and it was imploding as much as reradiant it would have no spin like a whirlpool. A whirlpool needs a fundamental imbalance between the up and down of the forces to stay in motion, so too a particle would seem to need something to keep it in motion of spin, this would be the distinction of the wavelike implosion and its reaction, the particulate reradiation of the field, creating the torque. Thus waves without particles like the string theory seem to describe part of the physics but are actually incomplete. (String theory seems to be just a wave theory with many predictions physicists have already realized for hundreds of years). Waves and particles combined in this way offer a cause for spin, time and mass because all the field is in motion through time and this would be because time is always found to be periodic fluxuation in all the measurements found and the spin cause by the difference between the waves and the particles would power the spin and thus the time of the particles like small clocks. Mass is just spinning energy so the spin that gives mass it's mass is also not allowed in a wave cosmos alone..

....
Magnetic monopoles would never be proven because the more quantised the electric field would be the more fluid the magnetic field would be to conserve energy. Even if at lower energy the field may be mostly wavy like to explain the continuum of space even in the micro realm so the quantity of motion wouldn't be conserved at low energy, the field is mostly wavelike in my physics of GWD, General Wave Dynamics, so that all would be powered by the motion of the lower energy field so it wouldn’t run down over infinite time even if at higher energy quantity of motion is conserved. Because all energy would come from the motion of the lower energy field, there would be no magnetic monopoles so the fluid motion of the poles would mean there is no field ever at rest in all the cosmos. The magnetic field of a particle flows from one point to another like a line connecting the points, the line has extension and one end of the line is N and S, thus the line is never with just one pole at rest and then around in a loop. You might say the electric charges are true monopoles if they have just one charge, in truth since they need motion to stay here too they would have polarity at short distances, a to and from direction of the loop like the magnetic field. Centrifugal force isn't stopped on one side of a centrifuge because it also spins around. If we take a small section of the spinning charge of an electron, it would seem to have the equivalent of polar structure like the magnetic poles in proof of the idea is it’s a dipole too. The field flows from one point to another like the magnetic poles, so may have the proof if resistance to the flow is applied that neither magnetic or electric monopoles exist. All motion needs to be between more than one point, and if motion always has an origin to and where to move, all the fields are lines of flow, so no line has rest so there are always more distilled water in the West than booze.

....
To explain confinement I use a simple dynamic model. Particles are confined because at low energy and more distance from the center they must both overcome the unified oneness of relativity and the strong force too, at higher energy they divide as they must to become other heavy particles or leptons, and they're able to divide because the electric charge and the field may be overpowered by the strong force at faster than light, at lower energys the strong force and relativity and the speed of light are in control, while because of the change in phase at higher energies there is no confinement. Because relativity holds so well at lower energys and higher radii there are leptons and no other particles with fractional charges alone. The fractional charges may go faster than light if they are lighter than light, even so the strong force has a size, and size means motion in space time. For all fields like light there would be slowing in a field like gravity because when one slows down the other speeds up even if ultimately I believe gravity may violate energy conservation like about how galaxies spin much faster than they should in what are named "massive disproofs of relativity", at higher energies there are no monopole because all fields move even if gravity may move more yet.

....
...
In GWD faster than light is allowed (by my hopeful generalization of Maxwell's idea that the wave density is about the speed) so light is at the speed of light because of the force between electric charges being as Maxwell realized, and gravity may move much faster than light in GWD too. There would be no magnetic monopoles at faster than light like for gravity because all the field would be in motion and lines of travel come in pairs to and from the poles. Because of a change in phase for faster than light in GWD for gravity the relativistic disproof above stops at faster than light because there is less resistance so the limit of relativity would stop so all the limit would also not be creating the pressure of the Fitzgerald contraction and so the monopole there seems to exist only at the limit of the field on special relativity at the limit never reached and may be an artifice of relativity, not a proof of more general truth. If the pressure is suddenly resolved at faster than light, the Fitzgerald Contraction would not be common, but the motion is common to all the physics so in all the cosmos there would be lines of flux.

I believe another disproof of magnetic monopoles may in high energy astronomy. By way of the logic about relativity used by some, at the speed of light there is infinite mass density where the magnetic poles are compressed to 0 size, a monopole. Though the mass density becomes a measure of the relativity we see other giant masses with cosmic jets. If the compression is already to 0 in relativity, more mass density would have no more poles and the more massive jets would not be seen, no more than one. The jets would be caused by the change in phase, more compression as in the super dense singularity would create more fluid motion of the jets to conserve the resilience of the field. If you sleep out under the cosmos, you wake up in a giant cushion!
..

...Lerhner, myself and others have believed there is no Higgs at high energy. I agree because the Higgs as conceived would disprove higher level energy conservation and at high energy at any rate the quanta are well proven; all the higher energy mass of heavy particles in subatomic physics is via motion of lower energy fields. The conservation laws don't have more mass added in "by hand" like the Higgs. All the laws are from simple to complex, electromagnetism has some laws conserved, and the higher up laws are with all the electromagnetic laws plus more, and so on. If mass is spinning energy, all that may be needed may be to find what it is, not mass. All the mass of the higher mass particles in the lower energy field was already there to make the heavy particles. This about conservation laws seems to be in favor of no high energy Higg's. Though energy conservation may be disproven at low energy to explain why all the cosmos is in motion and always winds up more while the second law would always wind down and wind up is more important than wind down to hold the cosmos together like with the higher speed spin of the galaxies, at higher energies energy conservation has never been disproven. There may be a more basic particle at lower power, in my belief this may be Einstein's particle he believed in to solve the Uncertainty Principle. One property if the Higgs is it doesn't disappear at lower energy. It's the most fundamental because if it wasn't stable another particle would be the Higgs at lower energy and so on. Without stability there would be no stability around us. So a lower energy Higgs is necessary and Einstein's idea seems the best.

..

.. Einstein also asked, "Why does the electron have the charge and mass it does?" This was a question the ancient greeks and others have asked since then, where does the common field arise from, and how does disunity arise from this basic field? In other words, why does the electron implode to just its energy like a continuous wave and then reradiate out like a particle? It might seem of worth to find how the basic field is never so particulate it can't be a wave and vice versa and why waves like gravity may be more fundamental to explain the unity by energy conservation from this basic field energised up to other fields. If the basic field implodes to just the electron's energy and no more, the answers to this question may be by research about the electron of we find out about what Einstein and the greeks asked about the electron and about gravity. If the Higgs more like Einstein believed in gets around the Uncertainty Principle (more recent low energy quantum experiments seem to be evidence he was right) it may mean the electron has more basic structure and if these low energy particles were more elementary we might be studying both gravity and the ancient question of the greeks in its most essential form. I believe we might one day find these elementary currents by first finding the basic unit of charge perhaps by polarizing a large number of particles like in a resonance and seeing if there's any quantum jump. Each particle would have a small change, muliplied up enough to make an extra particle in the batch with a quantum leap. This would be like Thomson's isolation of the electric charge, from there we might progress to currents and ways to make "wires" and so on, following the progress of electromagnetism in general, or using the tricks learned from one to build up the other. The circuits of this type of physics could be reduced in size and with higher speed.

Dirac's idea which was that for relativity to be consistent with quantum mechanics, both electric and magnetic monopoles must exist seems interesting. Einstein said if one of his ideas go they all go, thus a simple interpretion of special relativity is that if mass and energy are equivalent (from the regular way the mass increases relative to the observer and more motion of energy is more mass) the mass or scalar like electric charges are equivalent to the energy or magnetic field. Mass is heavy and energy is light however at low energy at any rate by F= ma not it's higher energy standin Emc2. If the lower energy field like gravity is more the foundation by energy conservation and other laws about like the uniformity of physics, I believe the higher energy fields of relativity and others are derived from the basic field. More mass moves slower and has less energy by more general conservation of momentum so the magnetic monopoles are not seen. Dirac's observation was that if special relativity is the same as quantum mechanics, both electric and magnetic monopoles would be found. Since they're not, it seems that relativity and quantum mechanics are not unified and one; thus either relativity or QED is more important and general, one or the other is deficient. In GWD relativity is not the most general, and more of the more general cosmic world sometimes may be seen even in subatomic physics where mass and energy are assymetrical would be more disproof of relativity, not quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics and gravity make up all the world around us, and relativity is essentially a small subset of high energy physics. While Einstein proved the wave particle duality in physics, he contradicted himself in relativity where he said light is a particle alone. Einstein's belief was light is unchanged and thus discontinuous and uninfluenced between radiance and the observer by being constant in speed.

　
General Wave Dynamics/Synopsis

Why wake up? Researchers have proven that an odor while you sleep of the same odor (like a flower) while you were on the web makes you remember it more when you wake up! A rest by any other URL smells the same..

Here's the site with more deep sleep research *****.

They found a giant hail stone the largest yet in the US so sez the Yahoo News. Why is it named a hail stone if it's from heaven? If it rains glitz in 80's TV shows Star Zoom lives!
..

Five Ways To Orbit, 100% All World!

This issue of Popular Mechanics Aug 2010 in an article called "Cluttered Space" discusses the problem of space junk and five possible ways to clean up above to higher;

The five methods are;

Lasers, to deorbit the trash even from the ground by changing its motion;

Solar Sails, to gradually push stuff to deorbit from the middle of the sail;

Tethers and Nets, the Tether from the central machine is a wire to power the net attached;

Space Mist, a big jug of mist sprays the CO2 to change the orbit of bolts or other stuff;

Robots and Adhesives like arm throwing machines to grab and launch the leftovers of the satellites now leftunders! This wouldn't be easy to reach, so Adhesives, Great Adhesive Spheres Cheap to make and orbit have been considered....

　The first, Lasers (I mostly or completely discount while in savings celebration mode!) as the author says in PM, this has political controversy because any laser strong enough to remove space trash might also be used for military use tooand other nations would say no. Only the other four thus seem worth consideration;

Improvements to the problems each of the four methods above have been proposed;
..

SOLAR SAILS

These have been in use since the mid 1970's but they are of low power so the have to be aimed to just the right altitude and maneuvered with real skill not yet here in 2010.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION, Increase the area for more altitude lift and make them like a fold out tetra box kite (tetrahedral) for more stability, so not so tough to maneuver.　　


TETHERS AND NETS

These have been tested by NASA since 1996. The main problem is that they are a wire miles long to generate the power, and they must be aimed with high resolution precision too so there would be no breakup of the tether machine to save woe from triumph.

SOLUTION; Robot nets without the tethers deployed from a central satellite. No tethers would reduce the risk of breakup. Another possible way to solve this may be by using the centrifugal force of a wheel except by using a slice of the wheel in oscillation as in the IP to direct the centrifugal force. This has the advantage over lasers that we could implode the stuff in orbit inward to nets or arms to then throw the stuff toward the earth out of orbit. Others have thought of the throwing machines, but these would have to make a lot more effort to first reach this realm and move around a lot more than an implosive field.　


SPACE MIST

A 220 pound cloud of frozen mist like Co2 sprayed from a tank to nozzle might deorbit stuff like steel bolts though a larger mist would be needed for less dense stuff like insulation. It was first proposed by aerospace engineer George Sarver of Ames Research Center in 1990. This too requires high resolution of placing it in orbit so as conceded it can only be used once;

POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENT This might be improved by reusing the mist; one nozzle and a large fold out pyramidal cone on the other side would catch most of the mist and repressurize it in a tank like the first and then respray it to the where the first cone and nozzle is to collect the spray for reuse many more times.　　


ROBOTS AND ADHESIVES

Large aero spheres ("robots") with adhesive shells like aerogels, could attach themselves to the stuff and both deorbit and burn up as they reenter. Problem; The Adhesive Globes can't be compressed, so packing them in a rocket for launch would be a real challenge. Even so spheres are easier to control than sails or tethers and can remove multiple pieces of debris. Adhesives are cheap.　


POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO ORBIT ADHESIVES;

Make them into lighter than air ships to launch them above the atmosphere, then a small rocket would pull them to orbit. 　　

....
Even with these tricks and improvements (even if they don't deorbit to the Biz Station a bit!) one inventor says a better solution may be about magnetic bubbles, large magnetic fields from a machine we could fill with air or other deorbiting mist. This is like the Orbital Mist above except there is only one machine because the mist is held much longer inside the giant bubble, the bubble could be any great size, its field would also be a way to slow the orbits of the stuff moving through both the air and the bubble, and like a solar sail it uses the light pressure for motive power except the magnetic bubble sail would have larger size than a solar sail cheap or the same cost for much more. The magnetic bubble machine would be cheap and easy to launch, and in much larger influence for cost than the adhesive globes. Because it's small, lightweight and maneuverable it may be better than tethers that have risk of breakup and more stuff in orbit. This method has all the advantages of the other four..

... Magnetic bubbles filled with air may be better to shield visitors to Mars from both the radiation and smaller space junk in NEO. Researchers this month discovered that a huge shield or magnet won't be needed to go to Mars as was believed because experiments with a field of just 25 feet have been found to be enough to stop the radiation and save the star sailors from cosmic damage. When filled with air the shield might be improved to shield from both radiation and small space junk in orbit or for business use. Another use might be to hold air in above cities on Mars or the moon so people could go outdoors.. Though mirrors and shades might be needed for cities on the moon to cool the moon city in the heat and heat it (in the night all hours all month!) to heat the air in the shield not both heating and cooling would be the problem for a Mars base more than on the moon. There the orbiting mirror and shade with optimum light shielding would needed to make the bubble not too hot or cool. Bubble cities filled with "great hot dish more atmosphere" might help solve one of the problems travel on the ship to distant worlds, not enough time alone unlike in evolution for millions of years so research shows on a trip of months or years they may try to ditch and run for the outer memory banks of WC! For these uses of magnetic bubbles with atmosphere the air would be heated and for the distant bases the air could be sealed at the ground by a ring of strong or permanent magnets to generate the field. The field would go into the land below the ring and above so no air leaks. No doubt the field would have to be reliable so perhaps something simple like geothermal heat on Mars or the moon would be used. There have been simulations of Mars stations in the N and S and if the cold was with a magnetic shield to stay cozy, this could also be good to colonize the S and N on Earth with cities inside the bubbles. These bases or cities in the N would be used to see if bubbles would be used with air for the moon or Mars. And it could be first used in an outfit for outdoors use where the bubble is from head to toe and the air inside is so cozy starship messengers like our lady of special memos here at Christmas would be able to have the cheer she deserves like all of us and both be cool in the summer and not have to wear heavy clothes in winter. According to the inventor there are special ways to make the bubble shield from the heat.

.....

ISPs and A Way for Authors And CEOs of Record Companies to Be Rich and Have Enough To Eat Once More!

...Many authors are considering class action type lawsuits against Internet Service Providers, ISPs because they aren't being paid. On sites such as this there is discussion about how this won't work because if the ISPs are taxed they'll only want to promote what sells, and so the web would be a watered down version like TV, so creativity would be reduced, not boost. As I say here on my page, the web is not the same, so may be too simplistic a view. The web has other science. Wouldn't it be great if The Opera was on another 300 years? The web has been for months!!
....
Obviously just pulling the ISPs tooth for the money wouldn't be much better than TV but it could work in a basic way, like a sort of higher resolution TV or Radio. The airwaves are by far the most rich real estate on the planet, not just because there's so much room, there's real worth there in business (and business is good for the economy, no doubt.) As you would expect for a flexible media like the internet, if advertising often won't pay the bills as many are finding, there are other ways to make it of worth to good or great authors, who are making real contributions to the world wide web, without downsizing. Because of the web, authors haven't just ceased to exist, and we can expect lawsuits in favor of their rights to the ISP tax. I think a good way to pay authors is not just to charge the ISPs or radio stations to play a song, this is like making a book publisher pay for the books they sell. The real business in publishing is where the money comes from, not the publishers, rather from "The People who Buy The Books" or tunes or shows like it always was; so a web subscribers tax; 3 dollars more a month (not much) than the usual price may be of worth. Most don't read 1000 sites a month. If you loaded 60 sites a month, you would just divide the 3 dollars by those 60 sites, or 5 or 10 cents per page you download, people pay this much for printers. Authors may say they should be paid as much as a 20 dollar machine. It seems like a privilege to pay for the worth of the web. Carl Sagan in Cosmos says the health of a civilization is often measured by how much care is taken to strengthen and boost bookstores and marms and others in storehouses of truth. If today's lexicon is the web, and much of our whole world may be based on the web, like winning our modem wars and more, when we go back to paying authors, the better the boost civilization in the long run may be, and anyone with a good or great idea would have a real reason to add to the web. While authors would favor this plan the most no doubt, it would be a way for anyone to be in higher income and it wouldn't hurt the ISPs. One of the main problems might seem at first glance to be that the subscribers if paying for the content would be more picky about the sites they visit, so it would reduce the number of visitors the author would receive, but there would be no downsizing of sites if a flat rate was used. The ISPs might lose some volume, but this would be small since almost all the ISP users could afford to pay the tax. This isn't control of the content by the government as some have said, rather just the tax to the contributors to the web and society. The main problem after a web tax might be plagiarism, but there's software to find it well and notary sites like myows.com are at no cost to establish precedence. The web is good and not the simple picture like TV on the link above, so it's more efficient and can pay the authors more by worth,. E.g. if beyond say the 60 sites a month, the ISP would charge no more, or less if it were more, what else. The ISP might get the unused clicks, so there would be worth to them for tracking the clicks and pay. Holding cash makes you calm, they say in research, s I always was so alert for months! Some say that advertisers pay radio stations, and thus the songs are pr at no cost for the musicians and the radio stations shouldn't be charged because it would put them out of business. Though musicians should be paid, and an information product like a song is essentially being consumed by listening to the song, and this is not like buying a Mazda, a radio tax seems unviable because there's no simple way to keep track of who's listening to the song on what radio, and charging the radio stations is a bad idea like charging book publishers to sell books. The web however, is connected between the ISPs and the consumers of the web sites, so an ISP tax wouldn't much change the ISP's. With a radio tax or an ISP tax, musicians, artists, and writers will still be paid less than the old days of records, shows and books because of file sharing. Even so creative people should be at least paid more by way of the general flow of the information through the ISPs than no pay, a huge industry otherwise in ruins. The government can't always look bad for all they do, often the government helps more than hurts because life is complex, many of those we know well are only able live because of the good of this government I think by much of the evidenceis real kind, not oppressive. I care about Aunt Sally and my neighbors with all my might. An ISP tax might be more a stimulus to the economy than another boost would be in years.

Building a better umbrella hat... You read where just about all the innovations possible have been put into umbrellas, finally someone thought of an umbrella hat the wearer doesn't have to take 15 minutes to put on, it's a compact umbrella hat that spirals or fiolds out when the wearer taps his hat and thinks of big flowers!
..
..

What's the Source of The Lunar Maria? How Earth's Dynamo May Improve The Impactor..

In the history of the moon the maria are found to have been created between 3.2 and 3.7 billion years ago. The question seems to be why then and not before or after? Other questions raised by the evidence from the moon rocks are why there is so much uranium and other heavy radioactive elements in the rocks on the surface. If the moon is radioactive "through in" it would have so much heat it would be molten. Yet another problem has been found to be about the magnetic fields of the rocks. They were formed in a region of strong magnetic fields, but the Earth's magnetic field isn't strong enough now to have caused the rocks to be so magnetised and if the moon was closer when the rocks were created it would have been demolished by the gravity of the earth.
..
No doubt most in geology consider moon capture the current best way to explain the cause of the moon's origin based on the evidence found in the moon rocks. By this spin on an "old world transit gloria munday", the strong magnetic field when a Mars sized impactor smacked off was the cause when it moved in and then to level orbit.


I've tended to believe in a more moon sized impactor instead of a Giant Impactor because of no extra realm of the solar system where the impactor would have been created because it would have not fit in any other place by Bodes law; all the "allowed orbits" of the solar system for larger planet sized worlds are taken up other than the realm of the asteroid planet where the asteroids were before the asteroid planet broke up. Other realms of origin may be ruled out too; an impactor from outside the solar system wouldn't be gravitationally bound and would move at too high a relative "interstellar" speed to have been captured. Origin around a massive planet like Saturn would not allow even a moon sized body to have been removed from the gravity of the planet without so much force in the removal by impact it would have been destroyed by the extraction from the gravity of the massive planet. Planets were probably formed by smaller bodies like asteroids but once in orbit it takes a big impactor to move them and this is not easy to do because an impactor causes as much destruction when it hits as there is in the cohesive force of the gravity or to much change the huge inertia. For these reasons and others my best candidate for the moon impactor is the breakup of the asteroid planet itself by another impactor. If the proto moon impactor to make our moon was the asteroid planet and not it's own satellite other planets would also roam the solar system and they haven't, if the asteroid planet was larger and broken up by the proto moon's gravity in orbit around the original planet this would explain how a relatively large impactor, the moon was loosened from it's world of origin and not destroyed in the process.


If the moon was actually more the size it is now before the capture, it would take less centrifugal force to remove it from the Earth's gravity when the moon was found by rhymers and howling hounds to be of worth. A problem with the Mars sized impactor has been it would have formed a magma ocean of which there's no evidence on the Earth's geology of it. We may say it dug out the Pacific Ocean, but if the large bowl of the ocean there is retained from the capture, evidence would be seen for the magma ocean caused by the capture. What the evidence actually shows is not a central magma ocean, rather the spreading centers where the plates separate are in a wavy line where I think the smaller moon may have rolled round what was then the equator in the center of the Pacific and then after picking up centrifugal force past the peak compression off of what's now the coast of SA where the motion of the plates is fastest anywhere in the world the moon would have been flung off and settled to a nearer stable orbit. Click here for my page, the map and the link to my complete small impactor idea is on the link you see there.
..
Once the moon was in orbit if with the Great Impactor it would first have picked up a good bit of regolith (gravel rock) around the outside and have still have been hit by the leftover impactors from the breakup of the asteroid planet after the moon was captured. It's believed the Giant Impactor would have built up the regolith which with this cause was formed by rocks blasted away from the Earth by the capture then recaptured by the moon as it spun around in its orbit. However it's possible the regolith was formed anywhere the moon was created and the burning of the moon and the fusing of the regolith seen may be enough to account for its fused rocks, formation by mere compaction by cooler rocks blasted away from the capture may have less melting of the regolith than the rocks being more molten by the heat of moving near the Earth, this is one way to prove or disprove if the impactor was small or big. A giant impactor would have a uniform regolith formed by the buildup of the cooler debris leftover from the capture while a smaller impactor mostly intact might have more burning on the outside. The moon is known to be 100 times as rigid as the Earth by data seen about moonquakes , this would make a smaller proto moon able to roll around the Earth without being destroyed. A larger proto moon would have had more gravity and would have had more tides and needed more centrifugal forces to remove it from where the Earth was to capture the moon. In general a smaller proto moon seems both more possible and more probable, if the impactor was almost the size of the Earth it would have lost as much mass as the Earth and there is no explanation by way of a more Giant Impactor. The general makeup of rocky planets is much the same about cohesive chemical forces, the planets are round because gravity has more influence here than the chemical forces. And the impactors being the same in general from the vantage of the mass would have lost more the same mass. The great impactor somehow has the proto moon somehow going from near Earth sized to much less than it's present mass. If the regolith was formed before the capture and was already mostly solid the moon was moon sized with a source being a moon of the asteroid planet, so there's both a source of the moon and a way for the capture allowed.
...
A Mars sized impactor with the "smack off" of the giant impactor would have been much like Mars where the N and S hemispheres have been at different altitudes because a giant impactor is also believed to have hit Mars in it's history and causing the observed altitudes of the geology of Mars. Thus a giant impactor proto moon would stay Mars sized in radius with a lower altitude zone where the smack off was, so the moon wouldn't have been so reduced in size as it might have been by rolling around the Earth. With a smack off most of the rest of the impactor would stay Mars sized because the smack off would have needed more resilience to overpower the gravity, more mass needs more smack off. A giant impactor would fit into the pacific ocean basin only with the smackoff and not rolling around to remove the moon, and a moon sized impactor would allow both the lines of the spreading center stretching from the gulf of Alaska to the Red Sea and no magma ocean in the center of the Pacific. Older geomaps lof the archeozoic show a wider zone between what is now Saudi Arabia and Africa that would fit in with the width of a small protomoon, round but not Mars sized or it wouldn't have rolled around and dug out the trough here.. If the Non Giant proto moon's centrifugal force merely spun the crust at the center of the pacific ocean downward and outward from the pole to the equator by way of some of the moon's spin on one side, no magma ocean would be created by the capture at the middle depth even if the pacific is at lower altitude (it was above sea level for thousands of years no doubt!). A smaller impactor would also be the solution to why the angular momentum of the Earth and moon here in the cenozoic is not nearly enough to fit in with a giant impactor. As I say on the page above (blue click) there would need to be three times as much angular momentum as there is seen in the earth and moon's rotation as the math shows and this seems to be a definite limit on the size of the impactor. A small impactor would give way with force like the moon in its orbit around us each month with the Earth most at rest.
..
To solve why the maria formed when they did, the moon would have been closer to the Earth in its orbit and the Earth and moon might have had for the most high angular momentum (great though lower overall relative to a Mars sized Impactor) following the capture and this would have caused heating of the moon, even so the uranium and elements like plutonium just on the outside of the moon must have come from another source, not the Earth or the Earth itself would also overheat. For this reason I believe yet another asteroid sized radiant impactor or even impactors may have hit the moon in this phase following the capture. The impactor here seems to not be of the same type as the other late heavy bombardment rocks, or if so at any rate where these impactors also hit like on Mars we might expect to see similar radioactive elements in the impact sites like on Mars or the moon. The post capture moon would have had the combination of strong tides, rotation, and the radioactivity where the impactor(s) had hit just on one side of the moon by luck. This would have caused the maria to melt when and where they did. Or perhaps if this post moon capture impactor reactor was unique about the uranium, it's possible it was the Earth's original moon before the proto moon was captured, this would explain why the maria are on only one side of the moon. The impactor that hit the captured moon with its uranium would have been moving to the other side like in retrograde motion and what was then the far side would have been out of this impactors realm of influence.
..
About the moon's magnetic field, the rocks that prove it were created after the capture because the moon missions landed in the maria, and the maria were formed then. Thus a strong field was around the Earth even after the moon moved farther away from the Earth, caused by the disk dynamo way of explanation of the Earth's magnetic field.
..
It's believed by geologists the dynamo is the cause of the Earth's magnetic field instead of the sun because the earth's field moves with regular motion to the West like the center of gravity of the Earth and moon. The fluid core gives way to the west and generates the field also caused by the pressure the central solid core exerts on the iron core as it goes around each day under the influence of the tides. The main problem with the dynamo is the reversal of the poles of the Earth as they have hundreds of times over the history of the Earth's geology. A dynamo needs to reverse to reverse the poles and the Earth has never had day to day rotation to the West. For this reason I believe the sun may be stronger and reverse it's own field periodically under the influence of Jupiter which has a field of 100 Gauss while the sun has just .5 Gauss, even so it may resonate quite well with the 11 year solar cycles about the period of Jupiter's orbit. If the field between Jupiter and the Earth is reversing regularly and the Earth is tilted enough at the right time, the Earth's field would be permeable enough to reverse. It has to be both able to change under outside influence and yet impermeable enough to retain the change once in place. The iron part of the core is molten so it wouldn't hold the field. Even so it may amplify up the field of the more solid part of both the solid core inside the iron or the lower mantle which would hold most of the field in order to overcome the tendency of the dynamo to make the poles stay the same even under outside influence.
..
If the moon was much closer in and the tides are much stronger the sloshing of the liquid iron core to the west relative to the Earth's spin would have fired up the dynamo to magnetize the field without here tearing the moon to bits by the tides with the moon otherwise too near for millions of years of tidal forces when the moon was close. With a larger moon from the outset and not being built up from the outside, the Earth's magnetic field would have increased suddenly and fallen and then gradually increased by more and more rocks added on to the moons power to boost the Earth's field by way of the moon's gravity. A small more solid impactor wouldn't have this second phase. While older rocks on the surface of the Earth are tough to find because of weathering, drilling by using better machines like artifical radiation from accelerators to both find and drill for the rocks may eventually make it possible to find older rocks to prove this.
..
When the moon was captured as most believe, if it was nearer and powering the dynamo with much more force, the Earth's magnetic field would have increased a lot when the moon was captured. It's believed one of the reasons Mars has a thinner atmosphere than the Earth is because it has no field to shield from the solar wind which boiled off the air. So it's believed life on Earth has only been possible because of our own world's strong magnetic field. Another way the moon is essential to life on Earth is because it causes tides today which most life has depended on near the shore where most life is today and about the origin of life, bringing nutrients and life to the estuaries. On most other worlds even with water for awhile like Mars the oceans and lakes wouldn't circulate by the tides and life wouldn't evolve as often. Ice ages too wouldn't be revived if they are caused often by the poles tilting over with one side more with ice than the other as many believe because of the evidence about the cycles of the ice age, e.g in the Verangian there are two simple cycles of 1 million years each as if caused by precession periods of 1 million years. 75% of of volcanoes outflow is steam, and 2/3 of the eruptions are within 10 days of the first of the month, thus the moon also has separated the water from the rocks by way of the tides and so we might owe both our ocean and air to the moon, and circulations of the oceans. The moon by its tides may be the cause of most of the mountain building and other changes in the geology so it may have also dug up a lot of the nutrients essential to life by way of it's active influence on geology, and thus the moon has had major influence on life that may not be seen on other Earthlike worlds. This may reduce the number of inhabitable worlds and worlds thus with advanced civilizations we may find in the methods of predicting how many there may be by the usual method of finding the probability of life as Carl Sagan mentions in his best seller Cosmos, all real!
...
If the Earth's magnetic field suddenly increased at the time of the moon capture, this would support the conclusion that the moon was captured, and add more proof to the dynamo as the cause of the Earth's field. Even so to allow the other evidence about the field reversal with time the dynamo must be modified and a stronger field at the time of the capture (or perhaps at other times, like with ice caps blocking the field) wouldn't allow so much outside influence from the external field, and we might expect the field to reverse less often in those times if the outside changes were also common at that time in the history of the solar system. The general reversal of the solar field might be seen in the rocks from Mars with geologic time or other rocks, there would seem to be rocks seen elsewhere in the solar system that would change with reversing fields at about the same time (just before each change of the field) like with the Earth.

6-28-2010 The coast guard saved a man at the beach in GA who was aleep three miles offshore on an air cushion. He said no problem to sleep walk in a hydro bed, swim fins mobile! In the interview they asked how he got so far from the land and he said he passed out because he was eating pizza and other dishinformation was involved!

FOR MORE COMIC CULTURAL LINKS BY ME, CLICK HERE.
..

Two Interesting Uses of Centrifugal Machines
..
As I say on my page about the oil well disaster, Actor Kevin Costner has invested millions in centrifugal stills that are being used in ships to help clean up the oil on the surface by seperating the oil from the water, reclaiming the oil and hopefully saving the water.

As bad as the oil spill is, each year since the Exxon Valdese till now, amateur motorists have dumped the same as 6 Exxon Valdeses into the ecosystem. It would be great it they could keep the well and just change the stars! Soon systems that recycle the grease in bearings and other moving parts of machines may be more generalized to include synthesized oil (finally a use for being able to travel in 300 degree or minus 250 heat in the biz!). Though no one has been able to do without engine oil till now because it cools and cleans the motor, certainly if the same oil was recycled in the engine it would cool just as the coolant in a refrigerator with a complete cycle of the loop. Thus the real need is about how the oil cleans the motor. Centrifugal stills combined with special synthetic oil are one answer that has been innovated, no more oil changes, so much better than even the use of these stills for BP, ect. Now when I go out for a visit I spin around and around the beach too!


Here where I live in SW VA on top of a new natural gas field there's much concern about when they pump the water down by new science and it rises back up with toxic stuff that is a risk to the water here and some believe based on much established evidence may it may make the whole east coast ill. There seems to be no other way to get the gas to the surface than pumping it out if power is the prize.

One cheap and simple solution that's been devised may be the mighty bottle! A 20 dollar bottle with a centrifugal still in the bottom has been devised that is powered by the change of the room temperature, AM to PM. The bottle also gets a lot of its water from the air itself, also cleansing the air too. Clean air and water indefinitely, free, well, just 19.95 with S & H and pats from mom for listening to her and buying her one on Mother's Day!
..