Heat & Pressure: Important to Think About

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Heat & Pressure: Important to Think About

Post by LloydK on Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:40 pm

What do Heat and Pressure have in common?
Charles Chandler found a couple sources from 2015 which he claimed show that radioactive decay rates increase with temperature increase. This was to explain why radiometric dating of the Earth gives a much older date than is likely correct. Conventional dating apparently assumes that the Earth has maintained near its present temperature for a long time, whereas Charles calculated that it must have been quite a bit hotter for a long time, which kept the radioactive decay rate high, thus showing a greater age now. But I found a source that suggests that the decay rate actually increased a whole lot more than Charles found. That's because of extremely high heat, and or extreme pressure, which would be normal during impacts.

Charles figured that impacts can reach enough pressure and temperature to detonate thermonuclear explosions. These produce brief waves of high pressure (shock) and high heat. And that appears to make the radioactive decay rate extremely fast, so that U238 can decay quickly, instead of taking billions of years. John Baumgardner explains this in an online paper, called Noah's Flood....

Since heat and pressure seem to have similar effects, it occurred to me now that pressure can sometimes be due to an increase in photon radiation, just like heat is. Turning neutral atoms into ions liberates a lot more photons. And pressure from outside pushed a lot of atoms/ions close together, increasing explosive forces. If extreme pressure can be maintained long enough, then heavy radioactive elements can be made by fusion. Charles said gamma rays are a sign of fusion. But maybe gamma rays can be produced without fusion too. I don't know.

LloydK

Posts : 407
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Heat & Pressure: Important to Think About

Post by Nevyn on Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:40 pm

The temperature of the earth is a function of charge flow from the sun which is a function of charge flow from the galactic core. So as the sun moves through a higher charge density region of the galaxy (think galactic arms) then the whole solar system has an increase in charge flow.

I don't think impacts can explain it but may be a factor. An impact can increase the heat in a certain region but not many impacts are large enough or frequent enough to affect the whole planet for any considerable amount of time.

What do heat and pressure have in common?

Heat is photon density. Higher density, higher heat and also higher pressure if constrained to the same volume. The density sets the number of collisions per second which is pressure. Heat and pressure are almost the same thing, just looked at from a different perspective.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Heat & Pressure: Important to Think About

Post by Jared Magneson on Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:55 pm

LloydK wrote:Charles figured that impacts can reach enough pressure and temperature to detonate thermonuclear explosions.

... If extreme pressure can be maintained long enough, then heavy radioactive elements can be made by fusion. Charles said gamma rays are a sign of fusion. But maybe gamma rays can be produced without fusion too. I don't know.

I can totally see how radioactive decay would increase with heat, since both are simply charge functions. Radiation IS charge - that's what's radiating away from the material, it's not atoms and generally not electrons, protons, or neutrons. This is something the mainstream doesn't know and can't admit, and chiefly why "radiation" is such a buzz-word for "magical nuclear poison", to those folks.

But I can't get behind "thermonuclear explosions" anymore, or any kind of nuclear explosions. Mathis has shown that all our historic ones are fake propaganda events, not actual detonations. And Chernobyl and Fukushima hardly exploded in any real sense of the word. Sure, matter was ejected and photons were emitted, but that's a far, far cry from Hiroshima or Tsar Bomba. Not even near that magnitude. If nukes are fake, then we can jettison that part of the theory. I believe them to be fake now, personally. I don't see how a tiny input of energy can release a massive one from a material already emitting (such as Uranium or Plutonium) charge. Where does all that energy come from?

This isn't to say fusion and fission aren't real. I'm just saying you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in.

Thermonuclear detonations would be fusion, however. A regular nuclear detonation is fission. And we see no evidence that these have ever occurred in nature, on Earth or beyond. That temperature of Uranus's atmosphere (for example) should be well beyond hot enough to produce these, if all that's required is heat. The sun's corona as well. If the sun is fusing new matter and ejecting it, why don't we see massive explosions all throughout the superheated corona? It's still entirely possible that fusion takes place in the corona (Hydrogen being smooshed into Helium), but that's not the same thing as an actual explosion.

And, allegedly, the core of the Earth should be hot enough too. Do we find such detonations now, below the surface? Maybe. One might argue that's what earthquakes are, but we have no evidence that massively powerful explosions are occurring underground and plenty that tectonics are in play.

As for fusing heavy radioactive elements, it's alleged that all Uranium, Thorium, etc. came from the so-called accretion of the planet, which means that it was already there in space beforehand, just spinning around in a big pile of dust or whatever. Where were these elements fused? How? If the sun hadn't formed fully yet, and the planets were still just clumping up, then we shouldn't have enough heat yet to fuse these. Granted, accretion has been falsified on many levels - just picking on the standard model again.

It's possible these elements were fused in the Earth after it formed, while it was still very, very hot. But again, if heat is the only factor involved, why is Uranus (and other planets) not producing such materials currently?

Gamma rays can certainly be produced without fusion. They're just a level or two of spin-stacks below the electron. We produce them in labs all the time without fusion.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 205
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Heat & Pressure: Important to Think About

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:34 pm

.
What do heat and pressure have in common?

Pressure and heat are directly related, indicated by a greater charge field activity in a given volume.

The question reflects the mainstream assumption that heat sufficient for fusion is caused by increased density. The sun is the primary example.  

132. The Hole at the Center of the Sun. http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html The charge field fills the hole in Solar theory. 8pp.
All the theorists have really done is rig the density numbers to support their theories. They think to themselves, "What is the lowest density most people will buy for the rest of the Sun? We can't get it too low or people might start asking questions." Then they give the rest of the density to the core, and hope that density will impress you. But the fact is, an average density of 1.4 for the Sun isn't impressive no matter how you slice it. Without a whole lot more theory, you have to be really negligent to accept that that sort of density can start fusion, by itself.

Now, the electrical Sun people will say, "Right, so get rid of fusion altogether!" But I happen to think we have some pretty strong evidence for fusion. Neither the mainstream fusion theorists nor the electrical Sun people can explain all the phenomena we see, so I would like to combine them both. If we have both, we can explain more of the data. So I would like to propose that they are both right. All of my work on the charge field tells me that we do have fusion (see below for immediate proof), but we need charge and E/M effects to get it started. In other words, a star isn't born in a gravitational collapse, it is born in a unified field "collapse," where the charge field undergoes changes like the rest of the field.

This helps greatly in the current problem, because I have shown that the charge field has a mass 19 times that of baryonic matter. Every proton is recyling a photon field that outweighs it by 19 times. So when you add the charge field to any problem, you get a greatly multiplied effect. When you add pressure to any mass, you also add pressure to the charge field. When you squeeze the protons in hydrogen, you aren't just squeezing the protons, you are squeezing the billions of photons.

We should have known this decades ago, since we have known for quite a while that the Sun is a plasma. A plasma is an electromagnetic entity. It cannot be explained with gravity. To deflect this obvious reading of the facts, we are told that the plasma is created by the fusion process, but we have plasmas between here and the Moon, caused by the local charge and E/M fields. It doesn't require fusion to create plasmas, it only requires lots of ions in a charge field. It is not fusion that created the plasma in the Sun, it is the dense plasma that created the possibility of fusion. Once again, current theory is upside down.

In short, because the Sun was NOT dense, but contained a large amount of matter, it coalesced into a very large sphere that was able to recycle very large amounts of charge. You don't want too much density in a star, because the radius is more important than the density. The bigger radius gives you more angular momentum, which allows you to recycle more charge, which allows for a hotter plasma. All this charge passing through the sphere created a hot plasma, and the hot plasma allowed for the beginning of fusion. In this way, we see that much of the heat of the Sun predated fusion. And in this way, we see that the electrical Sun people are right. A good portion of the current heat of the Sun is still caused by the charge passing through the Sun. Fusion only adds to this heat. We can now (with my theory) even calculate the percentages of heat that come from fusion and from charge—see below for the math.

I will be asked why I am allowed to propose this when the mainstream theorists aren't. Two reasons: 1) I have the fields to justify it, since I have unified gravity and charge. 2) Even though I have a unified field, and can show how charge works in the opposite direction to gravity, I am still not using my unified field here to cancel gravity.
I'll try to summarize. Unified field (gravity and EM) effects observed are a function of the distribution of ions within a charge field. Say within either the sun's lower or higher photospheres. There are also many potential events that can occur due to impacts. In any case, the charge field effects are greatly increased by the presence of the large (19X visible) charge field present. Please note that a simple increase in pressure may in fact be detrimental to the unified field events.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 592
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Heat & Pressure: Important to Think About

Post by Jared Magneson on Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:16 am

The question reflects the mainstream assumption that heat sufficient for fusion is caused by increased density. The sun is the primary example.

And yet, the density inside a star (ours at least) is very low - so density cannot generate the heat necessary for fusion, not on its own. If density alone were the cause of enough heat for fusion then we would have a great deal of natural fusion here on Earth as well, and everywhere Hydrogens live.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 205
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum