Superconducting currents for magnetic fields of heavenly bodies
in [Physics]
|
Prev: GETTING DIRTY MAY LIFT YOUR MOOD
Next: what exactly happens when sugar is added to gasoline? When saltis added?
From: Arindam Banerjee on 12 Aug 2010 08:52 On Aug 12, 9:54 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Aug 11, 10:52 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Aug 9, 9:11 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 9, 4:56 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>> On Aug 8, 10:33 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 2:09 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>>>> in black holes and holding it does not, after a statistical resarch on > >>>>> mole behaviour, can only put a cloud over the sun so to say. > > >>>> If you are talking about "black holes" (the astronomy topic) then you are > >>>> talking about something not in the Hindu/Hinduism history. > > >>> True. We do have the concept of the unchanging nature of things, in > >>> the core of the Earth. Like, the coils of SheshNaag, the Divine > >>> Cobra. I suspect that this is a reference to the large electric > >>> currents as a result of superconductivity in the very cold iron core > >>> of the Earth, > > >> I thought that towards the center of the earth, the temperature went up > >> quite a bit (because of pressure) and the cooling rate is so slow over > >> many miles that everything there is still hot because the heat can't get > >> out very quickly. > > > That is exactly where you are wrong, for the pressure is not there at > > or near the core of any large body. Any mass there is pulled equally > > from all sides, so has no net force on it. > > Naybe not gravitational, but being under mechanically transmitted > "hydrostatic" force. Anything stacked up ~4,000 miles is going be heavy/ If not gravitational, then nothing. There is no other sort of force around. Things stacked 4000m in all directions, means no net force at all. The forces all cancel, as they act equally from all sides. So you are as free and floating, like in deep outer space, if say the core is a bit hollow for you to do so. Strange, they taught me in school that at the centre of the earth g is 0, but now since they must have a lot of pressure in the centre of the sun to support fusion via e=mcc, they seem to be coy about g=0 at r=0 , where g=9.8m/s/s at r=4000m and g=0 at r=infinity. > > No net force means no net > > > pressure, for pressure is equal to normal incident force divided by > > area. This simple thing was explained to me in my school days, that g > > is zero at the centre of the earth. No g, no force. Since there is > > no pressure at the centre of the earth, sun, etc. there is no > > movement, save that of the current in the cold. And the layers of > > silicon insulate this core from the hot lava, thousands of kilometers > > of insulation should be adequate. Some energy does seep in, and that > > is converted into the energy required to circulate the current. The > > last bit I am not quite clear about, how the heat energy changes into > > electrical, possible some interesting effects happen such as like > > happens with peizoelectricity - squeezing stuff makes for electric > > current. Heat to motion, motion to electricity, thus. > > I will leave that to people who are actually in this business and know a > lot more than I do. Speculations about properties of matter under > conditions much different than the surface are always tricky. Nobody has > actually visited a "black hole" either, and the honest guys (from what I > read) all think that the theory is not settled, either. > > > In short, as we go down to the centre of the Earth, Sun, etc. the > > temperature rises to a peak, then in diminishes to near absolute > > zero. The temperature peaks when there is lot of mass to crush a mass > > at that place, and there is also a lot of mass below it so that it > > does get crushed so. At the centre, there is mass all around, nothing > > "below" to crush it with! > > > Of course, this explains the magnetic field of the Earth, Sun, Jupiter > > - they all have cold cores with large currents from > > superconductivity. > > All on paper, at best. No one is ever going to dig that deep and put in a thermometer to measure. Question is, whose logic is better? Mine has it that g=0, T= -270degC at R=0, and this all supports the formulas I have been writing about: c(V)=c(mu,ep)+V and e=0.5mVVN(N-k) plus, entropy is bollocks, relativity is nonsense and quantum is wrong and Newton's first and third laws need a bit of a change, to take into account the advances made in electromagnetics, so First Law has the words "external force" replaced by "force" Third Law has the word "opposite" removed. It all hangs together very well, and is beautifully explained in detail in my book "The Principles of Motion" Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > It also throws out the theory that the Sun is say > > > > > a huge hydrogen bomb, causing fusion naturally at the core as the > > temperature from extreme pressure is incredibly high. Had it been so, > > there would be far too much radiation from it and the Apollo > > astronauts would have been fried. (I really hope they actually went > > to the Moon.) > > > - snip - > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee
From: Me, ...again! on 12 Aug 2010 17:12 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Aug 12, 9:54 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Aug 11, 10:52 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Aug 9, 9:11 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>> On Aug 9, 4:56 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 10:33 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: >> >>> That is exactly where you are wrong, for the pressure is not there at >>> or near the core of any large body. Any mass there is pulled equally >>> from all sides, so has no net force on it. >> >> Naybe not gravitational, but being under mechanically transmitted >> "hydrostatic" force. Anything stacked up ~4,000 miles is going be heavy/ > > If not gravitational, then nothing. There is no other sort of force > around. Things stacked 4000m in all directions, means no net force at > all. The forces all cancel, as they act equally from all sides. So > you are as free and floating, like in deep outer space, if say the > core is a bit hollow for you to do so. Strange, they taught me in > school that at the centre of the earth g is 0, but now since they must > have a lot of pressure in the centre of the sun to support fusion via > e=mcc, they seem to be coy about g=0 at r=0 , where g=9.8m/s/s at > r=4000m and g=0 at r=infinity. I'll bet there is plenty of pressure there from stacked material going up to the surface, transmitted there by mechanical means. >> No net force means no net >> >>> pressure, for pressure is equal to normal incident force divided by >>> area. This simple thing was explained to me in my school days, that g >>> is zero at the centre of the earth. No g, no force. Since there is >>> no pressure at the centre of the earth, sun, etc. there is no >>> movement, save that of the current in the cold. And the layers of >>> silicon insulate this core from the hot lava, thousands of kilometers >>> of insulation should be adequate. Some energy does seep in, and that >>> is converted into the energy required to circulate the current. The >>> last bit I am not quite clear about, how the heat energy changes into >>> electrical, possible some interesting effects happen such as like >>> happens with peizoelectricity - squeezing stuff makes for electric >>> current. Heat to motion, motion to electricity, thus. >> >> I will leave that to people who are actually in this business and know a >> lot more than I do. Speculations about properties of matter under >> conditions much different than the surface are always tricky. Nobody has >> actually visited a "black hole" either, and the honest guys (from what I >> read) all think that the theory is not settled, either. >> >>> In short, as we go down to the centre of the Earth, Sun, etc. the >>> temperature rises to a peak, then in diminishes to near absolute >>> zero. The temperature peaks when there is lot of mass to crush a mass >>> at that place, and there is also a lot of mass below it so that it >>> does get crushed so. At the centre, there is mass all around, nothing >>> "below" to crush it with! >> >>> Of course, this explains the magnetic field of the Earth, Sun, Jupiter >>> - they all have cold cores with large currents from >>> superconductivity. >> >> All on paper, at best. > > No one is ever going to dig that deep and put in a thermometer to > measure. Question is, whose logic is better? Mine has it that g=0, > T= -270degC at R=0, and this all supports the formulas I have been > writing about: > c(V)=c(mu,ep)+V and > e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > plus, entropy is bollocks, relativity is nonsense and quantum is wrong > and > Newton's first and third laws need a bit of a change, to take into > account the advances made in electromagnetics, so > First Law has the words "external force" replaced by "force" > Third Law has the word "opposite" removed. > > It all hangs together very well, and is beautifully explained in > detail in my book "The Principles of Motion" I wish you luck. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > >> It also throws out the theory that the Sun is say >> >> >> >>> a huge hydrogen bomb, causing fusion naturally at the core as the >>> temperature from extreme pressure is incredibly high. Had it been so, >>> there would be far too much radiation from it and the Apollo >>> astronauts would have been fried. (I really hope they actually went >>> to the Moon.) >> >>> - snip - >> >>> Cheers, >>> Arindam Banerjee >
From: bert on 12 Aug 2010 18:26 On Aug 12, 8:52 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 9:54 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 10:52 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>> On Aug 9, 9:11 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>>>> On Aug 9, 4:56 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Aug 8, 10:33 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 2:09 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>>>> in black holes and holding it does not, after a statistical resarch on > > >>>>> mole behaviour, can only put a cloud over the sun so to say. > > > >>>> If you are talking about "black holes" (the astronomy topic) then you are > > >>>> talking about something not in the Hindu/Hinduism history. > > > >>> True. We do have the concept of the unchanging nature of things, in > > >>> the core of the Earth. Like, the coils of SheshNaag, the Divine > > >>> Cobra. I suspect that this is a reference to the large electric > > >>> currents as a result of superconductivity in the very cold iron core > > >>> of the Earth, > > > >> I thought that towards the center of the earth, the temperature went up > > >> quite a bit (because of pressure) and the cooling rate is so slow over > > >> many miles that everything there is still hot because the heat can't get > > >> out very quickly. > > > > That is exactly where you are wrong, for the pressure is not there at > > > or near the core of any large body. Any mass there is pulled equally > > > from all sides, so has no net force on it. > > > Naybe not gravitational, but being under mechanically transmitted > > "hydrostatic" force. Anything stacked up ~4,000 miles is going be heavy/ > > If not gravitational, then nothing. There is no other sort of force > around. Things stacked 4000m in all directions, means no net force at > all. The forces all cancel, as they act equally from all sides. So > you are as free and floating, like in deep outer space, if say the > core is a bit hollow for you to do so. Strange, they taught me in > school that at the centre of the earth g is 0, but now since they must > have a lot of pressure in the centre of the sun to support fusion via > e=mcc, they seem to be coy about g=0 at r=0 , where g=9.8m/s/s at > r=4000m and g=0 at r=infinity. > > > > > > > > > No net force means no net > > > > pressure, for pressure is equal to normal incident force divided by > > > area. This simple thing was explained to me in my school days, that g > > > is zero at the centre of the earth. No g, no force. Since there is > > > no pressure at the centre of the earth, sun, etc. there is no > > > movement, save that of the current in the cold. And the layers of > > > silicon insulate this core from the hot lava, thousands of kilometers > > > of insulation should be adequate. Some energy does seep in, and that > > > is converted into the energy required to circulate the current. The > > > last bit I am not quite clear about, how the heat energy changes into > > > electrical, possible some interesting effects happen such as like > > > happens with peizoelectricity - squeezing stuff makes for electric > > > current. Heat to motion, motion to electricity, thus. > > > I will leave that to people who are actually in this business and know a > > lot more than I do. Speculations about properties of matter under > > conditions much different than the surface are always tricky. Nobody has > > actually visited a "black hole" either, and the honest guys (from what I > > read) all think that the theory is not settled, either. > > > > In short, as we go down to the centre of the Earth, Sun, etc. the > > > temperature rises to a peak, then in diminishes to near absolute > > > zero. The temperature peaks when there is lot of mass to crush a mass > > > at that place, and there is also a lot of mass below it so that it > > > does get crushed so. At the centre, there is mass all around, nothing > > > "below" to crush it with! > > > > Of course, this explains the magnetic field of the Earth, Sun, Jupiter > > > - they all have cold cores with large currents from > > > superconductivity. > > > All on paper, at best. > > No one is ever going to dig that deep and put in a thermometer to > measure. Question is, whose logic is better? Mine has it that g=0, > T= -270degC at R=0, and this all supports the formulas I have been > writing about: > c(V)=c(mu,ep)+V and > e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > plus, entropy is bollocks, relativity is nonsense and quantum is wrong > and > Newton's first and third laws need a bit of a change, to take into > account the advances made in electromagnetics, so > First Law has the words "external force" replaced by "force" > Third Law has the word "opposite" removed. > > It all hangs together very well, and is beautifully explained in > detail in my book "The Principles of Motion" > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > It also throws out the theory that the Sun is say > > > > a huge hydrogen bomb, causing fusion naturally at the core as the > > > temperature from extreme pressure is incredibly high. Had it been so, > > > there would be far too much radiation from it and the Apollo > > > astronauts would have been fried. (I really hope they actually went > > > to the Moon.) > > > > - snip - > > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Jupiter with its great magnetic field begs these questions #1 its solid hydrogen core(great conductor of electricity) #2 Its very fast spin They make for great conditions for magnetic field. Much better than Earth's core theories. TreBert
From: Arindam Banerjee on 12 Aug 2010 19:30 On Aug 13, 7:12 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Aug 12, 9:54 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Aug 11, 10:52 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Aug 9, 9:11 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>> On Aug 9, 4:56 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 10:33 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >>> That is exactly where you are wrong, for the pressure is not there at > >>> or near the core of any large body. Any mass there is pulled equally > >>> from all sides, so has no net force on it. > > >> Naybe not gravitational, but being under mechanically transmitted > >> "hydrostatic" force. Anything stacked up ~4,000 miles is going be heavy/ > > > If not gravitational, then nothing. There is no other sort of force > > around. Things stacked 4000m in all directions, means no net force at > > all. The forces all cancel, as they act equally from all sides. So > > you are as free and floating, like in deep outer space, if say the > > core is a bit hollow for you to do so. Strange, they taught me in > > school that at the centre of the earth g is 0, but now since they must > > have a lot of pressure in the centre of the sun to support fusion via > > e=mcc, they seem to be coy about g=0 at r=0 , where g=9.8m/s/s at > > r=4000m and g=0 at r=infinity. > > I'll bet there is plenty of pressure there from stacked material going up > to the surface, transmitted there by mechanical means. What mechanical means? There could be pressure waves, very light, of course, as gentle breezes on the surface of the earth. But things would remain still and cold and unchanging, for ever and ever. Unless the Earth collides with a comet or something. Then there could be some minor jolting. > >> No net force means no net > > >>> pressure, for pressure is equal to normal incident force divided by > >>> area. This simple thing was explained to me in my school days, that g > >>> is zero at the centre of the earth. No g, no force. Since there is > >>> no pressure at the centre of the earth, sun, etc. there is no > >>> movement, save that of the current in the cold. And the layers of > >>> silicon insulate this core from the hot lava, thousands of kilometers > >>> of insulation should be adequate. Some energy does seep in, and that > >>> is converted into the energy required to circulate the current. The > >>> last bit I am not quite clear about, how the heat energy changes into > >>> electrical, possible some interesting effects happen such as like > >>> happens with peizoelectricity - squeezing stuff makes for electric > >>> current. Heat to motion, motion to electricity, thus. > > >> I will leave that to people who are actually in this business and know a > >> lot more than I do. Speculations about properties of matter under > >> conditions much different than the surface are always tricky. Nobody has > >> actually visited a "black hole" either, and the honest guys (from what I > >> read) all think that the theory is not settled, either. > > >>> In short, as we go down to the centre of the Earth, Sun, etc. the > >>> temperature rises to a peak, then in diminishes to near absolute > >>> zero. The temperature peaks when there is lot of mass to crush a mass > >>> at that place, and there is also a lot of mass below it so that it > >>> does get crushed so. At the centre, there is mass all around, nothing > >>> "below" to crush it with! > > >>> Of course, this explains the magnetic field of the Earth, Sun, Jupiter > >>> - they all have cold cores with large currents from > >>> superconductivity. > > >> All on paper, at best. > > > No one is ever going to dig that deep and put in a thermometer to > > measure. Question is, whose logic is better? Mine has it that g=0, > > T= -270degC at R=0, and this all supports the formulas I have been > > writing about: > > c(V)=c(mu,ep)+V and > > e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > > plus, entropy is bollocks, relativity is nonsense and quantum is wrong > > and > > Newton's first and third laws need a bit of a change, to take into > > account the advances made in electromagnetics, so > > First Law has the words "external force" replaced by "force" > > Third Law has the word "opposite" removed. > > > It all hangs together very well, and is beautifully explained in > > detail in my book "The Principles of Motion" > > I wish you luck. Thanks very much, dear Straydog. From a person of your high scientific background, this is most encouraging. Of course, a single Torricelli- type experiment will prove all that, beyond doubt. Those were the days of great, true science with open minds to receive them. That we have made it from the apes and witch-burners to the present, owes not only to the few great geniuses, but also the accepting audiences. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > >> It also throws out the theory that the Sun is say > > >>> a huge hydrogen bomb, causing fusion naturally at the core as the > >>> temperature from extreme pressure is incredibly high. Had it been so, > >>> there would be far too much radiation from it and the Apollo > >>> astronauts would have been fried. (I really hope they actually went > >>> to the Moon.) > > >>> - snip - > > >>> Cheers, > >>> Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 12 Aug 2010 19:33
On Aug 13, 8:26 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Aug 12, 8:52 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 9:54 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Aug 11, 10:52 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>> On Aug 9, 9:11 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > >>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>>>> On Aug 9, 4:56 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>>>>>> On Aug 8, 10:33 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 2:09 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > >>>>> in black holes and holding it does not, after a statistical resarch on > > > >>>>> mole behaviour, can only put a cloud over the sun so to say. > > > > >>>> If you are talking about "black holes" (the astronomy topic) then you are > > > >>>> talking about something not in the Hindu/Hinduism history. > > > > >>> True. We do have the concept of the unchanging nature of things, in > > > >>> the core of the Earth. Like, the coils of SheshNaag, the Divine > > > >>> Cobra. I suspect that this is a reference to the large electric > > > >>> currents as a result of superconductivity in the very cold iron core > > > >>> of the Earth, > > > > >> I thought that towards the center of the earth, the temperature went up > > > >> quite a bit (because of pressure) and the cooling rate is so slow over > > > >> many miles that everything there is still hot because the heat can't get > > > >> out very quickly. > > > > > That is exactly where you are wrong, for the pressure is not there at > > > > or near the core of any large body. Any mass there is pulled equally > > > > from all sides, so has no net force on it. > > > > Naybe not gravitational, but being under mechanically transmitted > > > "hydrostatic" force. Anything stacked up ~4,000 miles is going be heavy/ > > > If not gravitational, then nothing. There is no other sort of force > > around. Things stacked 4000m in all directions, means no net force at > > all. The forces all cancel, as they act equally from all sides. So > > you are as free and floating, like in deep outer space, if say the > > core is a bit hollow for you to do so. Strange, they taught me in > > school that at the centre of the earth g is 0, but now since they must > > have a lot of pressure in the centre of the sun to support fusion via > > e=mcc, they seem to be coy about g=0 at r=0 , where g=9.8m/s/s at > > r=4000m and g=0 at r=infinity. > > > > No net force means no net > > > > > pressure, for pressure is equal to normal incident force divided by > > > > area. This simple thing was explained to me in my school days, that g > > > > is zero at the centre of the earth. No g, no force. Since there is > > > > no pressure at the centre of the earth, sun, etc. there is no > > > > movement, save that of the current in the cold. And the layers of > > > > silicon insulate this core from the hot lava, thousands of kilometers > > > > of insulation should be adequate. Some energy does seep in, and that > > > > is converted into the energy required to circulate the current. The > > > > last bit I am not quite clear about, how the heat energy changes into > > > > electrical, possible some interesting effects happen such as like > > > > happens with peizoelectricity - squeezing stuff makes for electric > > > > current. Heat to motion, motion to electricity, thus. > > > > I will leave that to people who are actually in this business and know a > > > lot more than I do. Speculations about properties of matter under > > > conditions much different than the surface are always tricky. Nobody has > > > actually visited a "black hole" either, and the honest guys (from what I > > > read) all think that the theory is not settled, either. > > > > > In short, as we go down to the centre of the Earth, Sun, etc. the > > > > temperature rises to a peak, then in diminishes to near absolute > > > > zero. The temperature peaks when there is lot of mass to crush a mass > > > > at that place, and there is also a lot of mass below it so that it > > > > does get crushed so. At the centre, there is mass all around, nothing > > > > "below" to crush it with! > > > > > Of course, this explains the magnetic field of the Earth, Sun, Jupiter > > > > - they all have cold cores with large currents from > > > > superconductivity. > > > > All on paper, at best. > > > No one is ever going to dig that deep and put in a thermometer to > > measure. Question is, whose logic is better? Mine has it that g=0, > > T= -270degC at R=0, and this all supports the formulas I have been > > writing about: > > c(V)=c(mu,ep)+V and > > e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > > plus, entropy is bollocks, relativity is nonsense and quantum is wrong > > and > > Newton's first and third laws need a bit of a change, to take into > > account the advances made in electromagnetics, so > > First Law has the words "external force" replaced by "force" > > Third Law has the word "opposite" removed. > > > It all hangs together very well, and is beautifully explained in > > detail in my book "The Principles of Motion" > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > It also throws out the theory that the Sun is say > > > > > a huge hydrogen bomb, causing fusion naturally at the core as the > > > > temperature from extreme pressure is incredibly high. Had it been so, > > > > there would be far too much radiation from it and the Apollo > > > > astronauts would have been fried. (I really hope they actually went > > > > to the Moon.) > > > > > - snip - > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Arindam Banerjee > > Jupiter with its great magnetic field begs these questions #1 its > solid hydrogen core(great conductor of electricity) #2 Its very fast > spin They make for great conditions for magnetic field. Much better > than Earth's core theories. TreBert We won't know if there is an iron core under a silicon core under the solid hydrogen core under the liquid core under the gases.... With the model I have presented, a Sun is a very big Earth really, with a hydrogen atmosphere. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee |