Lots of energy, but very little power. Kind of like a high mountain lake issuing a tiny stream. Lots of potential energy, but very little flow. This is the big difference between energy and power. But the Earth is huge and we have lots of everything without being much bothered by it. You are talking about the MAGNETIC field around the Earth, not an "electromagnetic" field. There is a difference. I did not suppose any negative effects from a natural phenomenon that does not broadcast power.
The best that people have come up with about the terrestrial magnetic field is that it results from core convection of molten iron getting a grip of the solar magnetic field and amplifying it. That's what they say, and I don't defend it much. Where is the electric current? Molten iron cannot be magnetic, due to the Fermi effect. An alternative explanation, which I find attractive, is that the Earth, being a rotating charged body, is thereby a homopolar generator, developing a magnetic field from being a rotating charged sphere. There has been some data correlating the strength of the magnetic field with slight glitches in rotation.
The Earth's magnetic field is not the source of lightning. That is related to charge concentration resulting from air friction with water droplets. Clouds develop huge charge imbalances, which equalize by lightning discharges between clouds or between clouds and the ground. Magnetic fields do not produce static electricity.
I think you need to read more on meteorology and geophysics.
Tesla knew what generates the charge at the centre of the earth. Modern science cannot explain it, it just accepts its presence. Like gravity and inertia and momentum.
I have read all our modern “science” on these subjects. I am not convinced as it does not explain where any of these phenomena come from, and can’t even accurately predict them, they all break down at one extreme or another. They are not accurate!
We suppose that friction causes lightning yet we can’t predict when and where such storms will form. Yet we refuse to consider that this theory with zero predictive value might be wrong. And likewise, we assume we are smarter than the ancients in our profound hubris, yet we can’t explain what they were doing with structures like the pyramids, or the golden domes, both of which spread much further than can be explained by “architectural style that is downstream of local culture.”
Merely repeating this dogma back to me, as though it explains a single thing, is not persuasive.
This is the first I've heard of a charge at the center of the Earth. I don't think it shows up in "modern science," but I also don't think you know much about modern science.
No theory can predict the weather. It is too chaotic (which is a technical term meaning far too many variables and large scale randomness). Our modern science permits us to do much, like travel to other planets, to see into other galaxies, to split the atom, etc. You dismiss that too readily, which indicates your lack of familiarity.
Our electrical theories work well enough that we have designed and built an entire industry and civilization on those theories, so your contention that they have "zero predictive value" is very skewed. Nobody assumes we are smarter than the ancients, but the record is so absent we have NO IDEA how smart the ancients actually were. If there was other technology, it is lost. It is futile to dwell on that.
Those who do not want to learn are immune to persuasion. Unlike you folks, I am ready to explain, in detail, but you just turn up your nose, not having really been schooled in science or engineering, with the idea that if it is not anciently perfect, it is not worth knowing. That's too bad. Do you have a cell phone? Can you find your location by GPS? Do you have a computer? These are everyday miracles that you, by implication, despise because they are built on imperfect science.
I have been consistently asserting that our modern science has enough predictive value to convince most that it is correct. Little doodads like cell phones enthrall these people and make us think we are the smartest and most advanced humans who ever lived. This arrogance is behind the utter contempt our “experts” have for those who doubt modern science… how could we possibly be wrong, the true believers say to one another to reassure themselves the doubters are just stupid.
Yet these much vaunted theories all break down at the extremes, and thus are NOT accurate explanations. And again, they do not explain why we observe phenomena like gravity, they only accept their existence and try (and fail, at the extremes) to predict how they affect thigs. But the true believers are not concerned with these fundamental flaws. Look! They say. We made computers! We are the smartest!
Yet we still have no idea what the ancients were up to with these massive structures that were built, worldwide. And the true believers aren’t even concerned with this. Our intellectual superiority to those who came before us is so assured, we entertain ridiculous explanations like, “oh they used their entire economy and methods we can’t explain to build… lol… gigantic graves for their kings.”
You might feel reassured that you haven’t spent a lifetime studying fake science by talking down to me like the “experts” did to those who doubted the utility of the vaxxes. But from my end, it has no persuasive value. I have spent a lifetime just observing nature, and long ago realized “the science” of the matrix we live in doesn’t explain what we are seeing, no matter how angrily it is asserted that it does.
Look, you are imputing things to people out of pique, not out of honesty. The value of the science at the center of things is not nullified by the fact that we still have questions. If there were no questions, there would have been no science. And without science, there would have been no technology. And technology helps us identify where the science is inadequate, thus continuing the cycle of discovery and insight.
Cellphones are phenomenal inventions. The miniaturization alone is superb. The computing power is hard to appreciate. We take them for granted. Yet you want to reduce them to the importance of crayons. That says more about you than about cellphones.
You ask questions that I don't think you even understand. We observe gravity because we see its effects. In that respect, it is no different than electromagnetism, yet you don't carp about its mysteries. The theories only break down in environments where other factors and forces come into play, such as quantum-mechanical effects and nuclear forces. But we don't get into those environments without the technologies and science that got us to them. And the theories must become different to deal with newly-observed phenomena. I guess you are not in the spirit of scientific research. How do we progress, except by steps?
The big monuments are big monuments. We have tried to understand, but still have questions. What do you want? Endless bashing of our foreheads against a wall? The archaeologists are busy. Some things may be lost...forever. They did build graves for their kings. The structures say so. Mummies and deceased remains have been found there. The pyramids offend you if that is what they were? Too bad. The past was never made for your approval.
It is interesting that you think I am talking down to you. If you were at the same level, you wouldn't feel that at all. I've been doing advanced technology for 40-50 years, so I have knowledge and perspective. The "fake science" has done everything for us, and you disparage it. More sadly, you don't know how to accept an "explanation." We are not in a "matrix." This is a real world. With real technology. Derived from real science. You are only complaining that we are not omniscient, like gods. That's an old complaint. And no one who has a life to live bothers to listen to it.
Lots of energy, but very little power. Kind of like a high mountain lake issuing a tiny stream. Lots of potential energy, but very little flow. This is the big difference between energy and power. But the Earth is huge and we have lots of everything without being much bothered by it. You are talking about the MAGNETIC field around the Earth, not an "electromagnetic" field. There is a difference. I did not suppose any negative effects from a natural phenomenon that does not broadcast power.
The best that people have come up with about the terrestrial magnetic field is that it results from core convection of molten iron getting a grip of the solar magnetic field and amplifying it. That's what they say, and I don't defend it much. Where is the electric current? Molten iron cannot be magnetic, due to the Fermi effect. An alternative explanation, which I find attractive, is that the Earth, being a rotating charged body, is thereby a homopolar generator, developing a magnetic field from being a rotating charged sphere. There has been some data correlating the strength of the magnetic field with slight glitches in rotation.
The Earth's magnetic field is not the source of lightning. That is related to charge concentration resulting from air friction with water droplets. Clouds develop huge charge imbalances, which equalize by lightning discharges between clouds or between clouds and the ground. Magnetic fields do not produce static electricity.
I think you need to read more on meteorology and geophysics.
Tesla knew what generates the charge at the centre of the earth. Modern science cannot explain it, it just accepts its presence. Like gravity and inertia and momentum.
I have read all our modern “science” on these subjects. I am not convinced as it does not explain where any of these phenomena come from, and can’t even accurately predict them, they all break down at one extreme or another. They are not accurate!
We suppose that friction causes lightning yet we can’t predict when and where such storms will form. Yet we refuse to consider that this theory with zero predictive value might be wrong. And likewise, we assume we are smarter than the ancients in our profound hubris, yet we can’t explain what they were doing with structures like the pyramids, or the golden domes, both of which spread much further than can be explained by “architectural style that is downstream of local culture.”
Merely repeating this dogma back to me, as though it explains a single thing, is not persuasive.
This is the first I've heard of a charge at the center of the Earth. I don't think it shows up in "modern science," but I also don't think you know much about modern science.
No theory can predict the weather. It is too chaotic (which is a technical term meaning far too many variables and large scale randomness). Our modern science permits us to do much, like travel to other planets, to see into other galaxies, to split the atom, etc. You dismiss that too readily, which indicates your lack of familiarity.
Our electrical theories work well enough that we have designed and built an entire industry and civilization on those theories, so your contention that they have "zero predictive value" is very skewed. Nobody assumes we are smarter than the ancients, but the record is so absent we have NO IDEA how smart the ancients actually were. If there was other technology, it is lost. It is futile to dwell on that.
Those who do not want to learn are immune to persuasion. Unlike you folks, I am ready to explain, in detail, but you just turn up your nose, not having really been schooled in science or engineering, with the idea that if it is not anciently perfect, it is not worth knowing. That's too bad. Do you have a cell phone? Can you find your location by GPS? Do you have a computer? These are everyday miracles that you, by implication, despise because they are built on imperfect science.
I have been consistently asserting that our modern science has enough predictive value to convince most that it is correct. Little doodads like cell phones enthrall these people and make us think we are the smartest and most advanced humans who ever lived. This arrogance is behind the utter contempt our “experts” have for those who doubt modern science… how could we possibly be wrong, the true believers say to one another to reassure themselves the doubters are just stupid.
Yet these much vaunted theories all break down at the extremes, and thus are NOT accurate explanations. And again, they do not explain why we observe phenomena like gravity, they only accept their existence and try (and fail, at the extremes) to predict how they affect thigs. But the true believers are not concerned with these fundamental flaws. Look! They say. We made computers! We are the smartest!
Yet we still have no idea what the ancients were up to with these massive structures that were built, worldwide. And the true believers aren’t even concerned with this. Our intellectual superiority to those who came before us is so assured, we entertain ridiculous explanations like, “oh they used their entire economy and methods we can’t explain to build… lol… gigantic graves for their kings.”
You might feel reassured that you haven’t spent a lifetime studying fake science by talking down to me like the “experts” did to those who doubted the utility of the vaxxes. But from my end, it has no persuasive value. I have spent a lifetime just observing nature, and long ago realized “the science” of the matrix we live in doesn’t explain what we are seeing, no matter how angrily it is asserted that it does.
Look, you are imputing things to people out of pique, not out of honesty. The value of the science at the center of things is not nullified by the fact that we still have questions. If there were no questions, there would have been no science. And without science, there would have been no technology. And technology helps us identify where the science is inadequate, thus continuing the cycle of discovery and insight.
Cellphones are phenomenal inventions. The miniaturization alone is superb. The computing power is hard to appreciate. We take them for granted. Yet you want to reduce them to the importance of crayons. That says more about you than about cellphones.
You ask questions that I don't think you even understand. We observe gravity because we see its effects. In that respect, it is no different than electromagnetism, yet you don't carp about its mysteries. The theories only break down in environments where other factors and forces come into play, such as quantum-mechanical effects and nuclear forces. But we don't get into those environments without the technologies and science that got us to them. And the theories must become different to deal with newly-observed phenomena. I guess you are not in the spirit of scientific research. How do we progress, except by steps?
The big monuments are big monuments. We have tried to understand, but still have questions. What do you want? Endless bashing of our foreheads against a wall? The archaeologists are busy. Some things may be lost...forever. They did build graves for their kings. The structures say so. Mummies and deceased remains have been found there. The pyramids offend you if that is what they were? Too bad. The past was never made for your approval.
It is interesting that you think I am talking down to you. If you were at the same level, you wouldn't feel that at all. I've been doing advanced technology for 40-50 years, so I have knowledge and perspective. The "fake science" has done everything for us, and you disparage it. More sadly, you don't know how to accept an "explanation." We are not in a "matrix." This is a real world. With real technology. Derived from real science. You are only complaining that we are not omniscient, like gods. That's an old complaint. And no one who has a life to live bothers to listen to it.