08 February 2013

Preview of posts to come on this blog



My blog posting has been lessened to a trickle due to my lapse of unemployment (that was about two years ago when I got a job), oh how I long for such unemployment again where I could post at will, (about two weeks per post) oh well.  I am not retired, so I have to work...

1) A cosmology of my own (built on others') where I claim that the outside of the sun is the hottest part; and that there is no thermonuclear core.  Sunspots are proof of the latter claim.

Newton's gravity of attraction of mass for mass doesn't exist.  Instead, there is a plane of intense electromagnetic energy that keep the planets in place in such a plane as the solar system.

The accretion theory of solar system formation isn't true; massive transformations -- a'la Velikovsky, with Venus popping in and out -- are possible (not that I actually believe in Velikovsky per se.)

2) More general political ramblings.  Political posts are much easier to churn out.  Unfortunately, though, it's easy to piss off half your readership in such a way.  Everyone has different points of view (thank goodness) and I lean to the right as I get older (38 is pretty old I figure).  So I lose the left half as my right half grows up.

3) In part 5 of my fallacy series I plan to finally fess up to what my own explanation for the alleged 33C warming of the earth from top to bottom of the atmosphere is.  If it's not the greenhouse effect what is it?  I propose a unidirectional circuit originating from the sun going into the earth.

On earth electrical circuits must form a circle -- a literal "circuit".  In celestial mechanics I propose a unidirectional flow of electricity is possible; that is, charge creation.  At present the conservation of charge principle doesn't allow much breathing room for explaining why the sun is charged at +10,000,000 volts (up to +1 billion volts by some older estimates) more than the earth.  How can this charge be possible...after 5 billion years (according to conventional estimations) to equilibrate? 

I therefore propose this positive charge is created in the sun; this positive flow then moves outward into the solar system, and negative charge is precipitated from the planets and other celestial objects, back to the sun, in order to neutralise such a flow. 

The ground is negatively charged with respect to the sky; thunderstorms release thousands of volts worth of electricity to counter this.  If you consider the amount of energy won and lost by a rise and fall of electrical potential energy as a particle moves up and down in the atmosphere compared to the gravitational potential energy, you should find that the former is much larger than the latter.  In light of this, I propose that the adiabatic lapse rate is not a gravitationally but an electrically based phenomenon, for the power of electric fields far outweighs that of gravity.

4)  Further rebuttals in my fallacy series including rebuttals to Skeptical Science, Saussure Arrhenius, the BBC and Mythbusters in their portrayal of a greenhouse effect.

5)  A guest post proposal to the WattsUpWithThat website on my (and a number of other qualified researchers -- I am not one of them) idea that sea ice is the cause of the seasonal (annual) squiggle, or sawtoothed waveform, of CO2 in the air.  In it I say that it is annual sea ice change and not deciduous forests or tropical ocean outgasing that causes such a squiggle.