Environment
Theory of Gravity?
Feb 24th
The theory of Gravity is still just that, a theory. Like all mysteries of the world I like to wonder why with all the brains in this world there is still no solid answers to obvious questions like what is gravity and how is it caused. I have many other questions but for now let’s stick on this topic. Before I start I also would like to say this is my Theory and I have not trouble shooted, cross-checked, or contacted Einstein from the grave to get a professional second opinion.
The first popular theory of gravity was Isaac Newton’s theory which is based on the amount of mass is what defines the strength of gravity. So the more dense a object the more gravity it has. In this theory all particles and asteroids in space and all particles and objects here on earth have gravity. The amount of gravity is depending on their density.
Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity is based on space and time working together to shift the fabric of that moment. Somehow the in-balance of time and space creates a vacuum that connects objects together.
Charles Yarbrough’s theory of gravity is something new but growing on the internet. My theory is that gravity is created by the core of planets. In the center of our planet is a spinning core that to this day has no popular explanation to why it exists. I believe simply as planets die the core dies and gravity dies down.
My contest to Newton:
If density was the main reason for gravity then the largest planet Jupiter would have more matter gravitating around it. But as we all know Saturn has the rings of matter gravitating around it. I think simply Saturn has a bigger more active core.
Another example is the size of the SUN, it’s huge compared to the earth and in matter much more dense. So if density was the only factor for gravity then the Sun would suck us into it about a million times over. I think more logically the Sun is a core just like what’s in each planet and slowly losing it’s power hence why mars was a habitat at one time. The sun’s dwindling gravity has allowed mars to drift to far for life to survive there. Next Earth will drift someday (if the Sun doesn’t implode first) and Venus we will be the lucky one. In fact I think the suns fading core will end earths life support faster then Earth losing it’s own core. I base this on Mars and other planets still having their core active beyond the life support distance tot he sun.
But I also wonder if oil is a lubricant for the earths core and we are sucking it dry. This of course would mean fossil fuels are a myth and oil comes from the earth’s lava core and simply grabs fossils and junk on the way to the earths service. If this is true then we might kill our core before the Sun allows us to drift out of the life supporting distance to the sun.
I also question why asteroid’s do not have gravity, they only have trails which are caused from the vacuum of flying though space. I base this on comets only having trailing matter if it had gravity you would see matter off to the sides or even in front.
As for Einstein’s theory, it’s still a little to heavy for me to challenge. Once you enter the world of Quantum mechanics ideas can get really out there and have no proximity for cross or fact checking. I have watched the secret, but I have my own explanation for self manifestations.
So if my theory is true then the Earth has a deadline three different ways (Sun Core Loss, Natural Earth Core Loss, Unnatural Earth Core Loss), and eventually life will ultimately lose support either way. In which case we will need to move to a new planet. Now whether god will re-locate us or we will need to master space travel we will just have to decide when time is more of the essence.
As for now I just wanted try and close two questions we should of figured out long ago.
- The core of the planet is a generator for gravity.
- Gravity simply exists on planets and stars because their cores are still active.
- The sun is one big exposed super-core.
Bottled water might not be so good
Dec 16th
An interested image on how bottled water might be worse then tap water.
http://www.americanbadbusinesslist.com/bottled-water-not-so-good/
Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet
Oct 27th
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.
He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.
He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.
Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.
Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.
Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”
On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”
The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.
Mercedes Turns Out Fuel-Cell B-Class Car, Ready for Public Consumption
Sep 8th
While some of the limelight has swung away from fuel cells, Mercedes is still chasing the technology and has just announced a new milestone: It’s F-Cell is the first series-produced vehicle that’s hydrogen powered.
This is the first time Mercedes has moved beyond a concept car into a “proof of concept” car with the tech, and it’s integrated the new fuel and drive-train into a B-Class car. The combination of an in-production chassis and the newly-polished engine means that the car is actually being produced in sample quantities late in 2009, and a short-run production will result in 200 cars in early 2010, which will be sold to customers in the U.S. and Europe. While that’s not mass-production by any means, it’s unquestionably a significant step in getting road-going fuel-cell cars into the public’s hands.
Unfortunately, most of the world still lacks any hydrogen fueling infrastructure, so unless you live along Norway’s hydrogen highway or in Iceland (aka “Energy Island”) you probably won’t have much use for this vehicle. Which is a shame, here’s why: Including the F-Cell engine into the B-Class results in a car that has the same interior space and trunk capacity as a traditional gasoline-powered version, and hasn’t compromised Mercedes’ famous high build-quality. This has been done by squeezing many of the components into a sandwich layer in the floor of the car, which places them out of the way and increases the safety aspects of the design–Mercedes has undertaken 30 extra crash tests on top of the normal certification ones, and optimized the safety of the new design as a result.
And how does it perform? Pretty impressive–it does deliver much of the promise of hydrogen-powered electric cars. It’s got a Li-ion battery to boost power and store energy from regenerative braking, a 100kW electric motor with 290Nm torque that can push the car up to 105mph. It does all this with zero CO2 output and, in the strange back-to-front fuel equivalence calculations, it manages 3.3 liters diesel-equivalent per 100km. It’s got a max range of 240 miles, and can even cope with wintry weather–its can cold-start at -25ºC.
Recent Comments