return
to homepage
return
to updates
ATMOSPHERIC
PRESSURE
AND THE CHARGE FIELD
by
Miles Mathis
First
posted April 5, 2009
Abstract:
I will show that atmospheric pressure is misinterpreted and that
atmospheric weight is a myth. I will use my charge field to
explain why the atmosphere in fact weighs nothing. In addition, I
will show why the ionosphere exists as a separate layer, and
precisely why it is above the stratosphere.
I
have shown in many other papers how the standard model has covered
up problems on purpose, and I will show another instance here. We
are told that atmospheric pressure is not only caused by the
weight of the atmosphere; it is
the weight of the atmosphere. A column of air one
square meter in cross section is said to weigh over 100,000
Newtons or 10.2 metric tonnes or 11.2 (short) tons at sea level.
This leads any child to ask how the human body can stand up under
so much weight. And if we do a websearch, we do indeed find an
answer for children at a NASA information site:1
Why
doesn't all that pressure squash me? Remember
that you have air inside your body too, that air balances out the
pressure outside so you stay nice and firm and not squishy.
That
answer is so misleading I think we can call it an outright lie.
The human body is not filled with air, except in the case of
flatulent answers like this. The body is about 62% water, so the
water must equalize most of any air pressure that exists. The body
is made up of cells, remember, and cells are not filled with air.
Cells can be as much as 90% water. Yes, the body contains oxygen
that it gets from the air, but this oxygen is dissolved in the
blood. It does not persist as air or continue to have air pressure
once it enters the blood stream. Your lungs are the only things
“filled with air” and only when you breathe in. If the air in
your lungs was equalizing several tons of pressure, then when you
breathed out your body would implode.
Let's go to a
different sort of website: David Esker's site, which is often
quite informative. David says this about atmospheric
pressure:
The
area on the face of an average adult's hand is about 0.0116 m2
or 18.0 square inches so
there is about 1200 N (270 pounds) of force bearing down on an
average adult human hand. Since the pressure is the same for both
inside and outside of us, the net forces balance out to zero.
Rather than weighing us down, we are indifferent to this
force.2
We
may be indifferent to this force, but David should not be so
indifferent to the questions begged here. If we have 270 pounds
bearing down on one hand, why doesn't that force register on a
normal scale? Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere
should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it
register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so
it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have
to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that,
wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?
The only
remaining dodge at this point is for the mainstream scientist to
mimic the NASA feint and claim the scale is full of air. “For
the scale to compress, there must be space underneath it, and that
space is filled with air. The pressure underneath the scale equals
the pressure above it, so it doesn't register the weight of the
air.” This ridiculous argument is actually the accepted one: I
am not making it up. The problem, if you don't already see it, is
that these scientists have claimed the human body is also filled
with one atmosphere of pressure, from air or otherwise; and if we
weigh that body, it is standing on a scale also “floating” on
air. Therefore the human body should also weigh nothing on the
scale, according to this logic. If a column of air weighing 11
tons can be completely levitated by air pressure, why not a 170
pound man? The experts might say it is a matter of density, but
neither Newton's nor Einstein's equations have a density variable
in them. The force of gravity is supposed to be a function of
mass, not density. If it is a matter of density, how does the
field know I am denser than the column of air? Mr. Gravity is
looking up at me and the column from underneath: how does he know
I have more density than the column of air?
Or, return to
David Esker's example. If I put my hand flat on a table, he claims
there is 270 pounds of force bearing down on it. My hand is acting
like a scale, and it “feels” 270 pounds of weight. But, like
the scale, my hand is already pressurized. Why does my hand feel
the weight but not the scale? If I lift my hand a fraction of an
inch off the table, there is now air underneath it. Is my hand now
equalized, like the scale? Do I now feel no force from the
atmosphere? If I feel no force from the atmosphere, why does my
hand not swell up to twice its size, like an astronaut in a hard
vacuum without a spacesuit?
What if I lay my hand on the
scale: am I to believe that my hand feels the force but not the
scale? One of these scientists, whose name I will suppress to
protect the idiotic, answered me that the top of my hand equalized
the weight of the air, so that it was not transferred to the
scale. The problem here, if you cannot see it already, is that if
the top of my hand is capable of pushing back with 270 pounds of
force, the bottom of my hand should be, too. In which case the
scale will be feeling that force.
These scientists want us
to believe that if we removed the atmosphere, we could wear cows
as hats without stooping and could jump up to the clouds just by
the strength of our calf muscles. If my outstretched arm can
resist 800 pounds of atmospheric weight, then, without the
atmosphere, I should be able to lift 800 pounds with one hand. Do
you believe that? I don't. Can you lift 300 pounds with one arm,
straight out to the side, on the top of a tall mountain? You
should be able to, according to their math. Can you even lift a
third more weight than normal at the top of a tall mountain? No,
and it has nothing to do with being shagged out from lack of
oxygen.
The answer to all this is that pressure and weight
are two different things. Some mainstream scientists know this and
are lying to cover it up, and some mainstream scientists just
accept what they are told without ever questioning it or noticing
how stupid it really is. The atmosphere is a gas. You do not weigh
a gas by measuring its pressure. Pressure is a vector in all
directions, and weight is a vector in one direction, down.
Atmospheric pressure, as the name suggests, is a measure of
pressure, not of weight. Yes, at sea level we have an appreciable
amount of atmospheric pressure. But, at sea level and all levels,
the entire atmosphere weighs nothing. It has mass, but weighs
nothing. You can check this with any normal scale. Your scale is
not lying to you, and the lack of weight requires no fancy
explanation. The scale is registering no weight because it feels
no weight.
What has confused many people, scientists and
non-scientists alike, is that the barometer appears to be
measuring a vector down, therefore it seems that the vector should
be assignable to weight. From the time of Descartes and
Torricelli, in the mid 17th century, most barometers have been
columns of liquid, either water or mercury. Even today, the
mercury barometer is the one most people visualize when thinking
of atmospheric pressure. The aneroid barometer is now widely used,
but its mechanism is not as explicit—it is circular and enclosed
and it is not so easy to visualize how it works. When people have
answered my attacks, they have pointed to the vertical column of
mercury or water, insisting that the force of the atmosphere is
clearly down. For example, in a Goethe device, the water is open
to force from the top. But this vector is an accident of the
mechanism, not a suggestion of weight. Liquid barometers are set
up vertically, in opposition to gravity, as a matter of
convenience—it keeps the liquid from spilling out of the tube or
tray. But as we see with the aneroid barometer, we can turn the
mechanism any way we like. The aneroid barometer can be set up
either vertically or horizontally, achieving the same numbers, as
you see from these pictures. 
In
the second picture, we have a barograph, in which five aneroid
barometers are stacked. That is what the round gold things are.
You can see that they are horizontal, while the first barometer is
vertical.
The mercury barometer does appear to measure a
summed force down, but, again, this is due to the fact that the
reservoir is only open on the top. The mercury can't feel forces
from other directions, because the containing walls are rigid and
non-porous—the forces can't arrive from those directions. The
summed force comes down from above, but it is not a downward
vector. It is still pressure. It sums to the right number for
pressure, due to the fact that the air collides with the inside
walls of the reservoir, funneling all directions of pressure down.
So the force is summed to the right value, achieving the same
number as the aneroid barometer; but only the sum of the vector is
down, and only due to the opening at the top. The barometer is
measuring pressure, not weight. There is no real vector down.
All
this is very clear, I think, so why have we been misdirected? We
have been misdirected by top scientists—who do know what I have
been telling you: they aren't ignorant of it—because the air
column should have a weight, according to the current model of
gravity. The standard model is correct in assuming that the column
of air should have an appreciable weight, so they do some math and
present us with a weight, hoping we forget to look at our scales.
They cannot explain why the atmosphere fails to register on a
scale, so they make up an absurd story to explain how a thing with
weight can weigh nothing. They are missing a huge piece of the
puzzle, and this piece prevents them from answering any questions
sensibly. So they are forced to either dodge the question or to
lie in a most unctuous fashion, like the Grinch with little Cindy
Lou Who.
The piece of the puzzle they are missing is the
charge field of the Earth. Physicists honestly don't know about
the charge field. They have not been able to unwind
Newton's equation, to find the field there, and they have
refused to publish or read my papers—some are accidentally
ignorant and some are willfully ignorant. The
charge field solves this problem, like so many other problems,
because it gives us a real bombarding field that can easily
explain motions mechanically. The charge field of the Earth, like
the quantum charge field, is mediated by photons. It underlies
both the electric and the magnetic fields, at all levels, but is
not equivalent to either one. I have called it the foundational
E/M field, since it causes all motions that we have given to
electromagnetism. [You may know it as Maxwell's D-field.] The
photon wind drives electrons and other ions, and these larger
particles create measurable atomic and molecular motions. In some
cases, the photon wind can cause measurable motions itself,
without ions, but at the macro-level this motion is usually
hidden, as we will see again below. The photons in the charge
field have both linear momentum and angular momentum: the photons
are also spinning. Therefore, both the photon field and the
induced ion field have angular momentum. The linear momentum of
photons is charge, the linear momentum of ions is electricity, the
angular momentum of photons is symmetry
loss or charge conjugation (it also stands for the neutrino
pseudo-field), and the angular momentum of ions is magnetism.
The charge field of the Earth is a real emission field of
real photons, and I
have shown it has a field strength of .009545m/s2,
or a strength .1% that of gravity. This field is already included
in Newton's equation, hidden in the mass variables and G, as I
have proved in great detail in a series of other papers. As a
vector, it is in direct opposition to gravity, being repulsive
while gravity is pseudo-attractive. This
makes Newton's equation a compound equation, and it makes his
force a summed force of two separate fields.
I must remind
my readers here that the charge field has long since gone past the
status of a wild hypothesis. Newcomers to my papers may not
realize that I have not only pulled it right out of Newton's
equation, with simple math and postulates, but I have used it to
explain the difference between the Bohr
magneton and the magnetic moment of the electron, to explain
the orbital distance
of Mercury, the lack of a magnetosphere
on Venus, and many other mysteries the standard model cannot
approach and usually cannot admit to exist.
The charge
field explains the zero-weight of the atmosphere because the
levitating force is not pressure, but bombardment. In other words,
the air is being levitated directly by the charge field, by a
bombardment of photons.
Let me explain what I mean by
“levitating force.” Current theory tries to explain the
zero-weight of the atmosphere on scales by one of two dodges. I
have already ridiculed one dodge. The other dodge is that the
lower atmosphere levitates the upper atmosphere, via air pressure.
Each level is levitated by the level below it. The lowest level of
the atmosphere is in equilibrium, being caught between the upper
levels and the surface of the Earth. The air pressure of this
lowest level pushes equally against the Earth and the upper
levels, so the net force is zero. Scales exist in this lowest
level, so they do not register a weight or force.
Again, I
did not make this up. Many or most people are satisfied with that
kind of answer, which makes one frightened for the future. Even
someone with the intelligence of David Esker is satisfied with
that kind of answer. He has not seen fit to question it. In fact,
NO ONE has questioned it, that I know of. As I have shown in my
book, hundreds of extremely transparent questions are begged in
broad daylight, and thousands of truly despicable answers are
posted to simple questions—as above with NASA—and no one ever
budges an inch. Not only does your average web surfer not blink an
eye, all the Russells and Feynmans and Godels and Hilberts and
Wiles have passed them by without a pause—too busy with fake
math to notice that the atmosphere doesn't register on a scale and
things like that.
But just stop and analyze that answer
for a moment. Gasses are hard to picture, so let us replace that
lowest level of the atmosphere by Atlas. Say we let Atlas hold up
the atmosphere. He puts one hand on the Earth and holds the
atmosphere up with the other hand. Like the gas, he would create
an equal and opposite force in each direction. And, also like the
gas, we could sum those forces. Since they are in vector
opposition, the vertical forces would sum to zero. So far so good.
But now let us put a scale under his hand on the Earth. According
to the answer above, the scale would read nothing, since the
forces have summed to zero. Do you still believe that? Do you
really think that one hand of Atlas could hold up the sky without
creating any pressure on that scale with the other hand? If you
believe it, you must also believe in the sky hook.
No, we
have a real problem here. We have a reverse Chicken Little
problem, since the standard model cannot explain why the sky is
not falling. The sky has mass, so it should have weight, but it
registers nothing on the scale. How is that possible? How can a
column of air that weighs 11 tons fail to fall or register on a
scale? Anything else that weighed 11 tons would fall and would
register on the scale. If you propose that air pressure levitates
the column of air, you must explain why that same air pressure
does not levitate an elephant. If you claim that it is because
there isn't enough air under the elephant to do the job, you imply
that more air might do the job. If we took the elephant up to an
altitude of five miles, would he be levitated then? Would he be
partially levitated?
And that brings us back to the air in
the scale. It was claimed above that the air in or under the scale
was enough to levitate the 11 ton column of air. If the air under
the scale can levitate an 11 ton column of air, why can it not
levitate a 4 ton elephant?
The fact is, the atmosphere
doesn't weigh anything, and the reason is that the forces up equal
the forces down. The force down is determined by the mass of the
gas, and the force up is determined by the charge field of the
Earth. But even the force down isn't what we think it is. Before I
show what the force up is, I must show that the force down has
been miscalculated. When you read that the column of air weighs 11
tons per square meter, you may not realize how that number was
arrived at. You may think that scientists weighed a parcel of
nitrogen/oxygen gas at sea level, then summed up, accounting for
known density losses at higher altitudes and the changing makeup
of the gas. Or you may think they used the atomic or molecular
weights of nitrogen and oxygen and so on, and summed up from that.
But that isn't how the number was achieved. The number was
achieved by assuming the pressure—as measured in a barometer—was
the weight, and then summing from there. In an
article at Suite101, Paul A. Heckert of San Diego State University
says,
The
value of the atmospheric pressure at sea level, combined with an
understanding of the physics of weight and pressure, allows us to
answer this question relatively easily...Multiplying Earth's
surface area by the atmospheric pressure at sea level gives the
total atmospheric force acting on Earth's surface. This total
force is the weight of Earth's atmosphere. Doing the math gives
the total weight of Earth's atmosphere of 1.2 E19 pounds or 5.2
E19 newtons. Dividing the weight in newtons by the acceleration
due to gravity at the Earth's surface gives the mass of Earth's
atmosphere, 5.3 E18 kg.3
You
can see that weight is calculated straight from atmospheric
pressure, as if pressure and weight were the same thing. This
means that Dr. Heckert has no real “understanding of the physics
of weight and pressure,” since he believes they are the same
thing. Despite this he has written extensively on many subjects
that concern weight, including articles for the Astronomical
Journal and the Gale
Encyclopedia of Science. Even if current
gravity models were complete and correct, you couldn't use
atmospheric pressure to stand for the weight of the atmosphere,
for the simple reason that gas pressure is not weight. As I said
before, and as everyone should know, the weight of a gas is not
determined by measuring its pressure. I have reminded you that
Newton's equation does not include a density variable, but it also
does not include a pressure variable. You cannot substitute
pressure for mass, like this
F = GMP/R2
But
that is precisely what these mainstream scientists are doing.
Heckert divides the pressure in Newtons by the acceleration of
gravity to get the mass of the atmosphere. Putting his last
sentence into math, the equation would be:
P/g = m
He
has substituted pressure for the force of gravity due to weight,
to calculate the mass of the atmosphere. But that equation is a
flagrant fudge. The substitution is outrageously illegal. If you
could substitute pressure for the force due to gravity, then the
atmosphere would have to weigh something on a normal scale, by
definition.
We simply cannot use the measured pressure to
find a weight, because the variables are independent. To find a
weight of the air, we should determine the mass by direct means.
If that is too difficult, we will have to find it from the other
direction, by discovering the force up from the charge field.
We
have two problems in that regard. I have calculated the charge
field as an acceleration, not a force. My number above is a
percentage of g,
not a force over any given surface area. Beyond that, this force
does not balance gravity in the case of solids and liquids, so it
is not clear at first why it could do so with gasses. As I said
above, my charge field can only “levitate” about .1% of an
object, relative to the solo gravity field. But to explain the
zero weight of the atmosphere, it must levitate 100% of each
molecule of gas. The force up must equal the force down.
As
a first step toward a solution, I propose that all the mass of the
atmosphere is not expressed as weight to begin with. That is, I
don't believe the force down is as large as we have been told.
Even if we correctly summed all the individual molecular masses in
the atmosphere, I don't believe that summed mass would give us the
real force down. The reason for this is that to apply Newton's
laws to a gas, in order to find the weight of the gas, the gas
must be fully contained. But the atmosphere is not contained in
this way. It is fully contained only at the bottom. At the top, it
is partially contained by the ionosphere and then the
magnetosphere. And to the sides it is partially contained by the
nature of the shell. The gas cannot escape to the side, that is,
but it can more easily be deflected to the side, since only other
gas is resisting it. There are no walls to the side. Unless the
gas is very dense, sideways freedom is nearly infinite (as a
gravitational curve). Since the atmosphere is not very dense, we
may imagine that the gas is nearly unconstrained “to the side,”
this “side” being a full 360o
no matter where in the gas you are. In this way, the
atmosphere is freer to move to the side than up and down. One
obvious side-effect of this is winds, which more often move
laterally than up and down. But molecules must also move more
easily to the side than up and down, and this must dissipate some
of the effective mass of the gas sideways. Molecules moving
laterally are not being weighed while they are moving laterally,
you see, just as birds being carried by a truck are not being
weighed while they are flying.* A gas with more lateral freedom
than vertical freedom must have less force down, even while its
mass is constant.
A critic will say, “Why not just let
all the mass dissipate by this mechanism and forget the charge
field?” Because this mechanism cannot logically dissipate all
the effective mass. To obtain a zero mass gas by this mechanism
would require a gas that was infinitely unconstrained laterally
and completely constrained vertically, and even then the weight
would only approach zero. In any real gas, the weight could not be
zero in any gravity field. If the field has any acceleration and
the gas has any mass, some of the molecules must collide with the
lower surface or with molecules below them, either of which will
create weight.
The best thing to do is to seek a total
weight of the atmosphere, as a fraction of g.
This will allow us to compare that number to the number we already
have for the charge field, .009545m/s2.
To do that, we make some simple assumptions, to see if we can
arrive at some very rough numbers. These numbers may end up
leading us in the right direction. Let us look at containment
above first. As a first step, we can propose new theory for the
ionosphere. Currently, the ionosphere is believed to be created
almost entirely by solar radiation, but the given model cannot
explain why ionization should start at about 50 km. Why is the
entire atmosphere not ionized? Why is the ionosphere held at a
distance, and, likewise, why is the magnetosphere at an even
greater distance? Regarding the first question, it is thought that
the atmosphere itself blocks radiation from coming nearer than 50
km, but there is no proof or even indication that it is capable of
doing that on its own. Regarding the second question, there is no
current theory to explain it.
Obviously, my charge field
supplies a mechanics capable of answering both questions, without
dynamos in the Earth. My charge field is a summation of the charge
fields of all the quanta in the Earth, so no dynamo is necessary.
Most of the ionization in the ionosphere is indeed due to
solar radiation, I assume, but the placement of the ionosphere is
not an accident or an outcome of solar radiation and the
atmosphere alone. The Earth's charge field drives all ions above
the non-ionized molecules, by a simple mechanism. Ions are created
at all levels of the atmosphere, including at the surface, and
these are driven up by the same process I have already explained.
But the ions have a charge field of their own.
Ions are
charged. What does that mean? It means that they are radiating
photons. Molecules do not radiate many photons, and this is
because the electrons in the shells are blocking radiation from
the nuclei. Molecules are mostly neutral, as we know, so few
photons are escaping the electron/proton exchange. But with ions,
this is not the case. I have shown that electrons also emit the
charge field, so negative ions will be creating a charge field,
not just positive ions. Both negative and positive ions are
emitting a positive, real, bombarding field of photons. Therefore,
when ions encounter the charge field of the Earth, they feel a
greater repulsion than molecules, and must go higher in the
atmosphere. This is why the ionosphere exists above the
non-ionosphere. The charge field of the Earth both seeds and
limits the ionosphere.
So, although lots of molecules
exist above 50 km, we may say that the molecular gas, as a hole,
has a sort of boundary at around 50 km. Because the charge field
pushes the ions above the non-ions, we may turn the equation
around and say that the charge field pulls the non-ions below the
ions. The charge field sets a semi-porous limit at around 50 km.
This is confirmed by statistics, which show that a large
percentage of the atmosphere— >95% —is below 50 km. Indeed,
¾ of the atmosphere is below 11 km.4
That
gives us the upper “wall” of our container. What about side
walls? Well, we can find those, too, using the diagram
below.
If
r is the radius of
the Earth, and a is
the radius of the atmosphere at 50 km, then we can find the third
leg of the right triangle very easily. It is 800 km, and we double
it to find the full width: 1600 km. This means that the atmosphere
has 32 times {1600/50} more lateral freedom than vertical freedom.
But that is only in one plane. If we make our diagram three
dimensional, we must square the lateral freedom, giving us 322.
If we assume this allows the gas to express only 1/322
of its weight, then we find a downward field of about
.009550 m/s2 {9.78/322}.
Remember that the upward field is .009545 m/s2.
The two numbers nearly match already, which I would call
astonishing. To make them match exactly, it may be that all we
need to do is change our upper limit for the atmosphere. We chose
50 km based on statistics, but that number is just a rough
estimate.
You can now see that physicists have long ignored
a very simple explanation for the lack of weight of the
atmosphere. With one clear diagram and a single line of math, I
have shown that the atmosphere would be expected to express only
1/1024 of its mass as weight. This math gives us a number which
matches nearly exactly a number I have had for years for the
strength of the charge field. If that doesn't turns some
physicists heads, then they don't have necks.
Conclusion:
I have shown that the charge field is capable of keeping the sky
from falling, by balancing the effective weight of the atmosphere.
We no longer need to hide the fact that the atmosphere does not
register on scales, since we have a simple mechanical explanation.
We do not need to tell children (and meteorologists) that the
human body is full of air, or that we are supporting one ton
columns of air on our heads, like pillars of marble.
But
if atmospheric pressure is not caused by the weight of the air
above, what causes the greater pressure at lower altitudes? Once
again, the answer is nearly self-evident, although modern
scientists have found a way to miss it. We have more pressure near
the surface of the Earth simply because the air is denser there.
Pressure is directly proportional to density, as we can see from
the ideal gas equation PV = nRT. If we hold temperature and volume
steady, and raise the variable n—which stands for amount of
substance (and which is basically mass)—then we must raise the
variable P. We could rewrite the equation as P = (n/V)RT, and then
let n/V be the density. Which gives us P = DRT. If you increase D,
you increase P. The atmosphere is denser near the surface because
it is emitted by
the surface. Your exhaled breath is denser near your head than six
feet away. It is that simple. The Earth creates its own
atmosphere. Did you think the atmosphere was captured from space,
from passing black holes? No, the oxygen and nitrogen are both
"exhaled" by the Earth itself.
Of course, even
this obvious statement is controversial, in this age of illogic.
According to NASA, the nitrogen in the atmosphere comes from comet
bombardments 4 billion years ago.5
Once again, I am not making this up. You can't make
things like this up, without brain damage. It is already accepted
that atmospheric oxygen is exhaled by plants and by the oceans, so
my density argument is already proved concerning oxygen. But why
should we think that atmospheric nitrogen arrived
extra-terrestrially? Simply because we can't explain it by known
processes. We think we know everything about denitrification, so
we start grasping at comets. But it is clear that our
understanding of denitrification must be incomplete. I am not an
expert on this subject, but I would suggest that the nitrogen
cycle, like many other cycles, is imperfectly understood. We are
told that the cycle begins with nitrogen in the atmosphere, but
there is no evidence of this. It is simply an assumption. A better
assumption, I would say, is that the cycle begins in the Earth,
and that the Earth had a store of nitrogen to begin with. The
atmosphere does not seed the soil, the soil and oceans seed the
atmosphere.
Now, the Earth's nitrogen may have been seeded
extra-terrestrially, by comets or otherwise. In fact, everything
in and on the Earth originally came from space, since a planet is
born from the galaxy like everything else. But the atmosphere
cannot have been primary. Wherever the nitrogen came from, it had
to be deposited first in the crust. Only then, by some process of
denitrification, could it enter the atmosphere. Like the oxygen,
it must have been exhaled. If current levels of ammonium and of
autotrophic and heterotrophic bacteria (and other nitrobacters)
cannot explain atmospheric nitrogen levels, then either the models
are wrong or we had more bacteria in the past. Logically, the
crust must contain enough nitrogen to continue to seed the
atmosphere, else the levels in the atmosphere would be dropping.
If you have a cycle like this, and one part of the cycle is
nutrient poor and the other part is nutrient rich, the nutrient
(nitrogen) will move from rich to poor, to create balance.
Nitrogen would be moving from atmosphere to soil. We don't see
this, and we have never seen this. Nitrogen levels in the
atmosphere are not dropping, despite the 4 billion years since
that proposed cometary seeding, and they have never dropped. If
the comet had seeded the atmophere directly, with molecular
nitrogen, and if the Earth's crust had been nitrogen poor, the
crust would have soaked up the nitrogen. It didn't, and still
hasn't, so the model must be wrong. The crust has always been rich
enough in nitrogen to support atmospheric levels. In fact, levels
of nitrogen now are thought to be higher than in the past. Early
atmospheric models show either high levels of carbon dioxide or
hydrogen, in totals above the current 20% of oxygen. Recent models
(from 2005) indicate as much as 40% hydrogen.6
If nitrogen levels have risen 18% since, then the
cometary model must be wrong. We would require cometary seeding
since that time. In fact, we would require a nearly constant
cometary seeding, to keep the nitrogen poor crust from soaking up
all the nitrogen. It is much more logical to propose that the
crust seeds the atmosphere than the reverse. If the nitrogen in
the atmosphere is exhaled from the Earth during the nitrogen
cycle, then we would expect denser gas levels near the surface,
which is what we see.
I have also recently used the charge
field to show why hot
air rises—up to now, that question, like this one, has
existed with a huge hole in its answer.
You may now link
to a mainstream experiment which provides proof of a rising
charge field like I use in this paper. In early 2017, the
University of Chicago published a paper in a mainstream journal
showing levitation in an evacuated chamber using only a heat
gradient. However, the levitation only
occurred when the heat gradient was exactly aligned
to vertical. Even one degree of variation diminished the
levitation greatly. Although the authors of course made no link to
charge or any field of the Earth, it is easy for my readers to see
the experiment as simple proof of a rising charge field emitted by
the Earth. It also proves that heat is composed of real photons
with real mass and
radius.
1http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/air_pressure/index.html
2http://dinosaurtheory.com/thick_atmosphere.html
3http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/weight_of_earths_atmosphere
4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_atmosphere
5http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11271.html
6http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348
*Yes,
the birds would actually create downward forces by flapping, but
molecules do not fly by flapping. Besides, the birds-in-a-truck
problem is not properly posed. The truck needs to be very very
large, so that the birds can SOAR. Soaring birds would not add to
the weight of the truck, since they are being supported by the
air, not the truck. Some will say that the truck must support the
air, but I have disproved that in this paper. A column of air 62
miles high weighs nothing on a scale, so a little air in a truck
also weighs nothing, with a bird in it or not. The truck is not
supporting the air, the charge field is supporting the air, which
means the bird is also being supported by the charge field. Does
an airplane flying over register on a scale? No. Mythbusters
should install a scale on a runway, as easy proof of this. Soaring
birds are weightless: that's why they are soaring!
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.