Diehold Foundation claims

[Nat]

Greetings,
I watched the first 5 minutes of What is Going to Happen during the Polar Reversal sent to me by my doctor brother and need encouragement to continue. Doug claims that by 2046, a 12,000 to 15,000 year cycle will reversal the magnetic forcefield causing another ice age which will be devastating.

These are the problems I have:
1) The scientific and theological evidence I’m familiar with indicate there has only ever been one ice age, which advanced and retreated during its existence. Evolutionists have no explanation for any ice ages at all. What evidence indicates more than one?
2) The scientific evidence I’m familiar with indicates magnetic reversals are frequent and quick but don’t interfere with the exponential decrease in the strength of the magnetic force field which could not have existed more than 10,000 years ago. A dynamo within the earth is hypothesized without any evidence at all, unless you have some I’m not aware of.
3) Doug noted that there were major differences between evolutionary text books and between evolutionary articles which he researched. Yet he ignored a whole field of creationist research which more closely aligns with the scientific evidence. Search for Ice Age or Magnetic Force Field at AnswersInGenesis.org, ICR.org, or Creation.com. To discount this research without at least checking it out and then disproving it is unprofessional.
4) Doug claims, “In 1997, I found the real Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert and all the altars. I was the first person to discover Mose’s Mt. Sinai.” However, it is easy to prove that Ron Wyatt found Mount Sinai (Jebel el Lawz) in 1984. David Fasold was with him when he returned to the site in 1985. Mr. Cornuke and Mr. Williams found it again in 1988 by following the written instructions of Mr. Fasold.

Your thoughts?

 

[Voyageur]

Nat, hello, and welcome to the forum.

You touch on a field of study, multifaceted as that may be - have your searched the forum?

A dynamo within the earth is hypothesized without any evidence at all, unless you have some I’m not aware of.

Someone may come along to adress, however, Pierre Lescaudron, who also writes on SOTT.net, looks into the Stator type influences and magnetic exchanges between sun and planets in a number of books - see here.

This session might, if not seen prior, look into some properties:

Q: (A) What would be - if any - the role played by electric phenomena?
A: Twin sun grounds current flow through entire system setting the "motor" running.
Q: (L) Does this mean that all of the different bodies of the solar system are like parts of some kind of giant machine, and once this electric current flows through them, depending on their positions relative to one another at the time this current flows, that it has some influence on the way the machine runs?
A: Yes, more or less.
Q: (A) I want to ask about this magnetic pole reversal. It's the current theory or understanding of magnetic field of planets in terms of dynamo mechanism, where there is a liquid metal - iron - which is hot - there are convective currents, and there is self-excitation through magnetic field. That's the present model. They were able to model this magnetic pole reversal using this kind of magneto-hydro-dynamics. Is this model essentially correct?
A: Only partly.
Q: (A) What is the main thing that is important, and that is lacking from this model?
A: Crystalline ammonia core.
Q: (A) Everybody thinks that the core is a crystal iron; that's the present thinking. Say it's an ammonia core: is an ammonia core in all planets with magnetic fields? Is this so?
A: From this perspective, no but from the perspective of organic life, yes.
Q: (A) When we speak about crystalline ammonia, do you mean a new kind of crystalline ammonia that is not yet known on Earth to our scientists?
A: More or less.
Q: (L) I think we need to find out something about this crystalline ammonia. (A) What would make it go into the very core? (L) I don't know. We don't know enough about it to even know how to frame a question. I know we thought it was crazy when they were talking about Jupiter and the ammonia, and then of course all this ammonia shows up on Jupiter. And I remember them saying something about this at the time, but I don't think we ever followed up on it because I thought it was even to crazy to think about. Maybe we need to find out something about ammonia, crystalline ammonia. (A) Is there a mini black hole in the center of the Earth?
A: No.
Q: (L) I remember when I was a kid - this is a funny thing - we got this kind of chemistry experiment. You put these chemicals together and it grew crystals. I think ammonia was part of it. I think you had to use ammonia to grow crystals. (A) Okay, now this crystalline ammonia core inside the Earth, can we have idea how big it is, what radius?
A: 300 km.
Q: (L) What is surrounding it, what is the next layer? (A) Normally people would say it's an iron crystal. What is the next layer?
A: Correct.
Q: (A) There is this ammonia - crystalline... (L) Surrounded by iron crystal. Is it crystal iron? (A) Probably at this pressure that is here, it may very well be crystal. (L) Okay, is the iron surrounding the ammonia, is it crystalline?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What's the next layer?
A: Molten iron.
Q: (A) Okay, now we know that some planets have this crystalline ammonia, and some do not. When we consider planets that have this crystal ammonia inside, how did it get there? Was it a kernel first around which the planet was formed, or first the planet was formed and then during some processes the ammonia sank and crystallized inside? I would like to know how it got there?
A: It is the natural formation process for ammonia to accrete iron from supernovae.
Q: (L) I read somewhere - about supernovae - that the only reason we have iron is because it's produced in supernovas. That would mean that our solar system is formed from a supernova, right? In which case what blew up and when? (A) I understand that this crystalline ammonia core - 300 km radius - must have certain magnetic properties which are important. Because it was mentioned that it was lacking in dynamo theory or certain very important properties concerning heat convection. So there are these two main things in dynamo theory - conductivity and electric properties - on the other hand heat convection properties. Why is this ammonia important for the magnetic field because of what properties?
A: Super conducting.
Q: (A) According to what we know it's very hot inside the earth because of the pressure. Now, is this ammonia also hot, as much as iron?
A: Grows alternately cold and hot.
Q: (A) Is it super conducting even if when it is very hot?
A: No.
Q: (A) When it gets cold, how cold does it get?
A: 55 degrees below absolute zero.
Q: (L) What is absolute zero? (A) That is something you can't get below. That's why it's called absolute zero. It's a new thermo-dynamics. (L) How often does it alternate?
A: Close to hour long periods.
Q: (L) So when it gets so cold and becomes super conducting, the act of super-conducting is what heats it up? Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well once it heats up, how does it then get cold again?
A: It stops conducting.
Q: (L) What is it conducting? When something is super conducting what does it conduct?
A: Electrons.
Q: (A) The point is, you see, that when something is super conducting it offers no resistance. Which means that the current it flows through it, is not heating it. Well we learned that it gets hot because it's super conductive, right? Which is somewhat contradictory because when it is super-conducting there's no reason for it to be hot except it can become hot because there is the hot external shell of iron. So that is very likely why it would become hot. Because by the very definition of super conductivity you don't become hot when you conduct, see? Well, if there are big, very big currents, then okay, they can stop super conductivity, then it gets warm.
A: Currents of this nature set the surrounding iron to vibrating which produces heat, not heat produced by the current.
Q: (A) Now, I want to go back to this 55 degree below absolute zero. And here I would like to have a confirmation of this 55 degree below zero. Because. according to the current knowledge of physics, the absolute zero was set by definition, as the temperature on the scale, according to the science of thermo-dynamics, which is - so to say - nothing moves so you cannot go below this temperature. If you say 55 degrees below zero it means we have to redo physics and redo thermo-dynamics.
A: You have entered a different realm.
Cont...

Being this is your first post, Nat, it is customary to provide an introduction with what you are comfortable with so people can get to know you a bit and assist you if need be. You can post an introduction in this section.