A wild frenzy went up amongst scientists when Alfred Wegener stated his theory of continental drift.  He was a meteorologist and came forth with proof showing how the continents fit together and fossils of same-types in now separated continents.  Scientists argued he was not a real geologist, did not know what he was talking about because he could not explain the mechanism how the continents moved.  In the 1950's the mid Atlantic ridge was discovered proving Wegener but reassessed and changed into what is now known as Plate Tectonics.
Darwin, who failed math, failed medical school and theology school finally was given a job thanks to his father-in-law as a naturalist.  On Galapagos Islands he noticed a variety of fossils but similarities to other species.  He wrote several books describing his theory of evolution. Another scientist, while suffering delusions from a malarial fever, wrote the same theory, but with greater detail.  The two met, but it was decide that Darwin would receive all the credit.  Biologists today admit his theory goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics but state that under the curriculum accepted by Universities they have to teach the Theory anyways.  A physicisist argued that the 2nd law of thermodynamics when applied to the theory of evolution was debunked because it just showed what occurs due to the radiation and heat of solar rays.  He suggested that at the time electric bolts were flashing through methane gases and primordial goop that the solar rays had no effect on the results.  They have tried to copy this but only came up with 17 amino acids (it takes 21 to make a complete protein) and then it immediately fell apart, being too unstable. 
Scientists argue that the effects of man on the Earth are too insignificant and would not make any difference on Plate Tectonics, Volcanic Eruptions, or Earthquake.  This was a geologists.  Then in the very next sentence he describes how in Colorado they were having earthquakes and discovered it was due to putting contaminants, trash into a fault in Colorado.  They stopped the dumping, the earthquakes subsided.
Scientist disproved the bumblebee could fly.  It went against some law (I don't know which one).  The bumble bee refused to bow under the pressure of politically inspired scientists and continued to fly.
Scientists are arguing that perpetual motion is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Yet in the same breath they send out shuttles loaded with satellites.  When they move at a particular speed at a particlular direction desired (previously calculated)  they let loose the satellite and it keeps moving that speed, that direction, not by any motor, or fire, or propulsion, until finally gravitational forces bring it down.  Where is the change from a hotter environment to a colder environment in that?  I'm still trying to figure this one out.  I suppose maybe one guy was right and really they are just Hollywood devised movies like Star Wars and the satellites aren't really out there and the World is flat, tomatoes will kill you if you eat them because 100% people who eat them die from car wrecks, strokes, heart attacks, murder, accidents, etc.  Heaviside component of energy is black voodoo energy and if a black cat crosses your path you'll have bad luck! 
Energy cannot be created, it is the 4th state of matter, but scientists are apparently speaking out of two sides of the mouth when they say it can't be destroyed.  If it can't be destroyed, then you should be able to recapture it, recycle it, thus use it over and over and over by regenerating your battery with it.  You should be able to capture energy while your driving from the circular movement of your wheels or even turbines set up to capture the wind you face while you move and resend the energy harnessed back to your battery or generator.  Why is this impossible and we are all called a bunch of crackpots saying we just broke the 2nd law of thermodynamics when we suggest this?

@GeoscienceStudent:

Whats your take on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&NR=1

My knowledge of Physics is Zero because when you take Geoscience they have you take biology or chemistry and in biology we learned useless confusing theories and chemistry we made Aspirin.

I found that only quantum physics can be used to describe geophysics though and the current manner they teach us is by theories or simplified explanations along with some equations to figure out carbon dating or the level of loss of heat and humidity at which we would have rain, So I'm pretty stumped.  I think 2nd law of thermodynamics applies but there are some issues that maybe we don't understand yet that can work to extend the energy capability.  Bear with me a moment.  I'm not all knowing.

The Earth has an electromagnetic field that comes from the inside due to convection of magma.  Also the outer core is molten nickle and iron, but inner core is solid.  Since heat and pressure are supposed to be proportionate, I don't know why the inner  core is solid and also, the asthenosphere, the lower third of the mantle is solid.  They decided these due to seismic data obtained.  Now this convection would have heat.  I am wondering if some areas are colder?  Would there be any layers of say, zpe?  This would apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics of heat to cold, energy obtained within to create the dipole electromagnetic field.  Then it has a second electromagnetic field that maintains the first called the Dynamo effect.  There is a law of Lorentz at play here, but I don't understand it.  These fields cause the earth to spin, and protects us from some harmful solar particles, that now I am under the impression that maybe is involved with electrons that can be particles or waves, according to Quantum physics.  The corialis effect along with the electromagnetic field gives the Earth a magnetic quality that is noted in plate tectonics.  Take out your compass.  Notice it points north.  Go to the internet and look up declination.  Look at the map or put in you zip or latitude and longitude.  Check the variance.  If you have # west then you subtract that number.   # east add it to your magnetic compass reading.  That is your true magnetic North.  Amelia Earhart was off course very close to the magnetic declination at that time when she crashed.


Now question:  Would this work in theory applying physics (All you engineers and physics people)
If you recreated a motor that caused some convection within, like water or something, used the energy to recreate a dipole electromagnetic field, Figure out how to make a second electromagnetic field to apply the Dynamo effect to sustain your first field, harness energy to drive your car, attach something to use the motion of your wheels spinning or cath the wind to turn some turbine to harness more energy, send back the energy harnessed to the motor to cause the convection to provide the heat...?  would that work?  What is missing?

Second question:
I noticed when I put the magnets on the negative side of the battery, and the wire attached to the top of the battery, then down along both sides of the battery, it turns clockwise.  I turned the magnets over.  The wire turns counter clockwise.  If the Earth switches its poles, which some studies coming out from University of Utah states that we may be seeing this in our children's or grandchildren's time, Would the Earth stop, the spin the opposite direction?  Or would the second electromagnetic field keep it going the same way.  Definitely the polar dirctions of the plates change N-S-N-S..and so on?

Any one know?

You see, the problem with electrons are they have mass. But electrons don't actualy orbit, they chaoticaly form a electron cloud thats in constant motion. This means that atoms would have momentum at absolute zero. If atoms still have momentum at absolute zero, and they are at rest, then wouldn't that mean force is being created for no reason? "No No No, because this equation, bla bla bla." Have you actualy proved this with real experiments? "Well, no..." I rest my case.

These are the problems that I have, but some people just agree with the math. But the problem with all math is that when you get deep into a problem, every step you left behind better be right, or you got the entire problem wrong. See what I'm saying? No matter what, we must still have faith, even in science, the most logical of subjects.

@GeoscienceStudent:

Whats your take on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&NR=1

Exactly what I was going to post! Nice! 

The expanding Earth theory makes sense... period.  Look up the archeological records for giant species in the past... Giant dragonflies (> 1 ft) couldn't fly in today's gravitational field on Earth. 
http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html

Neal does an excellent job backing up his theory too.  Not just on Earth, but on almost every planet in the solar system we have images of.  Check it out... Neal Adams
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Peace,
Will

I agree that you should prove out something before accepting it and too many times I see theories as status quo, while admitting it's not proven but it's the curriculum anyways. 
As far as Heiseburg, this could be when dealing perhaps with Probability Math often used in calculations for proving theories and predictions based on uniformitarianism?  I have a problem with probability math, and believe me, I had to take the whole shebang and math courses to learn it and the more I know, the more I distrust it.  What is the probability that a tornado picks up various sand, minerals, and item, forms a perfect working 747, sets it down again, with self thinking mind?  Greater than the probability of an electric bolt hitting primordial goop, turning it into 21 amino acids and creating life that "accidentally" gets mutations out of nowhere, (even though there has been testing showing a relationship of foreign RNA proteins causing DNA replication causing mutations, that some can be passed down generation to generation, but that goes against the theory) then it changes and Oh by chance the environment changes so only the fish with capability of breathing outside of water survives.  Yet we accept the theory without definite proof.  It would happen over 4.6 billion years?  Well let's speed it up and purposefully hit that there goop with electric.  Now why are we just getting ashes and gases?  They managed 17 amino acids that fell apart again last I heard.  I'm still not convinced.  So then they say the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't apply.  Well where did the electric bolt come from then?  I'm a bit confused.
When trying to predict earthquakes exact momentum and position seems to be off on the predictions, then Heiseburg sounds likes he's on to something.  But then, there are some things that just seem to be absolute.  Maybe if we just throw the math of probability out...just joking.  I don't understand it all.

Classic physics,  Quantum theory agrees with you because geophysics, chemistry, and space all need quantum physics to be explained.  It's just to complicated for classic.
I like your analogy of the scientist and farmer.  I have seen geologists arguing with biologists about global warming.  Thing is, both were right, both were wrong, because they kept looking at it from only one point of view instead of looking at the big picture.  Here is another analogy
Patient has a stroke.  His B/P is 160/80.  The neurologist writes order:  Keep systolic B/P 160-180.
Nurse who does not know critical care sees B/P:  160/80.  Family sees B/P 160/80.  They think, norm for systolic is 90-140.  What do you think happens.  See thing is, when dealing with neurology, you have to move off the norm for cardiology. When you have a stroke or brain damage, we purposefully keep up the B/P to help tissue perfusion to encourage healing and prevent residual.  But someone with critical care knowledge would not know this.  That's why they argue.  They just don't know what it is that they don't know.
It's ok with me to rant.  I started it so it's my fault.  "pat pat"
We are all just learning, and when we think we know it all, we stop learning.  If we are not allowed to see all the options, whether right or wrong, whether good or bad, then how can we possible make and informed decision?  This would not be freedom to think for ourselves to come to our own conclusions.
Imagine a surgeon coming to you,,says "you have to have your kidneys removed."
You ask  "why?"
He says  "because I'm the expert and that's the way it is."
You ask  "what's my other options?"
He says " You all always show scepticism when we try to give you the answers without understanding."
You ask " what are the adverse action because of this?"
He says  "You just have to trust in my science.  I know what I'm doing."

Can you imagine?  Yet governments do this all the time.  With knowledge and decisions on science, and if a scientist disagrees or says "wait just one minute before you do something drastic, what's the adverse reaction if we raise the biofuel production on world hunger?"
Then the politicians say,  "They don't believe Global Warming is real."
Scientist tries to say.."It's not that there is no warming, but it's more complicated than just reducing emissions."
Politicians then jump on a band wagon and suggest blowing sulfuric acid into the atmosphere.

WHAT?
"Oh, it's not harmful."
"Then let me see you drink it."
"Oh now, you're not a scientist, don't argue with us."

Without an open mind you will not be able to see the big picture.  I'm trying to be open minded, I have learned alot and things brought up have lead me to look up things, then ask more questions.  I get challenged and something else is brought up, then I go look that up, learn something else, ask more questions.  Maybe all this will make some order of sense eventually.

Question:  If you have two electromagnetic fields (Dynamo effect) and one switches poles, would that not force the other to also switch poles, thus causing rotation to continue to spin same direction?  If you have only one field and switch poles, I get change of rotation, but the Earth has two and I can't imagine it changing rotation, or what would be the result of it, seems too bizarre, but would not the outside and inside field both have to switch?  because you would have two of the same magnetic direction and that would cause repellation so the other, it would seem would have to switch and so if I turned my battery, as well as my magnets, I should get the same direction of rotation.
Bear with me because I'm working on trying to understand Geophysics.  They tell the actions and why on the surface, but you don't know the laws related to it or the fundamentals of the dynamics, so now I'm trying to get a concept of that, so maybe if I can get an understanding by something I can see, I might better understand what you all are talking about based on what I cannot see.
Do you see what I'm getting at? I need examples or analogies to base all these theories and laws on related to my own field before I can understand by yours.  I don't want to sit arguing simply because I didn't bother trying to understand where you're coming from. I just don't know what you know.
But if I can grasp even a little, then maybe I'll be a little better informed on what is all the hollering about on the energy and why it's so difficult to come up with a better solution.  Two cannot walk together lest they be agreed, but you need some kind of foundation to build an agreement on or you'll never come to an agreement.  That's whats wrong with congress most the time.  They're too busy pointing fingers, trying to put each other down instead of listening and considering all the issues they are dealing with.  They jump to conclusions too when they think bio fuels is the best answer and we aught to pay oil companies monies and tax breaks to come up with more ways to create fuels more efficient and environmentally friendly, and they keep only talking about biofuels when we're having droughts and food shortages.  This just seems crazy to me.  Am I wrong?

As far as considering it "Black Energy", that would be for the same reason as
"Dark Matter".  Not existing in Standard 3D space, therefore kinda hard to work
with or measure.  There is a user with the handle of the more conventional current
and I have a feeling he could offer more insight.  Beardon offers a good theory, but
it can get very deep at his level, and that's way beyond what most would want to
know.

To put a simple definition out.  If you can imagine the energy flow down a wire.  Now
realize that the "Electron" flow that most accept is an effect of that energy flow, not
the actual cause.  (There can be many disagreements there, but for this simple
explanation, that's the easiest I can put it.)  The size of the Energy Flow is much
greater then the size of the wire.  (Think surface effect, that's why it exists.)  The
energy most of us use is the resultant electron flow / in wire potential flow.  The
"Field?" of actual energy is MUCH larger than the piddelly amount contained in the
wire.  This is where dipoles and the whole Potential energy shuttling stuff comes
from.  (To the more knowledgeable than I, please don't shoot me too badly for this
simplification.  I'm not interested in writting a paper.)  This is also the easy way
of comprehending RE  (radiant energy) as it's the 90 degree phase of the same
potential field moving the electrons.  Because of that 90 Degrees, the Mag field
from electron movement ends up 90 degrees directional.  (Phase is the wrong
word to use there, but I'm avoiding multiple dimention analysis.  KISS Rule.)

I realize that this "simple" definition has errors and will not be fully accepted by
most in the field, but to get the more proper details in their proper perspective
would take me hours, lots of typing, and major extra thought on how to put the
concept into words to get the correct idea across.  Many people still use the old
"Water through a pipe" explanation for electron flow, however, so I guess this is
close enough for a start.  As I said, there are many here who could offer a better
explanation, if they happen to read the thread and type a response.  Until then,
I hope this offers a somewhat gray idea of the concept.

You're right, it's gray.  I'm still trying to contemplate it.  Bearden had described an analogy of Heaviside potential as the wind across an ocean.  Diverged energy like what your sail catches and nondiverged what you miss.  But the problem is, since it is obviously not that simple, how do you apply something to catch nondiverged energy.  Is the radiation 90 degrees what you're saying is nondiverged energy?  I know when a pipe of water is hot and you hold your hand over it you can feel the heat.  I know when you place a metal ring near the copper wire of a motor, close enough produces a spark or attraction when its running.  It is radiating energy, or are elecrons just jumping from the diverged line and moving across to the metal?

THere are some young folks measuring the voltage of the Earth with copper and other wires, coils in the ground.  You only get like .035,  .01, .07 etc.   Someone thought they could obtain energy from the radiation off electrical wires once but it took so much energy to even use that energy to light a lightbulb, it was not effective.  The ground itself doesn't hold its heat, not really considered a good conductor, though there is magnetism in it.   That is why in the desert, where you don't have water, (that does hold heat, or cold longer)  It gets hot fast in the day, and extreme cold at night.   I don't think the idea of obtaining energy from the ground will work, however, its a neat geological experiment that could teach them about the Earth.  If they devise a plan that makes a controlled effect, and then set up the variables so the experiment's data would be more organized and make sense.  I offered to look into getting soils types for them so they'd know their soils, and their discussing what to use as a control. 
Regardless of what someone might think of such an experiment, the best way to learn and understand is to do experiments to find out what does work, and also what does not work, and then why.  Then when you work on something, and you see the wrong results, chances are you'll recognize them and know how to correct them.  My teacher in computer programming said, purposefully mess it up and fix it, so you'll know what to do if you run into problems later.  This is how I learned GIS.  And it has come into use even to assist my instructor in fixing problems.  No such thing as failure...those who never fail, never learn.  I'm wishing them luck and hope they get something out of it. (understanding)
I think it would be interesting to know where there is more voltage and where there is less, then look around to see if there are other factors as to why (petroleum feilds in area, earthquake area?) and maybe if schools design more outside experiments, kids would understand the world around them better than just sitting with the face in a book talking about impossible probabilities.
 
Beck