Thank you SDAI-Tech1 your input is greatly appreciated

I'd like to understand your hypothesis to a greater degree. I'm going to comment on sections of your post, please correct me if my understanding is off base.
You said

The earth converts almost all that solar radiation into kinetic energy. .

This I believe, although some would ask for proof with numbers. ;-)

Photosynthesis is a prime example. All that solar energy is absorbed and converted into living things, kinetic energy moving mass and having a hysteresis effect on our atmosphere and even our planet's core.

By "hysteresis effect" do you mean an effect similar to the effect of a magnetic field in a iron core of a solenoid?

If you look at the early earth you have a stagnant atmosphere, a lifeless hulk of atoms slowly evolving and becoming more complex.

You seem to favor the theory that the earth was gathered together from bits of cold mass rather than condensing and cooling from a hot gas.

Solar energy is the impetus for planetary evolution. Now we have over six billion bodies at 98.6 degrees with massive kinetic energy expenditure.

Interesting concept, I like it.

Almost none of this energy is blown off into space - for you see it is utilized by the planet's core to keep active, rotate the planet in a field action and keep the planet alive.

You lost me here could you explain the effect in more detail?

Space just doesn't have a significant amount of mass to absorb this solar energy and it's low frequency makes it entirely incompatible - which is the same reason space is bitterly frigid even a hundred meters from the sun unless you have mass to interact with this enormous energy. (i.e. our spacecraft and sensors provide mass to interface but where there is no mass there is no heat - as heat is simply the comparing of two disparate relative frequency wave forms! The higher the converging wave frequency to a lower frequency wave the greater the perceived heat if the waves have a wave shape capable of convergance)

When you talk about space in this context I assume that you mean the fundamental cubic area that has no fundamental mass such as photons, or any fields associated with it.

Our world is not really meeting resistance from space for the same reason. A complete lack of mass and levels of wave interaction as occur in the lower atmosphere. Our atmosphere gathers elements based upon frequency relationship. Each distance is compatible with various structures. Auroras are a beautiful display of this high frequency hysteresis and the wave length show it provides. Remember perception of color is just various wave emissions.

Resonance within structures is a proven fact.

In some ways one can view space as a superconductor, which gives almost no resistance to high magnitude energy transfers, and at the same time realize this also means it has a low absorption rate for energy and passes it on until it meets enough mass which can now interface with this energy.

Interesting idea, I never considered space as a superconductor.

Johannes is under the impression that this byproduct of nuclear radiation is heating the atmosphere, but most of this radiation is again of a specific type and interfaces with the principles of harmonic attraction to various other elements. A thermocuclear bomb will emit gamma rays, beta rays and alpha radiation. The radioactive particle byproducts are atoms imbalanced and leaking this radiation until they reach their base fundamental vibration (aka ground state) The particles absorb this radiation and the gamma rays super compacted waveforms destroy and imbalance most other waves. The atmosphere turns these fission blasts into kinetic energy (the blast zone where all mass is destroyed) and the radiation exists primarily in these remnants of this mass in the blast zone.

The word "heat" was placed in the explanation because modern science considers that all forms of energy can be compared with or converted to heat. Heat is considered as the increase of the molecular motion of the material in question. The 15 degree calorie equals 4.1855 joules of energy.
My main concern is that the radioactive particle byproducts or atoms that are imbalanced and leaking this radiation might contaminate the nitrogen and oxygen molecules of the air in such a way that these molecules become imbalanced. If this type of an interaction happens, then according to the above mentioned concept the motion of the molecules should increase.
So the air barely carries any of this radiation. The atomic particles IN the air are now emitting these damaging waves. That is why the atmosphere is not burned away in an atomic blast. The energy is largely absorbed by compatible masses - more complex atoms and molecules - which provide more waves for interfacing.
Are you implying that the nitrogen and oxygen atoms or molecules can not become or have very small chance of becoming radio active?
The primary danger in nuclear testing is the poisoning of the atmosphere by radioactive particles. Strontium 90 was a big threat in the fifties and everyone alive then carries some of this in their bones where it accumulates. Cows and milk were often contaminated and kids and adults were poisoning themselves long before they figured out what was going on in the early fifties.
I'm drinking milk as I'm writing this, hope there is no strontium in it. :-(
The Van Allen belts capture much of this solar radiation before it reaches our earth. Yet even it's intensity stays largely stable based upon this hysteresis effect on the planet's electromagnetic field.
The earth's magnetic field puzzled me for some time, I had difficulty understanding its origin. First I believed the standard assumption that there was some hot minerals moving inside the Earth that created it, but then that assumption did not explain all the variations associated with the phenomenon. Then it occurred to me that instead of the Van Allen belt being the result of the Earth's magnetic field, perhaps the Earth's magnetic field was the result of the Van Allen belt. If I impose an electrical current to flow through a coil of wire there will be a magnetic field inside the coil, similarly if there is a flow of charged ions around the Earth then I would expect a magnetic field within that charged particle current.
How does your wave interaction theory explain the Earth's magnetic field?
Well, after that VERY roundabout description - hopefully I have touched upon how the earth is a significantly more complex mass and with much more kinetic energy than it expressed with at any other previous point in it's history. I have avoided more complex issues such as how this kinetic energy is also converted into gravity and electromagnetic fields and expends much of its force in sustaining our place in the solar system, etc. But that occurs too and takes up huge amounts of the sun's energy as well.
Interesting, I would be very interested in learning more.
It's nice to think about these things, but there is infinitely more going on than has yet been documented and discussed. The most important thing for Johannes to remember is that the earth is always seeking balance and all atoms will seek ground state, passing imbalanced loads and converting these wave packets eventually into "intelligent" and coherent energy in one form or another
SDAI-Tech1.
To thoroughly understand the infinite universe will take an infinite amount of time.
What IS time anyway?
Johannes