Gary, if electric forces prevent asteroids and planets from colliding with each other, then how do little meteorites manage to penetrate the field and hit the Earth? Have you done any calculations to prove your point? How strong would an electric field have to be to stop a high-velocity asteroid from colliding with Earth? Let's say we have one a km in diameter and another one 100 km in diameter. I'll ask Charles if he has a calculation for that too. Here are some of Charles' counter-arguments to TB EU theories.GaryN: I don't believe any large objects have ever hit the Earth or any other planet or moon or asteroid, Coulombs laws will not allow it. If not deflected by repulsive forces, they will ablate, (where there is an atmosphere), discharge and explode before they can ever make physical contact.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 120#p76229
LK: Other TPODs propose that most impact craters are formed from similar megalightning, rather than from bolide impacts. Do you think the craters are likely formed by lightning or bolide impacts?
CC: I think that all of the perfectly circular craters are formed by thermonuclear explosions. The instantaneous temperatures and pressures in the impact of a rock even only a couple of meters across, but traveling at 70 km/s, will be sufficient for nuclear fusion. The craters are circular, instead of oblong, because they were caused by the relativistic ejecta from the fusion event, not the trajectory of the impacter. And there is nothing to be found of the meteor because it was all reduced to plasma by the explosion.
LK: Have you read any of the TPODs about the Tunguska event of 1908? They say a meteor from one of the major meteor streams caused the Tunguska event, that it had a different electrical voltage than that of the Earth's surface, which produced a megalightning bolt, which pulverized the meteor in the air and impacted the ground in Siberia, knocking down trees etc, and causing electrical effects, but not forming a crater.
CC: Meteors that explode in the air are more difficult to explain, but I don't think that megalightning is the answer. A meteor will certainly be charged, having passed through the ionosphere, which is positively charged. But any net charge is always around the outside of an object, due to electrostatic repulsion. Discharging the potential might char the surface, but it isn't going to blow the thing apart. If you want an electrical explosion, the current has to pass through the center, like a transformer blowing up when struck by lightning, because the wires lead through the center. in a monolithic charged body, this shouldn't be possible.
[In his Airbursts paper he later explained that microfractures could provide an electric current path through a meteor's center to cause explosion in the air.]
viewtopic.php?p=102034&sid=83e9ccce2f0b ... fb#p102021
LK: Thornhill said electric discharge machining removed material from the northern and deposited it in the southern.
CC: Machining a flat surface takes very tightly controlled discharges. For this to happen in nature would be simply amazing.
Filaments Paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482
... The Universe is actually full of filaments of various sizes and shapes.4,5 Both gravity and hydrostatic pressure object to this form, leaving only EM as the driving force. Some EM theorists have generalized the concept of Birkeland currents to explain the prevalence of filaments, but without establishing the electromotive forces at play, and without demonstrating that the currents would require material filaments. An electric current actually prefers a vacuum,6 and would evacuate the material in a filament by ohmic heating. So electric currents neither prefer filaments, nor cause them. Rather, the filaments are caused by their electrostatic properties.
... Then we just have to look for things that would encourage filaments to form, and then the rest happens automatically. This is expected in the collision of two gas clouds — the friction will be relaxed if they resolve into jets that tunnel through the opposing clouds. As they do, they'll stretch the Debye sheaths into comas, as in Figure 4, establishing a linear body force. So hydrodynamic jets produce electrostatic filaments.
EU Plasma Ball Model Intractable Problem
viewtopic.php?%20f=3&t=15624&sid=4ee5a2 ... 30#p104389
I can see differences between the Sun and a plasma ball. Most notably, a plasma ball sports a finite number of arc discharges, with distinct foot-points, on the central electrode and on the surrounding shell, whereas in the heliosphere, we don't see such arc discharges between the Sun and the heliopause, terminating at bright foot-points. SAFIRE demonstrated that if you turn down the voltage, the arc discharges through the "atmosphere" go away, and you can be left with just a finite number of glow discharges on the surface of the central electrode (known as anode or cathode "spots"), which they asserted were statistically similar to granules. (?) But they didn't succeed in getting tightly-grouped anode spots -- the currents prefer consolidation, due to the magnetic pinch effect, and due to thermionic emissions in the increased temperatures at the spots. These factors create a fundamental instability that results in an all-or-nothing condition across the surface of the electrode. So all of the current flows through the spots, and there is a finite number of them, and they refuse to be bunched together. SAFIRE has not figured out a way around this, and it's quite possible that there just isn't a way around it. This fundamental instability traces back to distinct steps in the resistance as the current crosses the threshold from a dark to a glow discharge, and from a glow to an arc discharge. If a greater current density results in less resistance, you get even more current, and even less resistance, resulting in all of the current flowing through that one discrete channel. If it were not for this, EM would behave very differently. So rather than a plasma ball supporting the EU model of the Sun, it actually reveals intractable problems with it.
Flaws in Scott's Electric Sun
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =75#p81167
So if C-D is +ions exerting electric force on A-B, due to the repulsion of like charges, A-B is exerting the same force back on C-D. But if C-D has a force that is pushing it away from the Sun, what is going to keep it from getting sent out with the solar wind? It isn't gravity, which is no match for the electric force. It isn't the negative charge in D-E, because that is pulling outward also. C-D-E can be thought of as a self-contained unit that could slide in or out, limited only by its inertia, and ever so slightly by gravity. But with the electrostatic repulsion between A-B and C-D, only an equal force pushing back in would hold it in place, resulting in the back-up of potential behind the "barrier". In other words, what holds back the water behind the dam? The internal strength of the dam. What if the dam can freely slide down the riverbed? Then the force of the water pushes the dam down the river, and effectively speaking, the dam might as well not be there.