We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is g

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:32 am

jimmcginn wrote:
I agree that our atmosphere is, actually, a slight plasma and plasmas have higher viscosity than gas, and electricity is involved in that respect. But, no, I don't think electricity is involved as a source of the energy of storms or vortices.


Explain then if you can please, this long-lasting "River in the Sky":

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... c=eoa-iotd
seasmith
 
Posts: 2684
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:35 am

seasmith wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
I agree that our atmosphere is, actually, a slight plasma and plasmas have higher viscosity than gas, and electricity is involved in that respect. But, no, I don't think electricity is involved as a source of the energy of storms or vortices.


Explain then if you can please, this long-lasting "River in the Sky":

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... c=eoa-iotd


One step at a time. First you have to understand how the observation of a stream dictates that there is something missing; if the molecular components of the atmosphere were 100% fluid and, therefore, had no structural properties--in other words, if these molecular components were only gaseous (N2 and O2) and liquid (H2O[liquid])--then streams/rivers would not and could not form and persist in our atmosphere. Consequently the fact that streams/rivers do exist in the atmosphere indicates/proves that there must be structural properties in these molecular components.

Understanding why this conclusion follows involves a sophisticated understanding of fluid dynamics. (I'm not going to attempt to educate you on the principles of fluid dynamics. Sorry. See another of my posts on this forum where I discuss Edward Lorentz and the "missing lubrication" of the atmosphere.) However, what it comes down to is that without structural properties there is no way to isolate the stream from from the friction of gases (fluids).

And so, knowing that I was looking for non-obvious structural properties I re-examined the above mentioned components (N2, O2 and H2O). Only one thing seemed to offer any explanation at all, the surface tension of H2O. But H2O surface tension appears to be negligible. And so, I started to envision how the surface tension of H2O might be increased under certain, poorly understood, situational factors. It occurred to me that situational factors that increase the surface area of H2O might/should also increase the magnitude of H2O surface tension and, possibly, such would indicate the emergence of a plasma phase of H2O (H2O [plasma]):

Are you the kind of person that suspects an underlying complexity to our reality that nobody quite understands so everybody just pretends to understand and tacitly agrees to not call attention to each others pretenses? Me neither:
Lookout For Bill
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:41 am

MerLynn wrote:Jim, before we can understand how (plasma) energy applied to liquid water turns it to a "gaseous" state. must we not first understand what liquid water is?
in the following experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us-mmrBY9uQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfWREqlxuI

and the clinical trial done by a certified Lab...
http://www.footbathtruth.com/documents/ ... 0Water.pdf

It would appear in the present Atomic structure theory that all that is applied to the water is 'electrons'.

Yet despite the experiments being conducted to make a comparison between brands.
Just where does the food coloring or dye go?

Can "electrons' added to water in an "electrolysis apparatus" make food dyes "cease to exist"
Or would you entertain that water and electricity and even food coloring might have properties or an atomic structure not fully understood?

If so, may I have your description of how you understand the above food dye disappearance results explained by any means you deem appropriate so we can understand the true nature of Water and what happens when (Plasma) energy is applied either by fire, electricity or sunlight interacts upon said water.


Sorry, but I don't see how this is relevant to anything I'm doing.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:57 am

seasmith wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:
I agree that our atmosphere is, actually, a slight plasma and plasmas have higher viscosity than gas, and electricity is involved in that respect. But, no, I don't think electricity is involved as a source of the energy of storms or vortices.


Explain then if you can please, this long-lasting "River in the Sky":

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... c=eoa-iotd


1) Our atmosphere is a big sponge for energy. This is the result of the friction of gases.

2) Consequently there is a large amount of energy in our atmosphere. The molecules are moving very fast, 900 miles an hour. We generally refer to this energy as air pressure. Believe it or not this energy (air pressure) is the source of the energy that powers winds--but maybe not in the way you might first assume:

3) The means or mechanism by which the energy in air (air pressure) is converted to wind involves aerodynamics.

4) Aerodynamics requires a surface that can reflect energy and/or isolate a flow from the friction of gases.

5) Due to the friction of gases, streams, like jet streams, could not exist in our atmosphere unless there was some way to isolate the stream-flow from the friction of gases. Again this involves the existence of a surface that can reflect energy into a stream flow--aerodynamics.

6) At and along boundary layers between moist air and dry air, with the inclusion of energy (wind shear) a plasma phase of H2O emerges. This plasma provides the surface that reflects energy into a stream flow.

(BTW: this "plasma" is plainly observable as the "thick air" that comprises the cone/vortex of tornadoes.)

7) This plasma tends to spin around the central axis of flow producing a tubular structure (a vortex) that further isolates a stream flow (the jet streams) from the friction of gases. This isolation and the above mentioned reflection of energy into a stream flow is the reason for the high winds of the jet stream.

8) The jet stream is located at the boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere. The reason it is located here is because, as explained in #6 above, the plasma must have a boundary between moist air and dry air and that is what exist between the very dry stratosphere and the relatively moist troposphere.

9) This is not a perfect system in that eventually the moisture falls out and the structure of the jet stream breaks down, this causes winds (advection) that generally track the same direction as the jet stream. So, in a sense, the jet stream, being a leaky pipe of directed, focused energy, drags the rest of the atmosphere along. And this explains why prevailing winds are prevailing.

10) Additionally, the jet stream itself will tend to track down producing storms. Storms pull more moisture up higher (sometimes all the way up into the lower stratosphere) and this functions to re-establishes the moisture content in the upper troposphere.

11) Sometimes these, above mentioned, down tracking jet streams will encounter a moist/dry boundary layer in the lower atmosphere. This can result in the re-invigoration of a jet stream, supplying it the resource (moist/dry boundary layer) it needs to grow. And this can, sometimes, allow it to grow all the way to the ground to produce a tornado.

12) Mitigating tornadoes can be achieved by interrupting the smoothness, length and integrity of moist/dry boundary layers in the lower troposphere.

It is important to note that without the H2O-based plasma that I mentioned above jet streams (and tornadoes) couldn't possibly exist because friction of gases would prevent the conservation of energy (wind speed) that makes them possible. And since the jet streams are what powers the prevailing winds, the prevailing winds too would not exist without this H2O-based plasma. And this is all a good thing because the (usually) relatively calm weather conditions that we experience on this planet also would not exist.

The general misconception is that prevailing winds are produced by differential air pressure. As I explained above, although this is not completely mistaken in reality this type of flow is generally not able to overcome the sponge effect of the friction of gases.

For more, follow this link:
http://wp.me/p4JijN-4y

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:06 pm

jimmcginn wrote:

But, no, I don't think electricity is involved as a source of the energy of storms or vortices.
...
It is important to note that without the H2O-based plasma that I mentioned above jet streams (and tornadoes) couldn't possibly exist ...


So you have discovered a water-based plasma, that is non-electric
?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2684
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:25 pm

seasmith wrote:
jimmcginn wrote:

But, no, I don't think electricity is involved as a source of the energy of storms or vortices.
...
It is important to note that without the H2O-based plasma that I mentioned above jet streams (and tornadoes) couldn't possibly exist ...


So you have discovered a water-based plasma, that is non-electric?


Right, and I address the specifics in "Bill":
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16582#p117060

Is there any place I can go to view specifics of how your electric model of weather explains any of the following?
1) The highly focussed kinetic energy (high wind speeds) and longevity of F5 tornadoes and hurricanes?
2) The structural properties, plainly observable, of tornadoes?
3) The correlation of low pressure to storms?
4) Tornadoes having sucked up streams or ponds, carried them for miles, dropping contents of lake, including fish and frogs, in one area?
5) Anything specific whatsoever?

I'm not saying you are under any obligation to not continue to keep your own electric model of Earth's weather vague. All I'm saying is that if you do attempt to evade the implications of this shortcoming of your model I want to assure you that I will do everything I can to draw attention to this evasiveness, as I am doing here. Along those line, maybe I should mention that keeping your model vague is a tactic used by people that want to pretend like they have a deeper understanding than they actually do have.

So, Wallace Thornhill first sketched out some raw conjectures about the electric universe model of weather. And he did so way back in 2004, as I linked above. Right? But nothing has come of it. No clear, detailed hypothesis has ever emerged from this (your) model. That was thirteen years ago. Do you need more time? Can you explain this?

Don't you think it a bit absurd to suggest that the overwhelming vagueness of your electric model of weather is in any way comparable to my highly detailed and explicitly argued hypothesis?

Before you go off the deep end, Seaside, why don't you change your tone and make an honest attempt to answer the questions I listed above.

Make my day.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:45 pm

:D

See you, Jimmy
Open your head and let some light in:

http://breakthroughinenergy.com/sitefil ... gyBook.pdf
seasmith
 
Posts: 2684
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MerLynn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:54 pm

jimmcginn wrote:I agree that our atmosphere is, actually, a slight plasma and plasmas have higher viscosity than gas, and electricity is involved in that respect. But, no, I don't think electricity is involved as a source of the energy of storms or vortices.

You may think I'm being dogmatic, but actually its pivotal. There is no steam in earth's atmosphere. Consequently meteorology's notion that moist air convection powers storms is refuted.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes



Jim

Lord Kelvins "Thunderstorm" shows that falling water drops CREATE electricity.

Electricity that is not apparent or usable in any shape or form from the water until it "manifests" from 'rain' drops as its attracted to the Earth.

I'm sure you have good reason to dismiss such an electrical display of lightning from any and all "thunderstorms" as having any bearing on votexing

Do tell.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MerLynn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:10 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
MerLynn wrote:Jim, before we can understand how (plasma) energy applied to liquid water turns it to a "gaseous" state. must we not first understand what liquid water is?
in the following experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us-mmrBY9uQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bfWREqlxuI

and the clinical trial done by a certified Lab...
http://www.footbathtruth.com/documents/ ... 0Water.pdf

It would appear in the present Atomic structure theory that all that is applied to the water is 'electrons'.

Yet despite the experiments being conducted to make a comparison between brands.
Just where does the food coloring or dye go?

Can "electrons' added to water in an "electrolysis apparatus" make food dyes "cease to exist"
Or would you entertain that water and electricity and even food coloring might have properties or an atomic structure not fully understood?

If so, may I have your description of how you understand the above food dye disappearance results explained by any means you deem appropriate so we can understand the true nature of Water and what happens when (Plasma) energy is applied either by fire, electricity or sunlight interacts upon said water.


Sorry, but I don't see how this is relevant to anything I'm doing.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes



The water vapors of the atmosphere are derived from the liquid state yes?

Then would it not be prudent to understand the liquid state and ALL phenomena exhibited and clinically repeatable so that a comprehensive, all inclusive Revolutionary New Model of Water Structure (Vapors are water yes?) can be understood by forum readers?

I first began this water Structure in your other thread but you failed to engage in a theoretical analysis of your theories there so lets do it in the gaseous vapor thread.

If you can make Dye "disappear" in liquid water with "electrons" and vaporize water with 'electrons', how do you reconcile the Structure of Water and its atmospheric interactions with the Earths Magnetic Fields? You would consider they play a part wouldn't you?
Einstein said the greatest mystery of the Earth is where the Magnetism comes from. You seem to have left this aspect out in water vapor's atmospheric phenomenon. Hint.... it takes a magnet to create electricity. We are living on one. The moisture is swirling (or caused) near one
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:14 pm

I attribute the "streams" to photon flow, which is electricity.
You, Jim, appear to attribute the streams to the molecular properties of the water molecules.
A new kind of surface tension which causes moisture in the air to forms walls strong enough to reflect even high powered winds. This seems highly unlikely, to me.

Clouds are not always puffy balls. They often form streams as well, from horizon to horizon, because ions get pushed along by the electric currents. And the sum charge of the ions causes a double layer to form around the cloud and contain it.

Spiral effects are a common observance in cloudy features, because when electricity pushes ions along they develop a circular motion. They are Birkeland currents. Tornadoes are the extreme examples, because they are the result of large (high amperage) currents earthing out.

What you are saying is in effect what I was taught in school 40 years ago. I was taught cloud formation was due to warm and cold streams of air meeting. The warmer air being more moist, and the moisture condensing to rain droplets on contact with the colder air stream. I tend to disagree with this mainstream school of thought. I think the turbulence caused by meeting air streams destabilizes the double layer containing the ionosphere, which in turn causes it to discharge ions into the lower atmosphere.

Consider the atmosphere of Mars, which has very little or no water content, and yet tornadoes (called dust devils) are common.

---
I'm not here to argue with you, but to hear your ideas, and present my own ideas.

Have a great day
Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MerLynn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:16 pm

jimmcginn wrote:
Before you go off the deep end, Seaside, why don't you ............. make an honest attempt to answer the questions I listed above.

Make my day.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes


I anxiously await your responses to my questions too Jim.

Everything is relevant in the Electric Universe theory from the sub atomic to the galactic.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:26 pm

Another radical notion from me... :P

Hint.... it takes a magnet to create electricity.
Magnetism is a by product of electricity. It is the B field created by the spins of the photons in the E field.

The magnetic field of the Earth is created by the taurus of ionized particles that spins around the Earth. All the planets that have magnetic fields also have a taurus. To create a magnet we coil a current around a metal bar. The planet acts as the metal bar, the taurus is the current wrapped around it.
Paul.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MerLynn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:57 pm

comingfrom wrote:Another radical notion from me... :P

Hint.... it takes a magnet to create electricity.
Magnetism is a by product of electricity. It is the B field created by the spins of the photons in the E field.

The magnetic field of the Earth is created by the taurus of ionized particles that spins around the Earth. All the planets that have magnetic fields also have a taurus. To create a magnet we coil a current around a metal bar. The planet acts as the metal bar, the taurus is the current wrapped around it.
Paul.



Magnetism is a by product of electricity. I dont see any electricity when a nail becomes magnetised from being stuck to a permanent magnet. Ive read all the kindergarten explanations. dont need another one here.

It is the B field created by the spins of the photons in the E field. That is just a theory.... In the previous posts where we inject 'electrons into water, the water becomes 'magnetic'. but more on that later.

taurus of ionized particles that spins around the Earth..... but the rocks in the asteroid belt dont have any taurean ionized fields? but clearly they have a magnetic field to be attracted to the sun?

To create a magnet we coil a current around a metal bar.... try coiling a tube of mercury. Do it without having ANY metal (including fillings in your teeth) anywhere near the device and then tell me about magnetism.

The planet acts as the metal bar. Yes in order for your theory to work the core must be iron..... unprovable but there you have it just another theory.

the taurus is the current wrapped around it. So this Taurus is able to morph into whatever is needed to make an explanation work? Chalk is now cheese.

Again lets look at "water" and its construct in relation to ALL known phenomena. Clearly these tauream inozed particles interact with the Water vapor of the atmosphere.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby MerLynn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:48 pm

At http://www.magneticwaterscience.com/?page_id=57
there is a picture of "the Polarizer".

When water is pumped through this electo magnetic pipe (it can also be done with magnets around the pipe instead of an electro magnet) when the water falls from the exit end you hold a cigarette lighter flame to the falling stream, the flame goes DOWN as its attracted to the water, defying all known thermodynamics of water and fire.

The only way to explain this is the water becomes a liquid magnet and the fire is magnetic.

I will eventually get around to hooking this apparatus up again and taking pictures of same but for now its just "out there". A true scientist would conduct this experiment before making any 'fake news' up about the results.

To understand water vapor in the atmosphere Jim, we need to look at the magnetic construct of Water. Or when 'electrons' are applied to water giving previously unknown properties to water like attracting fire and making food dye disappear to fully understand the atmosphere and its interaction with the magnetic fields of the earth.
MerLynn
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:28 am
Location: Land of OZ

Re: We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air

Unread postby jimmcginn » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:45 pm

comingfrom wrote:What you are saying is in effect what I was taught in school 40 years ago. I was taught cloud formation was due to warm and cold streams of air meeting.


Irrelevant. There is a lot more to my theory than just this.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: odif and 3 guests