The EM Universe

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: The EM Universe

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:49 pm

celeste wrote:I think you are aware of Donald Scott's filament model, and what it says about the magnetic fields we observe?

I watched his EU-2014 presentation on YouTube, but I didn't get much in the way of specifics out of it.

celeste wrote:At the very least , I know you won't fall into the trap of thinking that the mainstream is correct in their measurements of magnetic field strength, while all the while be wrong about velocities (redshift = recessional velocity),masses (throw in dark matter when you need it),and so on?

Near-field measurements, like entirely within our solar system, appear to be quite accurate. For example, velocities of plasma in the photospheric granules can be measured with the Doppler effect, and corroborated by tracing features as they move across the tops of the granules. And magnetic fields are measured by the Zeeman Effect, where spectral lines get split, and there again, the measurements can be corroborated by other means, such as the force of the magnetic fields on the plasma in coronal loops. The problems with such methods are all in far-field measurements, where we don't have multiple ways of confirming measurements, because we can't resolve any detail on distant point sources. So there's no way to isolate perturbing factors, and this can skew theories. Indeed, there are many things that don't make sense in the far-field redshift data, if taken at face value, and I totally agree that cold dark matter is just math invented to mask gravitational anomalies that should be taken as evidence of electric fields. But I think that the measurements of the solar and jovian magnetic fields are probably reasonably accurate.

celeste wrote:Charles, if you know of any reason that Scott's model should be wrong, please let me know.

His solar capacitor model is easily refuted. I don't know about his "filament model" -- only specific assertions can be refuted.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:06 am

Charles, vacuum energy is just a term. It may have no relation to a perfect vacuum.
Did you give any time to http://www.cheniere.org/references/ener ... vacuum.htm
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:42 am

Sparky wrote:Charles, vacuum energy is just a term. It may have no relation to a perfect vacuum.
Did you give any time to http://www.cheniere.org/references/ener ... vacuum.htm

I put Tom Bearden, Miles Mathis, and Albert Einstein all in the same category as Zeno of Elea -- sophistry always sounds good, but the logic is paper thin, and in the end, it actually doesn't have anything to do with reality. To see through people like that, I apply sanity checks. If such-and-such is true, what are the implications, and where is the confirmation? Any idea that pertains directly to reality should show up in a wide variety of places. So you test your epiphanies, to see if they manifest themselves in all of the other ways that they should, if the idea is real. When you find that a theorist isn't doing the sanity checks, you should be suspicious. Then look carefully for how they respond to criticisms. If they listen, they might be legitimate, and you might be looking at ideas that are simply quite immature. Then again, the theorist might ignore criticisms, or have a clever way of dismissing them. That's when I move on. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:54 am

Charles, thank you. I respect your opinion highly, and read your post carefully.
You do understand that I don't have your ability to analyze, so I thank you for your time and effort to explain those things that I am having difficulty with.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:51 am

Gee, I step away from the computer for a couple of days to do some Sun worshiping on the Solstice, and return to find a whole lot of stuff to consider! Just kidding about the Sun worship bit, I had planned to go to the beach and just kick back, but ended up instead down in my basement on an early summer weekend working on a pinball machine I have been restoring for someone who would like it back ASAP.
Of course I'm looking at a lot of solenoids under the deck, and that just reminded me of the longitudinal magnetic field in a solenoid field, and wondering if this principle should be included as one of the jigsaw pieces that help explain some aspects of the Suns operation, or in the other detectable energetic events?
Understanding the focusing of charged particle beams in a solenoid magnetic field
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/b ... 000737.pdf
If the inter-solar or intergalactic flux tubes carry a longitudinal magnetic field in a plasma, and a solenoid field exists at the pinch, then it looks like a usable jigsaw piece. I think we will see some aspects of the Sun that will conform to known processes at some energy levels, but non-linear effects too at higher energy levels. Can they affect each other, to result in as yet unexplained behaviours of the Sun?

@seasmith, to Solar:
Can't believe you've never had a conversation with GaryN in all these years


I've always though of Solar as a 'serious', very knowledgeable poster to the boards, and so has spent much time 'upstairs', while I'm definitely more of a 'seat of the pants' type, and perhaps have been intimidated by his clear, well reasoned and scientifically sound posts, so I'm pleased and somewhat honoured to have him contribute here. Until he maybe finds the glaring fault in my theories that sends me back to square one, but I don't want to be fooling myself or giving other folk false ideas with some of my theories, so it's all good!
And your contributions over the years seasmith have of course made me think deeply about many aspects of this whole EU thing, and even those whos ideas are very different to my own are valuable in the checks and balances dept.
I really have to get back to work on this E/M enertainment device for a while longer, but will no doubt be considering some of the other posts as I do, so will hopefully come up with some reasonably sensible replies by the time I'm done. Of course, the machine has to be given a good testing once it's complete, so I may be away longer than planned. ;-) They didn't call me Tommy in my youth for no reason!
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Jun 25, 2014 3:01 pm

I'm going to have to start from the beginning here and read this thread; particularly your post. I’ve only gone back to page 21 thus far but it is obvious to me that we share the same, or a VERY similar, “model”.


Yes Solar, I would very much appreciate you taking the time to look through the thread. I respect your ideas and knowledge very much indeed. There may be some ideas that are 'out to lunch', but I need to explain how my ideas came about, and that might raise some guffaws among some readers.
I had a flood of ideas, or concepts one day, just out of the blue. I thought it was just that my subconscious mind had been working on ideas I had been thinking about, and come up with some solutions. Now, having read about how the subconscious is perhaps connected to all other subconsciousness, meaning everyone else, but also the collective subconscious, the Akashic record as one description, and that the concepts were from that source.
Recently I was reading an old copy of U.S.Andersens book, Three Magic Words , in which he describes that these ideas do not contain detail or words or any type of explanation, but just some form of vague imagery or concepts. I wrote down as many as I could recall as soon as I got the chance, and have been trying to make sense of them ever since. And as soon as I started Goggling, it was amazing that everything just seemed to be confirmed. So, if there are ideas you consider juvenile, it is because those ideas I was given were not clear and concise, and my interpretation may have been lacking owing to me not being familiar with the science involved, and I have been muddling along and learning as I go.
As an example, the importance of torque seemed to be pointed out to me, and just today I see this article which talks about twisting light, though further down the page they describe it as torque. Not a polarisation, but a torque, and this, if the vacuum is a non-linear medium, may be important in astrophysics, and explain much that is currently puzzling or surprising to the conventional scientists.

Spiral-shaped 'light fan' adds new twist to laser-driven plasma accelerators

Relativistic twisted light with a strong torque could also be used to mimic some astrophysical environments such as pulsars, leading to a better understanding of these unique and distant stars.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-spiral-sha ... a.html#jCp

"Dees" were another mental image, and I find that the dees are employed in cyclotrons, and I suspect they will also be found to exist at the cosmic scales. I knew of cyclotrons of course, but had never looked into the details, as most of my formal Electrical Engineering education was geared towards large scale industrial machinery.
Magnetic shells and microwave confinement similarly, but perhaps the pinch was the most important of all, as it is I believe the primary source of the extreme energies from which all else arises.

The internally or externally powered Sun models I don't think can produce solutions by themselves, and I don't believe there is enough energy in the flux tube to create the matter as well as EM energies that I believe the Sun does, which is why I thought that the flux tube only carries the energies sufficient to create the vacuum arc or spark that taps the vacuum energies, so the Sun is acting as a transistor, or as my mental images suggested, something akin to a dual gated, field effect device, employing perhaps a quantum Hall effect.
That the Magnetic field outside of the Sun is quite weak, does not necessarily mean that what is going on inside the Sun does not employ very much higher magnetic fields, as if there is indeed an iron layer to the Sun, then it could be shielded, and result in surface charging of such a layer, and it is patchy surface charging that to me explains the development of the 'surface' filaments. Could a dense plasma also shield a magnetic field?
I'd better leave it at that for now, maybe I've shot myself in the foot already as far as any credibility I may have had on the board, but it all leads me to see the physical part of reality being based on the function of electro-magnetic machinery, which will become obvious as more data accumulates. And if it all turns out to be nonsense, well, this is the NIAMI forum!
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby Armand » Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:14 pm

Great thread...

Interesting how this information dovetails with my Egyptian studies... (I really am late to the party)

Ancients Knowledge of EU (Electric Universe) revealed in Dendera Light discovery
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14651

Image
Dendera Light (the birth of the Atum - aka the Sun) - A Stable Low Density Plasma Focus Device

This post from the web thread could just as easily have been posted here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14651&start=15#p95991
(in this post I discuss how sonoluminescence and cavitation could be an entirely new theory of how suns are formed - as a big cavitation bubble in a plasmoid envelope.)

Or this one from the 'Halton Arp - Intrinsic Redshift Lecture' web thread as well...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14945#p96886
(in this post I discuss a possible connection between Halton Arp's quasar/galaxy model and Ed Leekskanin's (Coral Castle) Magnetic Currents)

Image
M87 Jet (in xray wavelength) - Cosmic Soap Bubbles? (gaining mass as it communicates with the universe)

I believe we are going to find that the Ancient Egyptians (as well as other Ancient cultures) were well aware of the 'true laws of nature'.

I believe we are on the threshold of discovery... We live in very exciting times...

Gary - I too get much of my information/knowings from intuitive sources - Spirit guides, Akashic records, Past lives, Synchronicities, Etc...

I have come to understand now, why I needed a backgound in science and technology - so that I could better 'translate/decipher' the technical information (from the Akashic) that I would receive/channel at this time...

Thank you for sharing your psychic insights and experiences, it's nice to know I am not alone...

Cheers...
-Armand
"If you want to understand the Lost Technology of Ancient Egypt, study
(Electrical) Storms, Soap Bubbles and Solitons."
- Cashus the Giant
User avatar
Armand
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:57 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby Solar » Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:49 pm

GaryN wrote:I had a flood of ideas, or concepts one day, just out of the blue. I thought it was just that my subconscious mind had been working on ideas I had been thinking about, and come up with some solutions. Now, having read about how the subconscious is perhaps connected to all other subconsciousness, meaning everyone else, but also the collective subconscious, the Akashic record as one description, and that the concepts were from that source.


Hello

Firstly, thank you for the kind words. I am attuned to and am in resonance to what you have said above. It’s a very busy work week as I slowly make my way through this thread during the evenings. It was quite the flashback to start from the beginning.

A part of Evolving (not speaking of Darwinist approach) involves being a ‘Seeker’. My reason for originally joining this forum all those many years ago weren’t scientific. They still aren’t depending on what one’s definition of ‘science’ is; but I enjoy that aspect along with the original impetus of course. Especially being amongst the insightful members on these boards. I’ve taken some notes on your post owing to (what I consider to be) a rather unique ‘blend’ to your emerging perspective. There are other members here who demonstrate that particular talent which, I think, stems from simultaneously recognizing and trying to integrate, the ‘essences’, or “forces” observed and measured in Nature and the Cosmos ‘outside’ ourselves (exoreference) – as ALSO present and operative inside ourselves as well (endoreference). Several people on these boards have demonstrated the ‘sense’, or Intuition, that a Synthesis of what only appears to be a duality (endoreference & exoreference) exist and this is touched on occasionally in various threads. However, it’s almost as if another language is needed to properly express that integration without the baggage of appearing to come from one or the other, of two certain camps.

Perhaps a ‘third way’ will arise in the not so distant future and it seems to me that several individuals one these boards have demonstrated themselves to be the ‘seeds’ thereof.

But not to worry about ‘flying by the seat of the pants’; it’s akin to casting the proverbial net and that kind of ‘gathering’ is one of the things that Seekers do in order to investigate and try to integrate, or synthesize, towards a better Understanding of The Whole as opposed to its many parts. Ever widening and integrating the scope of knowledge and understanding of This Universe within which we find ourselves is the other Evolution. I like seeing, or finding, the gleams of That forthcoming Diamond in the rough.


GaryN wrote:The internally or externally powered Sun models I don't think can produce solutions by themselves, and I don't believe there is enough energy in the flux tube to create the matter as well as EM energies that I believe the Sun does, which is why I thought that the flux tube only carries the energies sufficient to create the vacuum arc or spark that taps the vacuum energies, so the Sun is acting as a transistor, or as my mental images suggested, something akin to a dual gated, field effect device, employing perhaps a quantum Hall effect.


Although there is the tendency to try and understand the workings of the Sun from the perspective of what is 'powering' it as well as whether or not it is internally and/or externally so - I also understand and/or consider things from the perspective you've mentioned above. Likewise, were one to give thought to the human body and the intensities of the electric currents, its external electric field ("action potentials" internally), magnetic fields, and gravitational influences that it partakes of, the result would be the same; it doesn't seem that there is enough there to 'power' it from the overall perspective of an 'energy budget' and one cant really say whether or not it is internally or externally 'powered'.

One doesn't say whether or not the human body is internally or externally 'powered'. It is incorporated into the energy environment (food, exercise, energies of daylight etc ) prompting the presence of reciprocity with regard to 'transducing' energies as we also radiate energy back into the energy environment. There is a cyclic Symphony of energies playing that makes things difficult when trying to point to which instrument *might* be leading the Orchestra overall. The 'Power' is in the Integration as might also be with the Sun.

Still reading.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:38 am

Hi Armand, good work you are doing there, and for sure I agree with you that the ancients knew more than we give them credit for, and perhaps very much more. With the pyramids, some of them seem to have been multi-purpose devices, and I think I see the use of sound and wave mixing, microwave generation, cavitation, piezoelectric effects, and maybe even neutrinos. This is my favourite image of what appears to be perhaps a communication device.
Image
Looks like a klystron at the right, with microwave guide, a microwave horn to the left, and a microwave chamber holding the black circle. What does that represent, some kind of void? The brown layer above the 'eye' is shaded as we would still illustrate rock in a drawing, and its dielectric properties are employed here I'd say. Very imaginative perhaps, but, as I have mentioned before and maybe you have not seen, there is a patent by Bob Beckwith for a Neutrino light to photon light converting matrix, and one of its components is the multi-layered neutrino force detecting slab, which could be what the top half of the pictured device equates to.
The patent is available on Google patents:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20040027031

Gets a little technical, but maybe worth a look just in case there are any clues in it to help in your project. The neutrino has an almost infinite ability to carry information, and could be an information carrier that helps shape matter, though it hardly interacts physically, but can perhaps interact at the force level, as Beckwith explains.
Bob Beckwith had his own research lab with some very interesting and intriguing documents available, but that seems to have been taken down. His background is interesting, as he was involved with the Philadelphia Experiment and other defence related work.
M87 is an interesting object for sure, though I'm not sure their interpretation is totally correct. The jet could be an inflow and not an outflow, as their observations were insufficient to be able to show outward flow. Their 'movie' has too few samples over too long a period, and at only a single wavelength, for it to be a done deal.
Image
http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~cwalker/M87/
The x-ray 'rays' from the central object conform to what I have noticed with other objects, including our Sun, as depicted in ancient drawings, in that there 8 of them (4,8,12,16,24,32,56 rays are consistently evident over time with depictions of our Sun) and they may have fine filaments streaming away from the ends. Theses arise from the surface of the torus around the central object, IMO.
The jets may, looking at some possibilities, be a collimated beam, but might also be just the last and most powerful stage of acceleration of the flux tube particles from the more diffuse portion of the flux tube, which is out of view in your image. I obviously can not say there is no outflow of material, just my personal perspective, as nearly everything the mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists tell us seems to be backwards! Nature seems to work in a yin-yang, flow-counterflow way though, so maybe the jets are bi-directional?
Anyway, you are not alone for sure in belief that there is more to the Universe than just the physical realm, and perhaps more to the Sun than meets the eye? ;-)
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby celeste » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:03 pm

More questions:
1. Given that gravity should cause charge segregation, with the more massive protons sinking more deeply into a gravitational field (see the article "On the Global Electrostatic Charge of Stars" or Charles Chandler's threads on compressive ionization).
2. Given that in a current filament, we should have more massive positive charges spiraling to the outside (not just in theory,but see those "water bridge" experiments).

Therefore, if gravity dominates,positive charges should sink to the inside of spherical shells? If E-M dominates, positive charges should wander to the outside of filaments? Then does not pulsed D.C. current in a large scale filament, lead to A.C. current along the filament radius? Power up a filament,and it sends positive charges to the outside. Cut the current, and gravity should pull the positive charges to the center (compared to the less massive electrons)?

Charles Chandler asked what should be a voltage regulator, but isn't that just the effect of a gravitational field? A static gravitational field maintains a voltage?

If we have two bodies,each with gravitational segregation of charge (fixed radial gravitational charge segregation at their surfaces), when we bring them together, does that not lead to radial current flow in each star? In other words,you don't just get charge flow between two bodies when you bring them together, but you should get charge flow within each body?
Remember that mainstream picture of two stars, where one star pulls hot gas off the surface of another star? How do we know we are not seeing this:
Let's say we have a star with gravitational segregation of charge at its surface. We bring in another body (even just considering its gravitational field). Then we should have weaker charge separation at the surface facing the second body. Which means current flow at the surface (charge recombination), without even having current flow from the other star?
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:08 pm

celeste wrote:Let's say we have a star with gravitational segregation of charge at its surface. We bring in another body (even just considering its gravitational field). Then we should have weaker charge separation at the surface facing the second body. Which means current flow at the surface (charge recombination), without even having current flow from the other star?

Precisely. And we can see this here on Earth, during the tidal cycles. At high tide, the surface has less of its normal negative charge. Why? Because it gets its negative charge from electrons that were expelled from deeper down, due to the extreme pressure at depth. At high tide, that pressure is relaxed, allowing electrons to flow down, recombining with +ions at depth that are no longer being forcibly ionized. The loss of electrons at the surface reduces its net negative charge. At low tide, the negative charge at the surface is restored by the increase of pressure at depth, and the consequent expulsion of electrons toward the surface.

But there is also reason to believe that the vertical flow of charges is a small fraction of the total current that is flowing. The bigger chunk of it flows laterally, through the high temperature transition between the negative crust and the positive mantle. At high tide, the electrons are flowing in, at precisely the same time that electrons are being expelled by a low tide elsewhere. So the bulk of the electrons flow from wherever it's low tide, to wherever it's high tide, and they can all stay within that transition layer. Due to ohmic heating, the boundary between the charged layers will be extremely hot, meaning that it will be an excellent conductor. The solid granite in the crust is a poor conductor. So the current can flow more easily if it just goes around the Earth in a circle, being chased away from low tides and toward high tides.

This high temperature layer, that we know from seismology, and which marks the boundary between the rigid crust and the plastic mantle, is the Moho. The mantle gets its plasticity from its ionization -- the loss of valence electrons weakens the crystal lattice, allowing "solid" rock to flow as if it were a liquid. Just above the Moho, the crystal lattices in the crust are at full strength, because their valence bands are full. The transition itself (i.e., the Moho) is a supercritical fluid, superheated by the constant flow of electric currents. As such, it is a frictionless buffer between the crust and the mantle, allowing tectonic forces to push plates around with a very small fraction of the energy that it would take to move the mantle too.

I could go on... ;)

The bottom line is that this line of reasoning answers a lot of questions.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:09 am

CC:
I could go on... ;)
:?
No, not yet.... ;) Give me time to digest this.... ;) :oops:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby celeste » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:51 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
celeste wrote:Let's say we have a star with gravitational segregation of charge at its surface. We bring in another body (even just considering its gravitational field). Then we should have weaker charge separation at the surface facing the second body. Which means current flow at the surface (charge recombination), without even having current flow from the other star?

Precisely. And we can see this here on Earth, during the tidal cycles. At high tide, the surface has less of its normal negative charge. Why? Because it gets its negative charge from electrons that were expelled from deeper down, due to the extreme pressure at depth. At high tide, that pressure is relaxed, allowing electrons to flow down, recombining with +ions at depth that are no longer being forcibly ionized. The loss of electrons at the surface reduces its net negative charge. At low tide, the negative charge at the surface is restored by the increase of pressure at depth, and the consequent expulsion of electrons toward the surface.

But there is also reason to believe that the vertical flow of charges is a small fraction of the total current that is flowing. The bigger chunk of it flows laterally, through the high temperature transition between the negative crust and the positive mantle. At high tide, the electrons are flowing in, at precisely the same time that electrons are being expelled by a low tide elsewhere. So the bulk of the electrons flow from wherever it's low tide, to wherever it's high tide, and they can all stay within that transition layer. Due to ohmic heating, the boundary between the charged layers will be extremely hot, meaning that it will be an excellent conductor. The solid granite in the crust is a poor conductor. So the current can flow more easily if it just goes around the Earth in a circle, being chased away from low tides and toward high tides.

This high temperature layer, that we know from seismology, and which marks the boundary between the rigid crust and the plastic mantle, is the Moho. The mantle gets its plasticity from its ionization -- the loss of valence electrons weakens the crystal lattice, allowing "solid" rock to flow as if it were a liquid. Just above the Moho, the crystal lattices in the crust are at full strength, because their valence bands are full. The transition itself (i.e., the Moho) is a supercritical fluid, superheated by the constant flow of electric currents. As such, it is a frictionless buffer between the crust and the mantle, allowing tectonic forces to push plates around with a very small fraction of the energy that it would take to move the mantle too.

I could go on... ;)

The bottom line is that this line of reasoning answers a lot of questions.


Charles, Any comments on this:
In the G-cloud thread, I was focused on the local cloud being a current filament . Let's say though, for the sake of argument,that the G-cloud and Local Interstellar Cloud are just two side by side clouds of gas,each net neutral. We should then expect maybe a different charge distribution at the surface of the local cloud on the side facing the G-cloud,than on the surface of the local cloud facing away from the G-cloud? We know that the sun is "skimming the surface" of the local cloud, and moving towards the G-cloud. To keep the terminology of your post, the sun appears to be moving laterally around the local cloud, towards the side facing the G-cloud.
There has been an attempt by the mainstream, to correlate changes we see in the heliosphere,to the sun's motion through local clouds. Since the sun is "skimming" the surface of the local cloud, we can rule out radial changes (the sun moving radially in the local cloud) as being the most significant factor? That leaves us with motion along the filamentary cloud (which I've been focused on until now), and motion towards that neighboring filament?
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:19 pm

I don't know much about the Local or G Clouds. But I'll definitely compliment you for seeking out the very latest research, and for thinking mechanically about its implications. This is where the greatest opportunity is for independent investigators, because this is where the establishment scientists are the weakest. They already have a model, and they have to fit all new data into that, or they'll forfeit all of their funding. So they're just not going to see a whole new paradigm peeping out from behind some anomalies in recently collected data, and if there is a juicy revelation waiting to happen, that an independent investigator can get, but the mainstream cannot, that's where to look. So charge on! I'll try to make some time to read the G Cloud thread, but you're way ahead of me on this, so you're the lead on this one.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby celeste » Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:43 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:I don't know much about the Local or G Clouds. But I'll definitely compliment you for seeking out the very latest research, and for thinking mechanically about its implications. This is where the greatest opportunity is for independent investigators, because this is where the establishment scientists are the weakest. They already have a model, and they have to fit all new data into that, or they'll forfeit all of their funding. So they're just not going to see a whole new paradigm peeping out from behind some anomalies in recently collected data, and if there is a juicy revelation waiting to happen, that an independent investigator can get, but the mainstream cannot, that's where to look. So charge on! I'll try to make some time to read the G Cloud thread, but you're way ahead of me on this, so you're the lead on this one.


I will save you a little time here (since the G-cloud thread did meander a bit).
You remember back when the "big guys" here at thunderbolts, tried to put star formation at z-pinches? You argued that there should in fact be nothing at the center of current filaments. Well, you were right. Not only should a current filament not lead to the accumulation of neutral matter at its central axis, but at a z-pinch, there should be even more forceful EJECTION of neutral matter. Whether neutral matter is "entrained" on the flow of charged matter, or formed by recombination, the rapid spinning at a z-pinch should cause the throwing off of neutral material, FIGHTING any gravitational collapse at that point.
Now let's jump ahead. In the G-cloud thread, we saw that the sun was "skimming" the Local Cloud surface (the cloud was shown to be filamentary). If you've read on the "Engraved Hourglass Nebula", you know the "central" star, was not at the center of the nebula. Here we can already show what is wrong with the mainstream view. With the "Engraved Hourglass Nebula", they see a star outward from the central axis of the nebula. They think it was "blown out"by some mechanism (even though they have trouble explaining the uniform shape of the nebula given such an explosion). With the sun, we see it "skimming" the cloud surface. Meaning the mainstream knows the sun's motion is not consistent with being "blown out" of the local cloud. So we get two similar observations (a star at the surface of some filamentary structure), and two different explanations. With the "Engraved Hourglass Nebula", we "happen" to see a star just crossing outward through the nebula's surface? With the sun,we just "happen" to catch it as it is "grazing" the clouds surface? How about this: Stars were never at the central axis of a filament and "blown out",nor where they outside the filament and just "passing through on some grazing angle". Stars are formed,and always move within, the cylindrical shells of a filament.

I'm interested in any argument you may give here: You've stated (at one time) that stars form first, and any filaments that form, merely flow to and from the stars? Does that change if the stars are not at the center of the filaments in the first place? What if stars do exist in these "shells" of a filament, where the central axis of the filament in fact "flows" right past the star? Does that not imply that the filaments come first,and stars are merely small scale "accumulations" out at the periphery? Isn't it hard to make the star a cause of the current flow, and then put the star out there, off axis, to what seems to be the main current flow?
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests