Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

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: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:29 am

Mathis' Unified Field Nebular Theory of Star Formation
These are selections from the same paper (http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf) showing his own theory. I thought Charles' theory might be able to use some of the info from Mathis.
- star formation, like everything else, is a unified field phenomenon.
- The charge field (that is to say, spinning photons) is present at its usual strength in this problem, which is a strength that is about 19 times that of normal (baryonic) matter in the field.
- Meaning, as a function of mass equivalence, the photons in the area outweigh the hydrogen protons and electrons by 19 times [per second?].
- I have shown that mainstream theory and equations have contained this information almost in plain sight from the beginning.
- Just look at these three equations---:
e = 1.602 x 10^-19 C
1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream)
e = 3.204 x 10^-26 kg/s
- That means the proton is emitting 19 times its mass in charge every second [charge = mass].
- And since photons move in straight lines very quickly, they can link together molecules or ions, even - with a very tenuous density.
- the hydrogen gas is - a plasma because the electrons and protons are disassociated by a magnetic field.
- Stars form in galaxies because the plasma requires the magnetic input from the galactic core.
- Which just means the cold gas needs to be bombarded by the right photons.
- it isn't a matter of mass, it is a matter of volume and density.
- A big plasma has enough cross section to capture free electrons and other ions arriving from outside.
- Of course any part of the plasma can do this, but a big net is more efficient than a small net.
- We must assume that given the distribution of radiation sources in our galaxy, the Jeans mass is the mass at which the plasma achieves an efficiency of capture of ions to initiate collapse.
- And this means that the Jeans mass is not a universal constant.
- It is a function of the type and levels of radiation present, which means it is a function of the size and type of the galaxy.
- since free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were.
- The charge field inside the plasma also tends to the same effect, since the spinning protons and electrons are recycling the charge field whether they are part of molecules or not.
- This means the charge field itself is denser and more magnetic inside the plasma than outside, so it tends to capture ions even without the ions being attracted to one another.
- Only when the photon traffic can no longer ionize the entire plasma [i.e. gas?], do we have a limit to the weight gain.
- When this limit is reached, the plasma partially collapses, and it will now contain a portion of molecular hydrogen.
- The plasma portion continues the previous process of capture, however, and the weight gain continues.
- It continues until the entire original field has gained enough mass that gravity really does kick in and overpower the charge field repulsions.
- At that point we have the big collapse that we were trying to explain from the beginning.
- We require both gravity and charge to explain star formation.
- As we have seen in hundreds of other places, gravity-only can't explain anything in celestial mechanics, except with a huge pile of mathematical cheats and fudges.
- The size of the molecular cloud may also matter due to curvature.
- the more curvature it contains pre-collapse, the more likely it is to collapse in a defined fashion, as about a center.
- This may be another explanation of the Jeans mass.
- Smaller clouds may indeed collapse given the right conditions, but if they don't have enough curvature to begin with, - the collapsing particles miss one another in the collapse, and simply disperse.
- For the collapse to form a pre-stellar object, we may require a certain amount of initial curvature, which would require a certain size.
- Otherwise the object is not able to find its own center, and the collapse isn't able to get any feedback.
- If my ideas are not correct, some set of equally simple ideas will be correct.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:05 pm

Maybe we should do a Google Docs discussion? We might be able to fast-forward through a lot of the introductory material, and quickly find the areas of agreement, and where differences in approach might add value to both efforts. He probably has about as much time to read through everything that I have done as I have to read all of his stuff. So an interactive discussion might be far less taxing on both of us. My opinion of Mathis is that everything he writes has at least half a dozen rare insights in it, and this proves that he is seeking the truth, and knows how to see through the smoke & mirrors, though he also makes mistakes sometimes. (This is also more-or-less my opinion of myself, though clearly Mathis is smarter than me.) But Mathis probably feels the same way I do -- it's just downright tough to keep a sharp edge when there's nothing to grind on... :D Fortunately for me, I don't have the capability to get into the more complicated stuff that Mathis does, where it's extremely difficult to get useful suggestions from like minds, so I can get criticisms from a wider variety of people. As a consequence, my work has progressed rapidly on the suggestions of people like Lloyd, Brant, and Michael. In fact, all of the major structural members in my work came from them, and all I had to do was keep formulating the questions and sifting through the possible answers. So the value of having something to grind on is not to be underestimated! :D I haven't gotten from Mathis' essays whether or not he wants to collaborate, but if he's up for it, I'm definitely game.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:40 am

Charles, it's good to know that you're impressed with Mathis' writings. When I asked you to check him out last year, you never did comment on him, as far as I can recall now. If he is interested in discussing, I think he'll have to initiate it, because he told me last year or so that he's not much of a team player, but prefers to do things on his own. He does answer questions, when he has time, but usually just very briefly, probably because he doesn't have much time. His main goal seems to be to expose as many of the flaws in conventional science and math as he can and to provide better alternative ideas. He did answer questions more thoroughly for me last year when he agreed to an interview for this forum, but he doesn't seem to have interest in that very often. Although, maybe he'd like to answer questions for you after reading what I told him and maybe after skimming your website.

So you could try emailing him yourself and asking more pertinent questions than what I did. And it wouldn't hurt to ask if he has time for an online discussion with you. Or we could arrange to have an online live discussion with members who have read his papers. We could also join NPA and ask members there to discuss your and Mathis' and other related theories.

You're also welcome to ask me and other members on this thread any questions you have for Mathis. We can probably answer some of your questions and help find answers to others. I can try to contact Mathis fans from this forum and invite them to a discussion or to read this thread etc.

You said: my work has progressed rapidly on the suggestions of people like Lloyd, Brant, and Michael. In fact, all of the major structural members in my work came from them, and all I had to do was keep formulating the questions and sifting through the possible answers.

That's mighty modest of you, as usual. The part I played seemed pretty easy. I just had to remember a bunch of relevant and interesting theories I've read but never understood real well. You guys have much better understanding of EM and other forces etc. But you say sifting through all those theories and reorganizing the best info was easy for you. If the part each of us plays is easy for each of us, then science should be a cakewalk. Cakewalks are fun. Does this look like fun? http://ioimprov.com/west/images/uploade ... 1340717850 --- Or this? http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/7808667/
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:49 am

Lloyd wrote:It's good to know that you're impressed with Mathis' writings. When I asked you to check him out last year, you never did comment on him, as far as I can recall now.

We went back and forth a little bit on Mathis in the Density Gradient thread. Here's one of the posts more-or-less in the middle of that. I never heard of a resolution to the question I raised, so that's where it ended.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5613&start=135#p63138

Lloyd wrote:[Mathis] told me last year or so that he's not much of a team player, but prefers to do things on his own.

There is a lot of solitary effort in science, so that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But we all need to listen to criticisms, and take suggestions. The chance of an individual making a mistake, of omission or commission, is great. The chance of two people making the same mistake at the same time is far less. The chance of an error going undetected when critically reviewed by a group is very small (if the reviews are, in fact, critical and not just political). So solitary works are famous for being genuinely inspired and fatally flawed. ;)

Lloyd wrote:His main goal seems to be to expose as many of the flaws in conventional science and math as he can and to provide better alternative ideas.

Taking pot-shots at the mainstream is a lot of fun, but in the end, at that is really accomplished is that they develop better armor for defending against pot-shots. And we can certainly see a lot of extremely diligent effort on the part of the mainstream to develop and maintain a consensus, such as their champions on the JREF board, who will tirelessly attack challenges to any mainstream view, in the name of "science". I'm convinced that the only way to make progress is to build a better system.

Richard Buckminster Fuller wrote:You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

In other words, finding problems in the mainstream is useful, as that will be the beginning of a new round of theorizing. But if it never progresses past that point, nothing changes. So this is where I'm focusing my efforts.

Lloyd wrote:We could also join NPA and ask members there to discuss your and Mathis' and other related theories.

I joined NPA, but I haven't had the time to figure out how to get involved with their process. ;) But I see that their next conference will be here in Maryland, so I'll plan to attend that one, and see where some face-to-face meetings might lead.

Lloyd wrote:You're also welcome to ask me and other members on this thread any questions you have for Mathis.

All of this back-and-forth is soooooo time consuming! As you and I have discussed, bulletin boards are great for airing out ideas, but I'm really interested in building more than just a long dialog. The value in the discussions gets buried under subsequent discussions. So I'm interested in the idea of developing "master documents" that summarize discussions, and that lay the foundation for future discussions, and eliminate the need to read through a long thread to get all of the good points. This represents an additional layer of work, but has the potential of greatly increasing the value. And once people get used to the idea of contributing to a master document instead of just chatting, I think that the structure of their posts would change, from dialog to targeted criticisms and suggestions. So it would be less work than what we're doing right now, trying to mine good points out of long threads. I describe these ideas in more detail here:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10131

When I have more time, I'll develop this idea further.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:06 pm

Charles, I have an earthquake question below.

I reread your idea from your link above about how you'd like people to collaborate on improving scientific theories etc. While your argument is good, I think it's not entirely correct. And your suggestions seem good, but not necessarily optimum. I think there are people who have already developed more efficient processes. One of them is called sociocracy, although I think that can be improved too. You argue that Mathis and others who do things solo are missing out on opportunity to getting input from others to improve their theories, but I think he and others do take input from others and then decide if it seems to improve their theories or not. Communicating live is helpful for many people, but some are better at doing it by email etc. The same argument may apply to you developing your ideal scientific process solo.

Your argument about forums being difficult to glean good info from or to collaborate with others on toward composing theories that several or many can agree on seems largely correct too. But I think you understate their usefulness. Everyone necessarily gets their info and ideas from whatever sources they want. They can conveniently share some of their ideas and info on forums where others can pick up some of them, or others can share their own info and ideas and the OP and others can pick up things too. Some people remember any of the things that interest them. Others copy whatever they like and save it in a file or somewhere. Others just read and forget, I guess. I don't know what percent of things I read that I forget, but I often remember where to find what I want to remember later.

Your intent seems to be to replace conventional scientific process with better process, which I think is a good intent, but a lot of people have a similar goal, apparently including the Thunderbolts team, NPA and others. It's hard to tell if any of them have ideas that are likely to pan out. Those two do seem to be having some effect at getting an audience of supporters. And I believe they both have some professional help for what they're trying to do. I don't know, though, if the professionals are taking into account enough of the major factors that shape society, especially pathocracy, rule by psychopaths. There's an interesting article online about that, which I discussed at FSP forum at http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=18297.0. Many won't agree that pathocracy is real, but I think most may agree that power abuse is real among many leaders in society. I have an online book about that. It seems that Mathis is well aware of pathocracy, or the like.

I know a little about sociocratic process, which is used to improve formal social interaction processes. We could try that on your website, if you like. Over 5 years ago I offered to pay for a pro to teach the Thunderbolts team how to use the process, but it was turned down after talking to the pro and me on a conference call. I'm willing to try collaborating live on your website sometime, if you like. And I'd be willing to invite others, if you suggest a day and time.

Impact Earthquake?
At another thread, http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8275, someone said there's evidence that a meteor from a comet in 1811 impacted in Mississippi and caused the great earthquake of 1811-12 in southern Missouri at the Mississippi River. Do you think your theory could explain how impacts could trigger quakes and volcanic eruptions? How would a mid-plate quake affect ratcheting of plates? Would the plate tend to be pulled apart at the main fault? Or would there be forces, like vacuum pressure, that would pull the far part of the plate along, despite the break at the fault?
Impact Megalightning?
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. 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?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:10 am

Lloyd wrote:I know a little about sociocratic process, which is used to improve formal social interaction processes. We could try that on your website, if you like. Over 5 years ago I offered to pay for a pro to teach the Thunderbolts team how to use the process, but it was turned down after talking to the pro and me on a conference call. I'm willing to try collaborating live on your website sometime, if you like. And I'd be willing to invite others, if you suggest a day and time.

I didn't really know what "sociocracy" actually meant, so I looked it up, and that's exactly the kind of thing I'm thinking! The only difference is that for our purposes, it would all be done in writing, on the Internet, and people would have a chance to read and think about the issues, and ask thoughtful questions, before it was determined that a consensus had been achieved. Also, I think that when applied to fringe science, there will be a lot of open questions. So it wouldn't be, "Are we deciding that it's going to be like this, or like that?" Rather, it would be more like, "Here's what we think we know for sure, and here's the list of possible hypotheses that we're currently considering, and here are all of the open questions concerning those lines of reasoning." In other words, for us, it's not a decision-making process, but a publicly-exposed fact finding mission. And the job of the moderators will not be to decide truth or falsehood, but rather, just to make sure that due process is followed, meaning that legitimate questions have to be answered, or left open for future resolution.

Anyway, perhaps I'm understating the value of forums as they currently are, but I'll stick to the point that there is a huge amount of additional value that could be had if we develop a little more structure. For example, I didn't know about the thread concerning the possibility of an impact event triggering an earthquake (to which I commented on that thread, by the way). So that thread should be summarized both in the earthquake and in the impact event topics. Then, if you're studying earthquakes, or impact events, you see all of the different discussions that have been had. As it is right now, when you go to study something, you do Google searches, and you find only a small fraction of the things that are related to what you're studying. In what you missed, there could be a huge amount of value. But to find this out, you have to do a lot of reading, and sometimes it's easier to just re-do all of the work yourself. When it's easier to roll your own than to use somebody else's, their efforts were wasted as far as you're concerned.

My site doesn't really support concurrent editing, at least not the way Google Docs does. So if we want to do a live discussion, Google Docs is the way to go. My site is better for the "master documents", as it doesn't have the problems with document size that Docs has. Anyway, since it isn't live, we don't have to agree on a specific meeting time. But you could start doing thread summaries if you wanted.

Lloyd wrote: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?

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.

Lloyd wrote: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.

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.

I did have one idea on the topic. A meteor coming in at an angle will start spinning, due to the pressure gradient in the air. (The air underneath is higher in pressure than the air overhead.) This sounds outlandish, but for a meteor 1 km across, we should consider that in the first km above the ground, the air pressure goes from about 1000 mb down to about 850 mb, so the air under the meteor is 15% more dense than the air above it. Hence there will be more friction on the bottom than on the top, and this will cause the meteor to "roll" across the air. Moving at 70 km/s would develop an extremely fast spin. And what do we know about charged objects that are spinning rapidly? They generate magnetic fields. So just as the Earth's magnetic field deflects charged particles toward the poles, the meteor's far more powerful magnetic field might be deflecting charged particles towards its axis of rotation (parallel to the ground, and perpendicular to the direction of travel). Hence there might indeed be an electric current flowing through the meteor's center. But it isn't megalightning between the meteor and the ground. Rather, it's a self-induced current due to its extremely rapid rotation.

Would this current be powerful enough to blow the meteor apart? I dunno. :D But the magnetic induction from a rapidly rotating object moving through the Earth's magnetic field at 70 km/s would be huge, and this would certainly get the current going through the meteor, while electrostatic potentials between the meteor and the ground would not.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby justcurious » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:00 am

Charles,

I was reading about your theory of the planets and origin of matter on the first page of this thread.
It seems that you are mixing concepts of EU with the old way of thinking.
Why do you think only very massive stars woud produce matter due to graviational pressure, are you not convinced that electric forces are way stronger. I was really surprised that in all my research (very little by the way) all I found regarding the origin of matter is that most of it (the 0.5% that is not invisible "dark matter" LOL) was created at the beginning of the big bang when everything just magicaly appeared out of nowhere. The only man-made kind of change in matter or elements are by decaying heavier elements into lighter ones in the nuclear industry. Then there is the theory of fusion in the Stars cores, which I don't quite understand, but you seem to imply that a star would need to be heavy enough for the right conditions to be resent, ie lots of pressure (gravity) and heat? Forgive me s I msunderstood you writings.
Also, there seem to be many recorded cases of deuterium and tritium being produced from electricity and water. They call it cold fusion but institutional science has poopoo'd all over it because they can't reproduce the results consistently enough. If that were the case, I find it really surprising that institutional science is not in a frenzy scratching their heads trying to figure out how on earth deuterium and tritium appeared in someone's kitchen experiment, even if it happenned only once. Anyways back to the heavy stars... we know that the temperatures are higher outside the Sun than on its surface. If anything, it might even be cooler on the inside, and regarding the pressure... the fact that the massive sun spins yet remains a perfect sphere suggest to me the forces at work are mostly pointing from the outside in.
What is your website by the way?
justcurious
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:56 pm

JustCurious, Charles' site is at http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6031. Read that first, as it will probably answer most of your questions. Charles' theory is more thoroughly explained than any other that I know of. It involves both electrical forces and gravity to collapse nebulae in galaxies into stars and planets etc. Compressive ionization by gravity then ionizes the matter by forcing electrons out into the upper half of the electrical double layer. Then tidal forces etc can cause recombination of some electrons to cause radiation via electric currents.

Charles, I don't have much time now, but I'm glad to hear your answer to one of my questions. The idea that impacts could produce thermonuclear explosions seems novel. Did you think that up? Or did you hear it from someone else first? I'm not sure if you're talking about fission or fusion, but you guys or someone previously informed me that strong electric discharges can produce fusion. I imagine electrical forces would be involved in this case too, but maybe not dominantly. You discuss a one kilometer diameter bolide. Would that be too small to be compressively ionized?

We'll have to discuss that on the Planetary Science board soon.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby webolife » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:03 pm

Charles,
Most of what you say is at the edge of my understanding, but your questioning of meteors discharging in the atmosphere raises these questions for me:
1. Wouldn't the charge accumulating on the meteor surface all be "like", eg. negative, producing a repulsion wrt the meteor centroid?
2. Wouldn't this charge accumulation be significantly rapid, resulting in no time for equalization or neutralization, promoting electrical instability of the object?
3. In addition, wouldn't Bernoulli's effect would produce a region of low pressure not only around but especially in front of the meteor, accentuating the repulsive effect of accumulating charge?
4. Wouldn't the three of these factors combine to create an explosive condition triggered by the friction of air resistance?
5. If this explosion discharged the meteor, wouldn't the natural direction of that discharge be toward positve ground, and if this were near enough to the surface be a sufficient shock to produce an "impact" crater?

These questions represent the current state of my understanding of meteor behavior, so I'm eager for your reflection. (Sorry if this is a little off-thread, but as previoulsy noted the solar model must have wide applicablility.)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2526
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:04 pm

justcurious wrote:It seems that you are mixing concepts of EU with the old way of thinking.

Actually, it isn't much of a mixture. :D I believe that the Universe is definitely electric, but I'm finding many more cases of electrostatics than electrodynamics, which is usually where my work branches off from accepted EU constructs. But that doesn't exactly put me back in the mainstream either. :D I'm using a "rational" approach, meaning that the phenomena have to be accurately and completely described, and the hypotheses have to explain the phenomena, without ad hoc inventions (e.g., black holes, cold dark matter, dark energy, etc.) that defy known physics while introducing new forces that cannot be consistently applied across the entire problem domain. This sort of rationality puts me way, way outside of the mainstream. :D I'm certainly not the only one applying rational methods to the study of theoretical physics. (Hilton Ratcliffe is a better example than me.) But we're definitely the minority, and we don't fit easily into any existing category. In time, rationality always triumphs over all other approaches. Trends come and go, but the truth is always the same, and eventually, it becomes inescapable. But looking at the sorts science fiction being done in the mainstream these days, "eventually" hasn't arrived yet. :D

justcurious wrote:Why do you think only very massive stars would produce matter due to gravitational pressure, are you not convinced that electric forces are way stronger. [...] there seem to be many recorded cases of deuterium and tritium being produced from electricity and water. They call it cold fusion...

Cold fusion (a.k.a., transmutation) definitely happens, but you're right -- it's tough to reproduce. IMO, the huge quantities of heavy elements that we see, in the Earth for example, could not have come entirely from rare, random transmutation events. So I focus on other mechanisms. "Hot fusion" is much more reliable, though it takes extreme temperatures to get the necessary collisional energies, and extreme pressures to keep the sub-atomic pieces together so they'll combine into a larger atom. Reliable fusion caused by electricity only happens at a large scale. Free neutrons and deuterium are produced by lightning here on Earth. The likeliest place for this to happen is where relativistic free electrons slam into STP air at the beginnings of the stepped leaders. The same thing happens in the Sun during solar flares, but on a much larger scale, and there we're seeing the production of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen (and possibly even heavier elements). But it's not because of electricity directly. Rather, the electric force accelerates electrons to relativistic velocities, and then the collisions between the electron stream and stationary nucleons produces the instantaneous temperatures and pressures for fusion.

justcurious wrote:The fact that the massive sun spins yet remains a perfect sphere suggests to me the forces at work are mostly pointing from the outside in.

Indeed. I believe that the extra centripetal force comes from charged double-layers in the Sun that have a powerful electric force binding them together.

Lloyd wrote:The idea that impacts could produce thermonuclear explosions seems novel. Did you think that up? Or did you hear it from someone else first?

Maybe it's a new idea. I don't recall hearing it elsewhere. But it seems pretty inescapable, if we just step through the whole process, and identify all of the factors present.

Lloyd wrote:You discuss a one kilometer diameter bolide. Would that be too small to be compressively ionized?

Yes. I'm still trying to figure out how to accurately calculate degrees of ionization per pressure. (There are a lot of factors, such as chemical composition, and the laboratory data for extreme pressures are sparse. QM predictions are no help either.) But it "seems" that in the Earth, the crust is weakly ionized, and only in the lower lithosphere is the pressure sufficient to ionize the matter to the point that the crystal lattice begins to weaken. So that isn't even ionized enough to alter the chemical composition (i.e., break up the molecules). So a meteor not even as thick as the Earth's crust definitely doesn't have the gravitational force for CI.

webolife wrote:1. Wouldn't the charge accumulating on the meteor surface all be "like", eg. negative, producing a repulsion wrt the meteor centroid?

Exactly, though the charge on the meteor would more likely be positive, since the interplanetary medium and the Earth's atmosphere are positively charged.

webolife wrote:2. Wouldn't this charge accumulation be significantly rapid, resulting in no time for equalization or neutralization, promoting electrical instability of the object?

That's a good question. I "think" that the Earth's atmosphere, and especially the ionosphere, is more charged than the interplanetary medium. And the amount of time a meteor spends in the atmosphere, traveling at 70 km/s, is small. Then the only question is, "What's the electrical resistance of the meteor?" At zero resistance, electrostatic potentials get neutralized at near the speed of light. At infinite resistance, they never get neutralized. So we need to know the composition of the meteor, which is, of course, a matter of debate. For our purposes, we can just say that there is going to be some resistance, and the meteor will have some net charge, so we should consider the effects of a net charge.

webolife wrote:3. In addition, wouldn't Bernoulli's effect would produce a region of low pressure not only around but especially in front of the meteor, accentuating the repulsive effect of accumulating charge?

There is a shock wave in front of a supersonic object, and I "think" that there is actually a low pressure at the forward point on a supersonic sphere, but I "think" that the net pressure on the sphere is positive, even with a detached shock front. Anyway...

webolife wrote:4. Wouldn't the three of these factors combine to create an explosive condition triggered by the friction of air resistance?

Hydrostatic pressure and electrostatic repulsion will both push outward. But the charge is on the outside, and assuming imperfect thermal conductivity, so is the heat. So this shouldn't cause an explosion, but rather, just some boiling or burning at the surface. To get an explosion, you need the repulsive forces on the inside, contained by inwardly directed forces on the outside.

By the way, I read up on the Tunguska event. Interestingly, there wasn't just one explosion -- there was a series of them, and some of the accounts mentioned that they occurred at regular intervals. In EM terms, I'd call this "sputtering". In my analysis of earthquake waves, I considered the possibility that an electric current flowing through microcracks in the crust creates ohmic heating, which causes the rock to expand. Interestingly, the expansion also closes the microcracks, and thus shuts off the current. If a rupture occurs, a negative pressure wave propagates back through the rock, re-opening the cracks, and the current flows again. Hence the current sputters. Similarly, an electric current through the Tunguska impacter might have sputtered before finally blowing the thing apart.

webolife wrote:Sorry if this is a little off-thread, but as previoulsy noted the solar model must have wide applicablility.

This thread has been all over the Universe so far... :) But indeed, it's all inter-related.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:26 pm

Spare Time?
How are you for time these days, Charles? Do you have much spare time again now? It's great to hear your ideas about bolide impacts and the like, but I hope you're not spreading your time too thin. Do you have a goal that you want to reach? If so, can you use help with it?

Electrical Impact Theory
I'd be interested in the general details of how you think an impact would produce thermonuclear explosions, if you want to make explaining craters one of your near-future goals. Maybe you're familiar with Thornhill's ideas on crater formation. Have you seen the video, The Lightning-Scarred Planet Mars? That seemed very persuasive to me that the craters and canyons etc on Mars were formed by "megalightning" or similar electrical forces. Thornhill has said that craters form when electric discharges contact an object's surface. The discharge makes a circular depression by eroding material away from the surface into space, then the discharge revolves around a point on the periphery of the circle, forming a larger crater with a central peak, while continuing to expel the debris into space. Canyons and crater chains form when the discharge moves in a linear motion. Crater chains certainly don't seem to be plausible as bolide impacts. Do you disagree?
- If you think electric discharge blew up the Tunguska bolide, could not the same sort of electrical explosion occur when a bolide hits a planetoid's surface? I like Cook's theory that electric discharges from Saturn or the like melted the ice sheet, formed the Great Lakes and caused the scorching of North Amerca about 10,000 years ago and related events, like the extinction of mammoths, formation of the Carolina Bays etc.

Big Craters on Small Objects
Another crater type that seems unlikely to be caused by bolide impacts are large craters on small asteroids, moons etc. Thornhill has said that bolide impacts would break apart such small bodies. Wouldn't that be true? Only electrical forces seem capable of producing such scars. And the lab evidence for such electrical scarring seems very strong to me too. I had a thread called something like Help Us Explain Crater Formation and a lot of the evidence was reviewed there.

Compressively Ionized Asteroids?
When I asked about the possibility of your one kilometer diameter asteroid being compressively ionized, I was thinking mainly about such an asteroid forming from the breakup of a larger body. Do you think a compressively ionized planet or moon could break up from an impact or something? And, if so, could a chunk of it as small as 1 kilometer remain CI? Or would it necessarily lose all of its CI (compressive ionization)? I assume that with reduced pressure from reduced gravity, there would be a nova-like flare along with rapid loss of CI. Eh?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:43 am

Lloyd wrote:Do you have much spare time again now?

I'm still struggling, but like I said previously, this stuff is addictive. Maybe I need to contact Fringe Theorists Anonymous or something, and get into some group therapy? :D

Lloyd wrote:Do you have a goal that you want to reach?

Naaah. :) Discovery is a never-ending quest. The only goal that I have is to show that the approach that I'm using is legitimate, and that lots of people could accomplish great things if they can learn to see through the smoke & mirrors of modern science, look directly at the data, and insist on theories that accurately match the phenomena. Epiphanies are great, but they're just the beginning. It's like pointing a telescope out into space. At the first you discover a big blob where no one expected. That's cool. But when you get the telescope properly steadied and calibrated, the object comes into clear focus, and now you're peering into a whole new world that nobody thought would be there. And that's really cool! And we all instinctively know the difference between an epiphany that might be true, versus a highly accurate picture that cannot possibly be false. There's no way to fake that. I'm of the opinion that my solar model explains way too much stuff, at least in general terms, to be fundamentally wrong. So I get that feeling from that work. As more and more of the detail falls into place, there are little epiphanies, and then errors, and then breakthroughs, and then more clarity. It's never over. But every time you make the next step, and you know that it's real, you get that feeling, and then it sticks with you. Epiphanies come and go, but reality persists. So it's an enduring coolness.

As concerns "help", I could use all of it that I could possibly get. But like I keep saying, the opportunity here is to leverage all of the existing value. Researching things from scratch is extremely time-consuming, and with limited time, we all try to progress with limited information, which sucks. I'd like to see thunderbolts threads categorized, so that when we go to research something, we can easily find all of the related material. The categorization and annotation process is extremely time-consuming too, but it's a force multiplier, because then the next guy fast forwards straight out to the edge of what is already known. Then he adds directly into that category, and you'll find his work the next time you're in there. So I've been (slowly) trying to build up the necessary categorization structure for this on my site. It doesn't all have to be set in stone. One of the key features of my site is that it makes it easy to include an item in multiple categories. So there can be multiple, parallel organizational schemes. Anyway, I'll keep chinking away at it.

Lloyd wrote:I'd be interested in the general details of how you think an impact would produce thermonuclear explosions, if you want to make explaining craters one of your near-future goals.

This is not really a goal of mine, since I just don't think that there is that much to it. In other words, aside from clearing out a crater, there aren't any implications to it, so I don't see it as a complex topic, rich in significances for related topics.

Lloyd wrote:Have you seen the video, The Lightning-Scarred Planet Mars?

I find the instances of scalloping, and the crater chains, to be intriguing. A lot of the other stuff I find inconclusive, such as the comparison of dendritic channels to Lichtenberg figures.

Lloyd wrote:If you think electric discharge blew up the Tunguska bolide, could not the same sort of electrical explosion occur when a bolide hits a planetoid's surface?

On impact with the surface, the thermalization of the momentum will be the dominant energy conversion.

Lloyd wrote:I like Cook's theory that electric discharges from Saturn or the like melted the ice sheet, formed the Great Lakes and caused the scorching of North Amerca about 10,000 years ago and related events, like the extinction of mammoths, formation of the Carolina Bays etc.

I find the Carolina Bays and the concurrent extinctions to be highly suggestive of an impact on the ice sheet. Whether or not it ultimately ended the last Ice Age is debatable. (I think some people are saying that the water vapor from the fractured ice created a greenhouse effect that melted the rest of the ice.) I don't see how a discharge from Saturn would cause the Carolina Bays.

Lloyd wrote:Another crater type that seems unlikely to be caused by bolide impacts are large craters on small asteroids, moons etc. Thornhill has said that bolide impacts would break apart such small bodies. Wouldn't that be true?

I don't know. It certainly blows up the "dirty snowball" theory. But an iron-core asteroid getting hit by a bolide half its size wouldn't necessarily get destroyed in the process. Also, keep in mind that the size of the bolide and the size of the crater are two different things. If the crater was formed by a thermonuclear explosion, a 1 km crater might have been formed by a 1 m bolide, and the 10 km asteroid wouldn't necessarily get destroyed by something like that. Also, the flat bottom craters are suggestive of an explosive that had an easy time excavating the dust at the surface, but didn't leave a dent on the solid rock below the dust. So again, the impacter might have actually been extremely small.

Lloyd wrote:Do you think a compressively ionized planet or moon could break up from an impact or something? And, if so, could a chunk of it as small as 1 kilometer remain CI? Or would it necessarily lose all of its CI (compressive ionization)? I assume that with reduced pressure from reduced gravity, there would be a nova-like flare along with rapid loss of CI. Eh?

Remember than a CI object getting impacted is not just held together by gravity or its solid crystal lattice -- the electric force between charged double-layers holds it together. This is a powerful force, and it is elastic, so it would likely absorb the impact, instead of breaking up. But yes, if a CI object was shattered by an impact, huge electric currents would flow in to neutralize the ions that no longer had an excuse to be ionized, and yes, that would probably produce a mini-nova or something.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:49 pm

Carolina Bays
Charles said: I find the Carolina Bays and the concurrent extinctions to be highly suggestive of an impact on the ice sheet. Whether or not it ultimately ended the last Ice Age is debatable. (I think some people are saying that the water vapor from the fractured ice created a greenhouse effect that melted the rest of the ice.) I don't see how a discharge from Saturn would cause the Carolina Bays.

I discussed that at the Earth's Surface Formed Recently thread last fall at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5769&start=165#p71237 under the latter section: Re: Comet May Have Exploded Over Canada 12,900 Years Ago.
Post by Lloyd » Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:10 pm
Not a Comet, but Saturn
- Cook seems to have the best explanation of what happened.
- See http://saturniancosmology.org/dryas.php.
- Earth hit Saturn's plasmasphere, or something like that, which produced an electrical shock and heat wave, which devastated life in North America.
- Anode electrical discharges he says carved the Great Lakes at that time and the electrically pulverized rock [gouged out of the bedrock {where the lakes then formed} and electrically pulled up into the air] became sand and silt in a humid atmosphere.
- The discharges threw large gobs of the [water from humidity and] sand mixture in all directions, forming the Carolina Bays, Nebraska sand dunes, Illinois and nearby "glacial" loam or till etc.
- The heat was great enough to melt rock, which it did as far as the U.S. southwest.
- All the life forms burned up to form a layer of soot.
- It also put enough fine dust in the stratosphere to cool the planet for centuries.
- It produced the other markers too, i.e. nanodiamonds, tektites, neutron radiation damage etc.
- Cook claims that it even formed the Rocky Mountains, but as of so far I think that's less likely than what http://newgeology.us says about mountain formation.

So, Charles, if any of those statements sound implausible, please say why, when you have time, and maybe what you think is more probable.

Crater Chains
You said in the Mars video you found "the instances of scalloping, and the crater chains, to be intriguing". Do you think Thornhill's explanation for those features are plausible? Or do you have a modified version to explain them?

Thermonuclear Explosions from Impacts
Here are a few questions on this topic. If cratering is pretty easy to explain by your theory, could you provide the main details of the crater forming process for us? How does high velocity impact produce thermonuclear explosion? Is it an electrical fusion process instead of like an atom smasher? How are magnetized shattercones made? Is that by lightning impact? How can central peaks contain strata like the surrounding bedrock?
- At this thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4056#p45390 I paraphrased some of the highlights from a TPOD at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071126manicouagan.htm, which include these regarding shatter cones - {By the way, shatter cones are thought to form in rock from impacts similar to the way beebees break holes in window panes, forming cone-shaped glass fragments that pop out, leaving the holes in their places}:
E.D. SHATTER CONE THEORY:
- Impact crater shatter cones should point upwards to point of impact.
- Vredefort Dome, South Africa, shatter cones point downwards and to different points of origin, evidence of traveling underground blast, like from rotating Birkeland current.
- On Mars are shatter cone patterns of incredible size.
- They are dendritic ridges similar to those in Manicouagan [crater in Canada].
- Lightning strikes on pavement and in soils leave Lichtenberg figures.
- Lichtenberg figures are remains of explosive E.D. through solids.
- Shatter cones may be Lichtenberg figures preserved in stone.


Earlier Posts Here
Have you had a chance to review all of the posts on this thread that were posted while you were on "vacation"? If so, do any of them seem worth commenting on?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:38 am

Lloyd wrote:Carolina Bays: All the life forms burned up to form a layer of soot.

I consider most of Cook's work to be epiphanies, which are a great place to start, but are not to be considered the final word. But is he saying that "all" life forms perished in the catastrophe? If so, by what process was the Earth repopulated by modern life forms, that just happen to be so similar to archaeological evidence from before the event?

Lloyd wrote:Crater Chains: You said in the Mars video you found "the instances of scalloping, and the crater chains, to be intriguing". Do you think Thornhill's explanation for those features are plausible? Or do you have a modified version to explain them?

I don't know. But if EDM is credited with all of the craters, rifts, etc., then why are some of them scalloped, which proves that it was EDM, while others are not, without disproving that the others were caused by EDM? Why do we not see scalloped rifts on the Moon? At the very least, I'd like to submit that there might be a mixed bag of phenomena here, caused by a variety of mechanisms. Frankly, the scalloped rifts of varying depths look very much like EDM, as a discharge dwelled for irregular intervals at different points when wandering across the surface. But to then contend that the high-precision machining of a Martian plateau is proof of EDM is ignorant of the actual properties of EDM. Machining a flat surface takes tightly controlled conditions, otherwise you get a wandering discharge path with irregular dwells. Endowing EDM with magical powers isn't going to get us any closer to the truth.

Lloyd wrote:Thermonuclear Explosions from Impacts: If cratering is pretty easy to explain by your theory, could you provide the main details of the crater forming process for us? How does high velocity impact produce thermonuclear explosion?

It isn't such a fancy hypothesis, actually. The simple facts are that nuclear fusion requires extreme temperatures (to get particle collisions that break up the existing nuclei) and extreme pressures (to keep the pieces from going anywhere until they get a chance to clank back together into larger nuclei). In an impact, the momentum is thermalized, so there's the heat source. And until all of the momentum is thermalized, the remaining inertial force provides the pressure. And there is no theoretical limit to the amount of energy that can be stored in momentum. The velocity "might" be limited to the speed of light, but there is no limit on the amount of mass involved. So at least hypothetically, it's an easy reach to conclude that an impact would create the necessary temperatures and pressures for fusion. A physicist would be able to tell you exactly how much mass, of what element, moving at what speed, would be required to get how much fusion. I'm satisfied that it's a hypothetical possibility, and that its properties match the observations.

Lloyd wrote:How can central peaks contain strata like the surrounding bedrock?

This is a well-known fluid dynamic phenomenon, which would be an expected property of the ejecta from a thermonuclear explosion. When a high-velocity jet hits a perpendicular surface, it accomplishes little erosion where the jet is actually perpendicular. This is because there is nowhere for the fluid (i.e., nuclear ejecta) to go, so there is no excavation. Away from the normal point, the fluid can gouge out material and carry it off. So at the center of the crater, the only material that was removed was by simple vaporization. Away from the center, it's vaporization plus entrainment into the high velocity flow, which is more efficient at removing material.

While on the topic of impacts, my "rolling electrodynamic meteor" epiphany hasn't fully satisfied me, and I kept thinking that I never actually fully answered webolife's questions, concerning a net charge that couldn't get fully neutralized fast enough, resulting in an electrostatic explosion. So I did some more thinking, and I came up with another epiphany.

This concerns something that I have never fully understood about shock waves in front of supersonic objects. Why do they get detached from the objects themselves, and stand off by quite a distance? I mean how, mechanistically speaking, does this happen? Air molecules impacting the surface of the supersonic object shouldn't be able to bounce that far back through the onslaught of more air molecules. So by Newtonian standards, the shock front should never become "detached" from the object, and molecular rebounds should be fully absorbed in the first dozen collisions, producing an extremely thin buffer between the object and the oncoming air. And this isn't just my naivete (which is generally sufficient to get me to say stupid stuff).

Kim, H. D. (2007): Shock Induced Boundary Layer Separation, 8th International Symposium on Experimental and Computational Aerothermodynamics of Internal Flows, Lyon, France:

Though there have been many works on boundary layer interactions to investigate shock-induced separation, a clear and concrete idea of its onset is still lacking.

Then I remembered something that I read about the heliopause. The interstellar wind creates a charge separation at the heliopause. This is because at the termination shock between the solar wind and the interstellar wind, atomic nuclei penetrate deeper into the opposing wind than free electrons, because the electrons are so much lighter, so they get stripped off. (May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879) Well, what if this is also an explanation for detached shock waves in front of supersonic objects? In other words, maybe the shock front isn't a fluid dynamic phenomenon, but an electrostatic one. High-velocity atoms in the approaching air are getting embedded in the boundary layer, stripped of their electrons, and therefore building up a positive double-layer around the supersonic object. The greater the speed, the thicker this positive double-layer, with electrostatic pressure pushing against the hydrostatic pressure of the oncoming air.

For impacters getting into the thicker atmosphere, the implication is that this "detached positive double-layer shock front" might be highly charged, and therefore, might be responsible for an enormous amount of electrostatic repulsion within the supersonic object. In other words, if the meteor is surrounded by a layer of highly charged air, the air is going to suck all of the electrons out of the meteor. Then the whole thing will come unglued. The absence of valence electrons will weaken the crystal lattice of the solid object, and electrostatic repulsion will generate an outward force that wasn't there before. Once the meteor disintegrates into smaller pieces, the friction goes up exponentially, as that is a function of surface area, which is much greater for a bunch of small pieces than it was for one big piece. The increase in temperature adds hydrostatic pressure to the existing electrostatic pressure, and ba-boom!

So I'll walk this epiphany around the neighborhood for a few days, and see if it lasts longer than the previous one. ;)

Lloyd wrote:Shatter Cones: Impact crater shatter cones should point upwards to point of impact. Vredefort Dome, South Africa, shatter cones point downwards and to different points of origin, evidence of traveling underground blast, like from rotating Birkeland current.

This might also be evidence of an impact where later crustal deformation due to tectonic forces rearranged everything after the fact.

Lloyd wrote:Earlier Posts Here: Have you had a chance to review all of the posts on this thread that were posted while you were on "vacation"?

I try to answer every question thoughtfully. This could take some time... :D
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:14 am

Speaking of EM bolides, I found this info on a bolide air burst near Vitim, Irkutsk, Russian Federation, 2002-09-25.

http://www.meteorites.com.au/odds&ends/russia.html

The Vitim bolide may be categorized as so-called electrophonic bolides. At the time of luminescence in the area of the settlement of Mama, eye-witnesses report sounds (rustling, buzzing). The employee of the Mama airport Georgy Konstantinovich Kaurtsev witnesses that the filament lamps of the chandelier glowed to half their intensity at the time of the bolide’s flight, although the entire settlement was devoid of electrical power supply that night. The airport guards Vera Ivanovna Semenova and Lidiya Nikolayevna Berezan pointed to a scaring phenomenon: a bright luminescence at the upper ends of thin little wood poles of the fence surrounding the airport’s meteorological ground. All that may be treated as resulting from a strong alternate electric current that was produced when the bolide was flying. It should be noted that the distance from the flight path in upper atmospheric layers to the settlement of Mama was several tens of kilometers.


No evidence of a bolide-to-ground discharge was reported.

Note that rustling/buzzing sounds are characteristic of an electrostatic discharge.

Also note that the author states that it was an alternating current, but a DC current can produce the same effects (power light bulbs and create corona discharges from pointy objects).
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests