Electric Venus

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Negative Anode Venus

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon May 24, 2010 3:58 pm

* This site http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-positive-lightning.htm says:
Positive lightning is a rare form of lightning which carries a positive charge to the ground, rather than the negative charge which is typically associated with lightning. This type of lightning can strike across very long distances, and with formidable power, making it extremely dangerous. It is often much more powerful than regular lightning, striking with as much as one billion volts of power.

* So it looks like Earth presently gets 5% positive lightning strikes and 95% negative. And I suppose that means all of the planets likely have gotten both positive and negative discharges as well, even during cataclysms. The positive strikes are much more powerful, I guess partly because the positive ions are much more massive than electrons.
* Juergens's articles, "Of the Moon and Mars", are found here:
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensa.htm
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensb.htm
* And they discuss megalightning as between planets, or in this case between the Moon and Mars.
* Did he say the leader stroke pulls up electrons to one planet and the return stroke follows about the same path with positive ions going the opposite direction?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Negative Anode Venus

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon May 24, 2010 4:11 pm

* Well, I managed to find this relevant quote from Juergens already, which confirms what I said above about both positive and negative discharges on many or all of the planetoids.
Mars, although it enters the fray with greater net negative charge than the moon, suffers a drastic redistribution of discharges as the encounter develops, so that when discharging is initiated, a limited area on the surface of Mars actually assumes the anode role. How this might come about is a matter I intend to discuss after the evidence has been presented.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: A New View of Venus???

Unread postby The Great Dog » Mon May 24, 2010 6:00 pm

The Great Dog has just been reminded that a powdery surface will also absorb more radar light and appear darker, while harder surfaces will appear brighter. There are several Pictures of the Day by various authors that discuss the nature of Venus. Two are listed:

Venus the Bright Planet

Aphrodite's Blazing Mane
There are no other dogs but The Great Dog
User avatar
The Great Dog
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: A New View of Venus???

Unread postby remelic » Mon May 24, 2010 11:16 pm

brilliant...

A whole new world in my eyes now...

:)
Secrets of Edward Leedskalnin
“Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.” - Nikola Tesla
Electricity = Magnetism x Speed of Light Squared... Thats what he really meant.
User avatar
remelic
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 11:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Negative Anode Venus

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue May 25, 2010 6:39 am

* After rereading the previous quotes from Juergens, I think I misunderstood him; I don't think he was saying that Mars ever acted as a cathode during the encounter with the Moon. He seems to suggest that the planetoids were all of about the same electric charge and that the larger body will tend to be the anode. So, if Mars also interacted electrically with Venus, it would then have been the cathode. If Venus interacted with Earth, it might have acted as cathode, though it's nearly the same size.
* But my suggestion that Earth acts as both anode and cathode in lightning strikes is still true.
Last edited by Lloyd on Tue May 25, 2010 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Negative Anode Venus

Unread postby remelic » Tue May 25, 2010 7:31 am

I guess my main question is weather or not Venus, having an opposite spin, is opposite in polarity then the rest of the planets? More like the Sun in nature or a comet?

But thanks for this great info about planetary discharge. What kind of voltage are we dealing with here, lets say a discharge like the one described from Mars to the Moon? Or Venus to Mars?

Thanks
Secrets of Edward Leedskalnin
“Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.” - Nikola Tesla
Electricity = Magnetism x Speed of Light Squared... Thats what he really meant.
User avatar
remelic
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 11:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Negative Anode Venus

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue May 25, 2010 7:46 am

* I don't think the direction of spin of planetoids affects their charge or surface potential. The charge of the interplanetary plasma seems to determine that.
* Here's what Juergens said about the size of the Aristarchus discharge [and later he said the Tycho discharge was likely about 40 times larger].
... we may usefully ask how much electric charge might have been exchanged in the postulated Aristarchus event. Would this charge, for example, be a reasonably small fraction of the total charge carried by each of the two planetary bodies involved?

Suppose we approach this problem by taking the measure of an ordinary lightning bolt, which hopefully is the nearest thing to an interplanetary discharge likely to be observable in our time. The energy of a fairly average lightning discharge, according to Viemeister (59), is about 250 kilowatt-hours-roughly 9 x 10exp8 joules.

On Earth, most of this energy is dissipated in the atmosphere. But what might happen if such a bolt were to strike an airless body like the Moon?

From Baldwin's analysis of lunar and terrestrial explosion craters (60), it would appear that such a bolt ought to produce a lunar crater about 85 meters in diameter (see Figure 1). Aristarchus, as indicated in the figure, was probably formed by an explosion releasing some 2 x 10exp21 joules of energy. So we are talking about an interplanetary discharge a few million million [a few trillion] times as energetic as ordinary lightning.

Cloud-to-ground electric potentials in thunderstorms reach values near 10exp9 volts (61). Presumably the potential drop across an interplanetary spark gap would be considerably greater than this, but by how much we can only guess for now. Let us assume that it would be at least a thousand times greater -- say, 10exp12 volts. On this basis, since the energy of a discharge is the simple product of the potential drop between electrodes and the total charge transferred, we can estimate that a spark transferring 10exp9 coulombs of charge would suffice to produce an Aristarchus on the Moon and wreak corresponding havoc, though of a different kind, on Mars (62).

Some recent estimates of total electric charges carried by solar-system bodies include Bailey's 10exp18 coulombs for the Sun (63) and Michelson's 10exp13 coulombs for the Earth (64). Michelson's figure is derived from Bailey's on the assumption that the specific charges -- total charges divided by total masses -- of all bodies in the solar system might be alike. The same assumption would imply total charges of about 10exp12 and 10exp11 coulombs for Mars and the Moon, respectively. However, as pointed out elsewhere (65), the ubiquitous interplanetary plasma can be expected to equalize surface potentials rather than specific charges; except during near collision episodes, and perhaps even then to large degree, the potentials of all the planets (or at least the inner planets of the system) should be pretty much alike and equal to that of the Sun.

Nor need one put too much stress on Bailey's estimate of the Sun's net charge. Most of his arguments assume that electric fields propagate across interplanetary space, and this seems ruled out by the plasma. Nevertheless, for present purposes we might take Bailey's figure as a minimum value for solar charge and deduce from it a minimum value for the Sun's surface "potential" -- 10exp9 volts. (In passing, it is well to note that this "potential" is relative to some "zero" of potential that probably does not apply anywhere in the solar system, and may not apply anywhere within the limits of the local galaxy, either. Bailey contended that the Sun maintains a potential of this magnitude relative to its immediate surroundings ("empty space"), but his analysis of the solar-charge problem was made before Mariner 2 demonstrated the all pervasive nature of the interplanetary plasma.)

On this basis, then, since the plasma effectively "grounds" the planets to the Sun, each of them ought to be charged so as to have this same 10exp9 -volt surface potential. The charge on each of them, expressed as a fraction of the Sun's charge, should be proportional to the planet's radius, expressed as a fraction of the Sun's radius. Earth, Mars, and the Moon should then carry respective "normal" charges of approximately 10exp5, 5 x 10exp4, and 2.5 x 10exp4 coulombs.

Given such charges -- and it bears reemphasizing that these figures may be substantially on the low side -- we can see that the postulated Aristarchus discharge, transferring 10exp9 coulombs between Mars and the Moon, would alter the "normal" charge of Mars by only about two parts in a million, and that of the Moon by some four parts in a million. Quite a few such bolts might pass between the two bodies during a single encounter without significantly affecting the electrical balance between either of them and the interplanetary plasma.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Negative Anode Venus

Unread postby nick c » Tue May 25, 2010 8:59 am

hi Lloyd,
Which Juergens' article is that quote taken from?

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Negative Anode Venus

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue May 25, 2010 12:54 pm

The quote starts at the second paragraph of the second half of the article at http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensb.htm.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Negative Anode Venus

Unread postby nick c » Tue May 25, 2010 7:21 pm

Lloyd,
Thanks for the link, I did not know that article was available on line.
Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

What just happened on Venus?

Unread postby Speed Metal » Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 pm

Has anyone seen this video? It shows what looks almost like a Coronal Mass Ejection but from Venus!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AoQnA503Ck

Of course, the suggestion was that an impact of some kind occurred. Or a camera lens flare. I had to post this one though to see what everyone here thinks.

Also, there appears to be some kind of new bright spot in Venus as well.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... venus.html

Coincidence?

Regards,

speed metal
Speed Metal
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: What just happened on Venus?

Unread postby Aveo9 » Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:41 pm

WOW!!

That looked just like a CME! But from Venus??

I'd love to know what wavelength that was taken in. Was it visible light? UV?

Btw - that link the the bright spot is over a year old :P so they might not be related


Edit: Looks like this explains it:

http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/artifacts/a ... ions.shtml
"If opposite poles attracted each other, they would be together in the middle of a magnet instead of at its ends"
-- Walter Russell
User avatar
Aveo9
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: What just happened on Venus?

Unread postby Speed Metal » Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:23 pm

Aveo9 wrote:WOW!!

That looked just like a CME! But from Venus??

I'd love to know what wavelength that was taken in. Was it visible light? UV?

Btw - that link the the bright spot is over a year old :P so they might not be related


Edit: Looks like this explains it:

http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/artifacts/a ... ions.shtml


Good catch! That would make sense too because it appeared very energetic.

The bright spot is still intriguing though. I wonder what it could be? BTW, thanks for the link Aveo9.

Regards,

speed metal
Speed Metal
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:52 pm

Interesting Catch! - Whole Solar System behaving "weirdly"..

Unread postby FS3 » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:39 am

"Weird" in the terms of the OU -- the old candle-light oil-lamp universe -- where heavy stuff is smashed into other gravy shtonk all the time and hot gases seem to inflatuate the science of physics all the time.

Me thinks that - despite the NASA explanation -- this is not an "internal reflection" neccessarily.

If you look at the elapsing timecode in the movie (the thing lasts a bit too long), read the arguments(?) and bendings in their "explanation", compare it to their other "examples" given and -- last but not least -- watch how it dissipates one might get the impression that this was no "artefact" of the ususal lentils -- oops -- lenses, at all.

Regarding the white Venus spot from last year -- this happened in a remarkably close timeframe to the one event we saw on Jupiter -- which was explained by an alleged "impact" that nobody saw, although.

See the connected topics here at our TPOD-Forum:

Jupiter finally goes "electric"!
What's with Venus' "White Spot"?

Cheers!
:mrgreen:
FS3
User avatar
FS3
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: Europe

Re: What just happened on Venus?

Unread postby Ion01 » Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:01 pm

This really is an effect of the lens. It is extremely common in astrophotography as they typically have multiple lenses and they all have extreme amount of curvature to them. This is why lenses that are typically used in astrophotography are so expensive but also very heavy as they have a lot of glass in them to correct for these types of issues. In the case of imagers on probes and satelites it is imperitive that they be light so they don't really worry about imaging issues like this.
Here is an example: http://www.tungstentech.com/Articles/Astronomy/GSO125FocalReducer/tabid/71/Default.aspx
Here is an example from my telescope.http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/681/stacked1.jpg
Notice they are in the opposite direction. This is due to whether or not the lens is concave or convex. There can also be differences in the appears of such effects due to the tube that is holding the lenses.
Here is another image of a moon around saturn that appears to have a giant discharge. It to is only a lens and tube effect.http://img169.imageshack.us/i/cassinilowres2lq5.gif/
User avatar
Ion01
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests