Earth/Moon Electrical Interaction

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

Moon and Magnetotail

Unread postby tolenio » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:02 pm

Hello,

Could somebody tell me if anything happens to the moon magnetically when it passes through the Earth's magnetotail...

Roughly once every Lunar orbit, the Moon passes through Earth's magnetotail for approximately 6 days. Interaction with the plasma sheet causes the Moon's surface to become negatively charged.


I understand that the moon is primarily volcanic basalt and basalt is interesting in magnetic terms.

[b]The Magnetic Properties of Igneous Rocks from the Ocean Floor[/b]

…”The limited range of submarine igneous rock types examined, and the strong bias towards quenched samples necessitates a supplement to this summary in the form of a discussion of studies of magnetic properties from selected igneous rocks outcropping above sea level. In these studies, serpentinization of ultrabasic rocks has been observed in one case to increase the intensity of magnetization; chloritization and spilitization are confirmed as being magnetically destructive; maghaemitization may have destructive effects; titanomagnetite oxidation variation dominates in magnetic change of basaltic lavas (and some corresponding chemical changes are likely to occur); basaltic intrusives have a much more limited titanomagnetic oxidation range than is generally observed in lavas; and spontaneous demagnetization with time probably exists, at least in basalts.”…


Could the moon become more magnetically active as it passes through the magnetotail's plasma sheet and tug on the cracks in the Earth's magnetosphere allowing for more solar wind to become trapped inside the magnetosphere interacting with upper atmosphere? This would contribute to electric weather.

NASA: "Immense cracks in our planet's magnetic field can remain open for hours, allowing the solar wind to gush through and power stormy space weather.
"


..."Fortunately, these cracks don't expose Earth's surface to the solar wind. Our atmosphere protects us, even when our magnetic field doesn't. The effects of solar storms are felt mainly in the high upper atmosphere and the region of space around Earth where satellites orbit."...


Thanks in advance for any insight you can give me.

Regards,
Tom
"The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves." Gospel of Thomas http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html
User avatar
tolenio
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:17 am

FULL MOON, EARTH, SUN AND MOONQUAKES

Unread postby FS3 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:18 pm

The correlation between transient lunar phenomenons and moonquakes seems to be overwhelming.

First those quakes are rather shallow, so their origin near or actually on the surface is invitable - second the "coincidence" that moonquakes occur mostly around full moon is another hint that indeed the Earth's plasmatail is to be considered as an important trigger.

Here you can see an UV-image of Earth's excited electrons from the Magnetopause to Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) spacecraft:

Image
From: http://www.spaceimages.com/earplastail.html

Watch the actual "tail" (the shadow towards the lower left) caused by the Sun's positively charged ions - often referred to as a "wind" - and(!) that bending path of excited electrons inside the magnetosphere pointing clearly towards the Sun (that tail on the top flexing towards the upper right - in that direction where the Sun is outside the picture area towards the top right corner).

We do know from various Apollo-mission findings that the Moon's electrical equilibrium is actually influenced by the Solar-"Wind" - and logically by the shadow cast by Earth's Magnetotail...

Moondust in the Wind
The Moon and the Magnetotail
New Research into Mysterious Moon Storms
"Sticky" Moon Dust...
Astronomers Discover That The Earth's Magnetotail Charges The Surface Of The Moon

So, if the Moon is charged/recharged, similar to Earth's electrical environment there is just another existing resonance pattern between Earth and Moon, similar to that 8-Minutes window that is established between the Sun and the Earth.

That concludes another "closed circuit" between Moon and Earth, especially at the times of the Full Moon. That further implicates a major influence on the Earth's fragile Ionosphere-Surface equilibrium! At the times at Full Moon the Earth's biosphere undergoes major changes likewise.

That may lead us towards an excellent scientific explanation regarding the altered behaviour of humans during times of Full Moon.

Electricity is by far more important to the whole Universe than science dares to accept nowadays.

What a pity.

FS3
User avatar
FS3
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:44 pm
Location: Europe

Re: NEW & FULL MOON EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS & THE ELECTRIC UNIVE

Unread postby MGmirkin » Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:40 pm

Geogal wrote:Webolife, I don't necessarily "balk" at the idea of a great flood, I just don't see evidence matching up, nor with research that I've read and looked up do I find evidence of enough water on the planet to do what is biblically suggested.


It might be worth noting that not all "flood" stories agree... There may also have been some, shall we say, metaphorical interpretation.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... heaven.htm

If this model is right and the outburst of the flood had something to do with the disruption of this plasma column, one might contemplate the possibility that the water of the flood was not actually water, but a symbolic expression of glowing plasma.


Apart from that, a significant number of flood myths insist that the water was no ordinary water, but a different substance – hot and fiery. Jewish legend had it that the rain was hot, scalding the skin of the sinners. The Makah of Washington, the Quileute, the Chimakum, the Salinan of California and the Ipurina of Brazilian Amazonia agreed that the earth was overwhelmed by a hot flood coming down from the sky. This intriguing lead does not seem to have been followed by any specialists in the field, but the image of an outburst of 'fire-water' certainly reminds one of a return to chaos, in which water and fire were commingled into a single substance.

The recurrent links of the flood with the world axis and an outflow of 'fire-water' spur a renewed examination of this fascinating body of folklore.


The notion of the flood seems to also be commensurate with the recollections of "doomsday..." Gods hurling thunderbolts, boulders, rocks. Raining down sand and gravel and scorching ruin. Not necessarily just "water" as in a very literalist "flood" story.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... omsday.htm

I recall having read an article somewhere, though I can't find it at the moment (might have been several articles), talking about meteorites falling on Earth having composition similar to materials found on Mars. There might have also been an article about materials having reached Mars from Earth. Wouldn't be surprising if at some point they were in interaction and undergoing mutual discharges tearing hunks out of one another in some kind of close approach. Granted the Saturnian Hypothesis hasn't been given much attention on the forums due to time limitations and a need to curtail idle speculation that detracts from discussion of the actual Saturn Hypothesis itself. If you want to look into that further, you might look through the newsletter archives on Kronia.com, but be careful stepping down the rabbit hole, the drop is a doozy if you're not ready to go that far. Suffice it to say that, if true, much history would require revisiting... But, i don't want to sidetrack discussions on this thread too much.

~Michael
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: NEW & FULL MOON EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS & THE EU

Unread postby tolenio » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:45 am

Hello,

Since some basalts amplify magnetic fields and our moon is primarily basalt the interaction of varying field strengthscould vary with moon phase and plasma stream.

For example when the moon is caught in the earth's magnetotail (6 days a month) versus when it is not. This variation of interacting magnetic fields could work on the opening and closing of cracks in the magnetopshere.

More and less plasma leaking into earth's magnetosphere will affect the planets rotating axial magnetic field, and such fields steer and move matter. In this the matter is tectonic plates.

The varying amounts of plasma create pulses in the magnetic field which pushes the tectonic plates around slowly.

For those that do not believe an axial rotating magnetic field moves matter see this MIT demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu6L2M2gpu4

With earthquakes and volcanoes you are simply looking at the same demonstration using the earth's rotating axial magnetic field and tectonic plates over great periods of time.

Later,
Tom
"The Pharisees and the scholars have taken the keys of knowledge and have hidden them. They have not entered nor have they allowed those who want to enter to do so. As for you, be as sly as snakes and as simple as doves." Gospel of Thomas http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html
User avatar
tolenio
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:17 am

Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby Shelgeyr » Sun Jul 11, 2010 3:36 pm

Forgive me if this has been dealt with here before, but I wanted to bring up this topic: There is a remarkable difference to the crater patterning between the Moon's near-side and its far-side. My default assumption is the mares on the near-side result from stupendous discharge activity between the Earth and the lunar hemisphere facing us.

My question is: How does mainstream science account for the difference? If anything, I would have expected the Earth to act as a shield of some sort so that the far-side would have been more exposed to, and thus have a higher percentage of mares supposedly resorting from, the huge impactors currently accepted as being their cause.

Instead we find the opposite.

Does anyone know of this discrepancy being addressed?
Shelgeyr
Sometimes I feel like a tiger’s got my leg...
User avatar
Shelgeyr
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby Dotini » Mon Jul 12, 2010 7:33 am

Firsoff, Old Moon and the New, 1970, has speculated that close contact interactions between Earth and Moon during a capture could have accounted for the mare on the Earth side. Other than this, a quick review of my small and aged library on the Moon discloses no confident mainstream answers to your question.

Respectfully,
Dotini
Dotini
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:44 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby redeye » Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:44 am

My question is: How does mainstream science account for the difference?


I thought the mares on the nearside of the moon were believed to be formed by the tidal stresses which ultimately led to the moon being locked to the Earth.

wiki says this:
Maria are found almost exclusively on the near side of the Moon, covering 31% of the surface on the near side,[12] compared with a few scattered patches on the far side covering only 2%.[43] This is thought to be due to a concentration of heat-producing elements under the crust on the near side, seen on geochemical maps obtained by Lunar Prospector's gamma-ray spectrometer, which would have caused the underlying mantle to heat up, partially melt, rise to the surface and erupt.[28][44][45] Most of the Moon's mare basalts erupted during the Imbrian period, 3.0–3.5 billion years ago, although some radiometrically dated samples are as old as 4.2 billion years,[46] and the youngest eruptions, dated by crater counting, appear to have been only 1.2 billion years ago


So, radioactive fairie dust did it.

Cheers!
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind."
Bob Marley
User avatar
redeye
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:56 am
Location: Dunfermline

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:32 am

A mainstream take on the topographical assymetry of lunar hemispheres:
In a very substantiated model, using the information provided by orbital geochemistry and laser altimetry, Haines and Metzger showed that the observed displacement of the Moon's center of mass from its center of figure has its most supportable explanation in the longitudinal variations of the crustal density and thickness and the lunar isostasy is a well-balanced mean between Pratt and Airy isostatic compensations. In this paper it is demonstrated that the lunar asymmetries are the results of the longitudinal variations of the crustal thickness and that a substantial component of isostatic compensation of the lunar topography takes place in the upper mantle.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Metic..27S.267N
It does seem plausible that the moon would have a displaced center of gravity due to it's proximity to the larger Earth, but is that actually a measurement or some sort of assumption? anyway, it does not seem to me to explain differences in crater distribution.

In light of theories of planetary catastrophism and the EU, we would have to question the assumptions that Moon was formed either with the Earth or from the Earth billions of years ago, and take into consideration the possibility that the Moon was captured and may have an entirely different history then that of the Earth. When and how the Moon's surface was created and then resurfaced is open to speculation, that is to ask the question... how many of the surface features presently observed on the Moon were there before being captured and how many resulted from the encounter with Earth? Furthermore, it would stand to reason if many surface features are in a large part the result of electrical discharges (between celestial bodies in close proximity) causing the excavation and deposition of material on the bodies concerned, then it would not be unreasonable to end up with an assymetrical distribution of various topographical features. That is, taking into consideration the many possibilities and variations in scenarios that would lead up to and be involved in a capture event.

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:45 am

A more recent article calling into question the (hypothesized) crustal assymetry of the Moon:

The asymmetric crust composition, however, is not fully convincing, because it has been inferred based on the limited ground truth (Apollo 16 landing site on the nearside FHT and somewhere on the farside FHT as a source of Dhofar 489 et al.) and the Clementine / Lunar Prospector data with insufficient resolution to define the chemical / mineralogical variation across the global feldspathic FHT. Since Mg/(Mg+Fe) ratio (=mg#) is closely related to the crystallization stage from the source magma, it holds keys to understand how the magma ocean crystallized.

http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1343048.html
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:33 pm

* One of the mares, I think Crisium, is hexagonal; and at least one TPOD I think has suggested that hexagonal craters would naturally be formed electrically when the axial current filament is surrounded by 6 adjacent currents. Imagine a soft tube surrounded by 6 similar tubes pushing against it. You get a hexagon, like with cells in bee hives.

* The Jul 31, 2009 TPOD at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/posting.php?mode=edit&f=4&p=38274 says as follows.
How does the electric force manifest itself?

One remarkable example is the bright-edged crater to the left of the central scar [on Ariel]: it is hexagonal, much like craters on nearly every celestial body in the Solar System, Earth included. How can the detonation of a colliding rock cause a hexagonal crater? No experiment has been able to demonstrate a polygonal shape left behind after an explosive event.

Explosions (such as that from a meteor impact) do not aggregate constituent particles into stable configurations; they induce chaotic behavior that leaves little in the way of identifiable forms. As has been pointed-out in several previous Picture of the Day articles, hexagons are created when intense particle beams touch down on a solid surface.

Researchers studying the issue have found that beams of electricity flowing through plasma create a central column surrounded by concentric cylinders. The cylindrical current filaments exhibit long-range attraction and short-range repulsion braiding that result in evenly spaced vortices surrounding the column. As the filaments rotate around one another, a preferred hexagonal cross-section forms within the innermost column.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby Shelgeyr » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:49 pm

If I remember my Sumerian mythology right - and I probably don't but here goes anyway - our Moon has been theorized to be the former "Kingu" satellite of the planet (dragon)Tiamat, which was supposedly destroyed by a collision with planet Marduk's satellite called whatever the Sumerian term is for "North Wind", turning Tiamat into the astroid belt and freeing Kingu to head our direction.

Now that I think about it (and I am reaching back across cobweb-filled decades), I'm probably repeating something from Zacharia Sitchin, and if so then for that I apologize!
Shelgeyr
Sometimes I feel like a tiger’s got my leg...
User avatar
Shelgeyr
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:36 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:53 pm

* Yes, Sitchin talked about the moon being called Kingu by the Sumerians, and Tiamat he thought they called the Earth. But Sitchin did not do good translations of the Sumerian tablets, according to Dave Talbott. I personally think Sitchin may be a disinformation agent, like Carl Sagan and many others. Richard Hoagland said Sitchin is an Israeli intelligence agent. Hoagland seems to be a disinformation agent too, unless he's just hard-headed, which he may be, since he's a Taurus.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby Dotini » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:15 am

I found an article which claims discovery of so much water on the Moon that it challenges the current theory of the origin of the Moon. This reopens the possibility that the mare were formed during a capture event.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 072010.php

"The finding of volatiles on the moon has deep implications for how it, and the Earth, formed. It is generally believed that the moon was created when the early Earth was hit by a Mars-sized proto-planet called Theia, melting and vaporizing itself and a large chunk of the Earth. The cloud of particles created by the impact later congealed to form the moon, which supposedly was devoid of highly volatile elements such as hydrogen and chlorine. However, the researchers' discovery of these volatiles challenges this theory."


Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
Dotini
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:44 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:03 pm

* The only specific statement I could find in the article about what was found is this:
scientists determined volatile elements in a calcium phosphate mineral are very similar in the same mineral found on Earth

* So they mention only "volatile elements", not specifically water. I hope water will be found in moon rocks, so it can be more easily colonized, but I'd like to see more definitive evidence than this. Their theory of how the moon formed is likely way off the beam, as it was likely a moon of Saturn that was captured by Earth during the Saturn breakup less than 5,000 years ago.
* This article http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/07/university-of-tennessee-researchers.html gives more info, but the volatiles listed are only H, Cl and S from the moon rock. Here's a quote.
Here we report quantitative ion microprobe measurements of late-stage apatite from lunar basalt 14053 that document concentrations of H, Cl and S that are indistinguishable from apatites in common terrestrial igneous rocks. These volatile contents could reflect post-magmatic metamorphic volatile addition or growth from a late-stage, interstitial, sulphide-saturated melt that contained ~1,600 parts per million H2O and ~3,500 parts per million Cl.

* They're assuming that volcanism existed on the Moon, like on Earth. But the Moon's surface was likely formed by megalightning, rather than volcanism. But there may have been water on the moon before the Saturn breakup, which the megalightning may have incorporated into surface rock. Transmutation might also produce water within rock chemistry.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Lunar Near-side vs. Far-side

Unread postby SirWilhelm » Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:07 am

I think before you accept critiscism of Sitchin's translation abilities and reject his work outright, you should look at his work and the judge the quality of it for yourself. Sumerian is not the only language he is fluent in, and he does not depend on just his own translations. His books are well footnoted and annotated. As a whole, they support catastrophic theory and contradict main stream theory on many levels. The account of the collision of Marduk and it's satellites with Tiamat, accounts very well for the existance of the asteroid belt, comets, Earth's moon, and even the position of Earth itself, better than main stream science does. The asteroid belt is debris knocked off Tiamat by the collision, enough to reduce a much larger planet to Earth's present size, but not enough debris to account for a planetary body in the area of the belt. Some of that debris became the comets. Earth's moon was melted like "a pot of lead" and left a dead world. Earth itself was left with a large scar from the collision, the Pacific Basin. If an explanation hangs together despite the possibility that a word or two may have been mistranslated, should it be dismissed outright? Could it not be the basis for further research? Or is it apporiate to accept an ad hominan attack as reason to dismiss it? I recommend everyone read his work and decide for themselves on it's merits. Everyone has their critics.
SirWilhelm
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest