Earth - tectonics and geology

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: Earth - tectonics and geology

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:11 pm

In my model, tidal forces drive an electric current of sorts that could fit the bill. Basically, at high tide, pressure at depth is relieved, allowing rock that had been forcibly ionized to get neutralized. So that's electron uptake. At low tide, it's the opposite...
...
-- CC


Charles, Then one must ask what comes before the ocean tides? That model, by its very complexity, suggests that it may be describing effects, rather than edifying causes.

Image
. These aurorae are unique because they can cover the entire pole, whereas aurorae around Earth and Jupiter are typically confined by magnetic fields to rings surrounding the magnetic poles. The large and variable nature of these aurorae indicates that charged particles streaming in from the Sun are experiencing some type of magnetism above Saturn that was previously unexpected.

http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/07_i ... waves.html

Image

I don't have a model, other than to offer a similarity in images; and to suggest a likely rotating electric influx at the poles, as a prime driver.
M. Mathis offers this relevant bit of observation:

The Earth is recycling charge and charge peaks in the infrared (infrared is longwave). Every particle and body in the universe—from the electron to the galaxy—is a charge reactor. It is a machine that recycles charge. It most cases, it does this by spinning. A spinning sphere in a charge field immediately and naturally sets up charge potentials, and if that sphere is porous to charge, the charge comes in the poles and is emitted at the equator. The Earth does this just like the proton does and the Sun does and the galaxy does.
We can SEE it doing this in this diagram! Look at the hole at the south pole. Also look up “coronal hole.” Coronal holes are most often at the Solar poles, just like this. This is where [~charges] are going IN.

http://milesmathis.com/aurora.pdf

Aren't the subterranean magma flows 'tides' in themselves ?

Merry Christmas
seasmith
 
Posts: 2580
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Earth - tectonics and geology

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:59 pm

seasmith wrote:Then one must ask what comes before the ocean tides? That model, by its very complexity, suggests that it may be describing effects, rather than edifying causes.

The prime mover here is gravitational loading, which creates a charge separation at depth, due to electron degeneracy pressure. So some of the gravitational potential is converted to electrostatic potential. Then, as the Moon moves around the Earth, the gravitational potential changes, resulting in high/low tides. This also varies the associated electrostatic potentials, driving electric currents. So I think that I have the force and energy budgets in order, and I didn't have to redefine charge, mass, time, space, or anything else. 8-)

Happy Holidays to everybody!
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: 1735
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Earth - tectonics and geology

Unread postby willendure » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:24 am

CharlesChandler wrote:Researchers Discover Jet Stream in Earth’s Molten Iron Core

Very interesting -- nice scoop, seasmith!

Now, how do they explain it?

“We can explain it as acceleration in a band of core fluid circling the pole, like the jet stream in the atmosphere,” said lead author Dr. Phil Livermore, from the University of Leeds.

The jet flows along a boundary between two different regions in the core. When material in the liquid core moves towards this boundary from both sides, the converging liquid is squeezed out sideways, forming the jet.

“Of course, you need a force to move the fluid towards the boundary. This could be provided by buoyancy, or perhaps more likely from changes in the magnetic field within the core,” said co-author Prof. Rainer Hollerbach, also from the University of Leeds.

That falls short of an explanation.

In my model, tidal forces drive an electric current of sorts that could fit the bill. Basically, at high tide, pressure at depth is relieved, allowing rock that had been forcibly ionized to get neutralized. So that's electron uptake. At low tide, it's the opposite -- pressure at depth is restored, which forcibly ionizes the rock, expelling electrons. Where do those electrons go? The natural destination would be in the direction of wherever electron uptake is occurring. So electrons are flowing from the low tide areas toward the high tide areas. This means that as the Earth rotates, there is a large batch of electrons that is stationary with respect to the Moon, always chasing after the parts of the Earth currently at high tide, while moving with respect to the Earth due to the rotation. And the direction of this relative motion is retrograde (since the Earth rotates on its axis faster than the Moon orbits the Earth), which is what they found.


Yesss, I knew you'd have a good explanation of it Charles.

What about the fact that it has only been detected around 180 degrees of the Earth and not the whole way? I don't imagine its such an easy signal to pick up, perhaps just a mistake in measurement or analysing the results? Or do you think there is some reason for it?
willendure
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Earth - tectonics and geology

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:54 am

willendure wrote:What about the fact that it has only been detected around 180 degrees of the Earth and not the whole way?

Do you mean the images from the paper (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o2859.html), where they have 180 degrees at the bottom? I think that it's just showing the orientation of the polar views. I'm thinking that the alternating polarities are the high and low tides.
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: 1735
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Earth - tectonics and geology

Unread postby willendure » Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:01 am

CharlesChandler wrote:
willendure wrote:What about the fact that it has only been detected around 180 degrees of the Earth and not the whole way?

Do you mean the images from the paper (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... o2859.html), where they have 180 degrees at the bottom? I think that it's just showing the orientation of the polar views. I'm thinking that the alternating polarities are the high and low tides.


Figure 2 on that link and the same image that has been posted up here already. It is also described in some but not all articles I have read about this. They are saying that this flow goes only half way around the world. Imagine if the liquid came out of the core on one side, then flowed round to the other, then went back into it there. I guess we'll need to read the whole thing to understand what it is exactly that they are describing. I think they are saying this flow goes from under Siberia to under Canada, but not under the Pacific.

Also, if this is right down at the core, is it different to your moon induced elecrtron degeneracy flow, which I think you were assigning to much shallower under the crust? As it has a direct lifting effect on the crust, and you use it to explain the double tide, IIRC.
willendure
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Earth - tectonics and geology

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:48 pm

willendure wrote:Figure 2 on that link and the same image that has been posted up here already. It is also described in some but not all articles I have read about this. They are saying that this flow goes only half way around the world. Imagine if the liquid came out of the core on one side, then flowed round to the other, then went back into it there. I guess we'll need to read the whole thing to understand what it is exactly that they are describing. I think they are saying this flow goes from under Siberia to under Canada, but not under the Pacific.

Also, if this is right down at the core, is it different to your moon induced electron degeneracy flow, which I think you were assigning to much shallower under the crust? As it has a direct lifting effect on the crust, and you use it to explain the double tide, IIRC.

Good questions. I don't have access to the original article. Are there other sources for this info? Anyway, I do credit the Moon with creating a current in the Moho, which is very shallow compared to what they're talking about here. But my model also allows other boundaries, where stronger ionization potentials are getting hit, deeper in the Earth. So there are multiple boundaries, and there are currents in each of these.
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: 1735
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby Morphix » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:01 pm

Just watched Andrew Hall's 2016 presentation "The Arc Blasted Earth." Wondering if someone has calculated how much energy it would take to form mountain ranges via shockwaves from giant thunderbolts between planets? That is where my skepticism needs some figures to show that there could be enough of a difference in potential, enough to basically vaporize the land and blow it into the forming of buttresses and mountsins. Do those calculations exist to reasonably support the hypothesis?
Morphix
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby Morphix » Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:45 pm

Seems like a readonable question. If a 1 mile high mountain range was arc blasted into place, would there also not be long, linear depressions runninG paralell, from whence the material came? Or if mountains were carved by removing material from the previous plain, how could such plains extend for such great distances at the same level? Just simple questions that I think fall under planetary science. Answers? Guesses?
Morphix
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby webolife » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:35 pm

Since the definitions of sedimentary rock formations have been long studied and described, and the dynamics of erosion and deposition can be demonstrated in the lab and observed in nature, it falls upon the EDM-ers to account for these and many similar questions. It is not enough to point to mythology, then try to twist nature into literal contortions to make it fit our interpretations of the myths. The plausibility question runs very high on my list of quandaries about the EU. It has not been tested or verified mathematically, and only the interpretations of pictures that MAY represent first hand observations of natural phenomenon, which MAY have been interplanetary electric discharges, which MAY have happened in historic times... that form the basis for EU catastrophism. I'm a catastrophist myself, and would love to hear some positive, scientific, confirmative evidenciary supports for their mega-EDM crust forming mechanisms. Been here for a few years. Haven't heard it yet. Still hoping though.
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: 2366
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:44 pm

I'm a catastrophist myself, and would love to hear some positive, scientific, confirmative evidenciary supports for their mega-EDM crust forming mechanisms. Been here for a few years. Haven't heard it yet. Still hoping though.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Morphix
Do those calculations exist to reasonably support the hypothesis?

About 32.7 Duotrigintillion watts I think. ;)
What reveals itself to me ceases to be mysterious for me alone: if I unveil it to anyone else, he hears mere words which betray the living sense: Profanation, but never revelation.
~ Egyptian Proverbs
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby webolife » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:08 am

GaryN wrote:What kind of evidence are you looking for?

The fairest of all questions.
My catastrophism is based on observable and reproducible processes that create features like what we see in nature in short time periods in the lab. My premise is that these quick processes in the lab can be applied to earth history in place of the gradualistic paradigm of the standard model. For a while in my thinking the argument seemed to be catastrophism vs. gradualism, but more and more I have come to see it as observable catastrophic processes vs. observable gradual processes being the main contributors to earth history, and finding the catastrophic evidences more weighty.
I don't see planetary sized EDM happening anywhere, just ET surface features that do not have exact analogs on the earth. It's of course fun to speculate what sort of causes and effects come to bear in conditions of unique or no atmospheres, and to imagine what might happen if huge voltage differentials were to build up between astronomical bodies [and what might cause that?]. I'm fascinated by the scenarios presented by EU-ers in this regard, and if any of them were able to be verified it would be a great enhancement to my own view. Our late Michael Steinbacher pushed further into this than many were willing to go by trying to apply some of those scenarios to earth history. I admire him for that, but frankly am unconvinced that those explanations have greater merit than attributing earth's features to processes we can all observe.
I can buy the electric sun hypothesis as a working model, and see applications of the interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic Birkland current theme... I love upper atmosphere sprites and ELVES as evidencing the electrical environment of our planet; but these processes seem to be in a state of dynamic equilibrium, with no bursts or catastrophic episodes yet to be seen in play anywhere, particularly of the EDM variety. Squatter Man, if a plasmoid observed by terrestrial skygazers, would have to have been seen from the side, but why is the huge body that would have been responsible for such a discharge never depicted with "him"? And that is a small issue compared with the huge volume of presuppositions that have gone into so much of the EU mythology. So I'm skeptical for now.
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: 2366
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby Morphix » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:14 pm

Seriously, what I would like to know is how much electrical energy is required to remove or relocate cubic miles of material, and much more if Mars had half its surface reduced by miles in depth and blown into space. Can someone out there relate the energy required to a correspinding difference in potential between two planets? How long would it take, given a reasonable difference in potential? Remember, any difference in charge is reduced with every discharge. Have these things been calculated and put forth by EU proponents?
Morphix
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby Morphix » Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:37 pm

Over three weeks since I posted this question about energy required to arc blast mountains. Same question for craters, rills, canyons etc. Anyone come across or capable of calculating an aswer to this? To my mind this is basic to the EU hypothesis that interplanetary electrical discharges are responsible for major surface features of many planets and moons. Anyone?
Morphix
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:19 pm

Re: Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby nick c » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:09 am

Morphix,
Some preliminary calculations were done by Ralph Juergens in several articles in the 1970's.
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensa.htm
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensb.htm

On a small scale electrical discharge machining can be observed in a lab and as a common industrial process.
So therefore, the process is not hypothetical but rather one that has been observed in many situations.

One of the principles of plasma processes is that they are scalable. So if you are looking for calculations I think the place to start is with the process in a lab and then scale it upwards.

Perhaps the prerequisite question that you should pose is: Are these plasma processes scalable as claimed?
If the answer is 'yes' then a person with a mathematical inclination can take the next step and scale the process up to planetary levels.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Energy required to arc blast the creation of mountains?

Unread postby webolife » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:37 pm

Nick,
I think you've hit right on my issue with the planetary scale EDM mechanism. In the EU paradigm, we are hoping/looking for a unified field theory, so the principle is that astronomical [and for that matter atomic] events should be able to be modeled at the laboratory scale. Considering the amount of voltage used in lab plasma experiments, is there in evidence enough capacitance when scaled up to interplanetary fields to accomplish the kinds of EDM planetary shaping that is being hypothesized? Where is that evidence? Scaling is the key.
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: 2366
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests