A Problem in Plasma Science

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by junglelord » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:46 am

A Problem in Plasma Science
by Harold Aspden, Ph.D., FIEE, FIMechE, C.Eng, C.Phys
Introduction

There is a quite serious problem that pervades the scientific theory relied upon in connection with research involving plasma discharges and so having bearing upon nuclear fusion experiments and even the interpretation of certain astrophysical phenomena. It arises from leaving unresolved an issue raised by Clerk Maxwell in his Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism and so dating back to the 19th century.

Equally serious is the problem of scientific academia today by which physicists publish their ideas in numerous papers and in measure aimed solely at building their prowess and justifying their position, but papers most of which add nothing of significance to our knowledge base. Accordingly, university libraries tend to become poorly charted jungles in which genuine contributions of worthy research are hidden and so pass unheeded.

That 'issue' raised by Clerk Maxwell was in fact resolved and recorded in that 'jungle' some 37 years ago and, thanks to the author, myself, being still alive to point to its location, this item is now being remembered here on my website. I will below explain its importance.

The Sun and a Problem

We are told that the sun has a temperature of about 6000 degrees and can verify that this is a reasonable statement because we know the amount of solar heat radiation per square centimeter per second that reaches us here on Earth and we have Stefan's radiation law as determined from our laboratory experiments on radiation from hot bodies.

We are told that the sun's core has a temperature of over 100,000,000 degrees but that cannot be verified because it is founded solely on the assumption that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion and that is said to require such a high temperature. The evidence gleaned from the form of radiation said to comprise neutrinos is not a measure of temperature.

Yet we are also told that surrounding the sun there is a region we call the corona which is said to have a temperature of 1,000,000 degrees, inasmuch as the spectral lines of radiation sourced in that region were found in 1942 to exhibit energy properties akin to those arising from certain levels of electron transitions applicable to highly ionized iron atoms.

So the sun has three temperatures, none of which has actually been measured and all of which are inferred, one from an actual measurement of energy radiation, one from analysis of an energy spread in a spectral image and one from the mere imagination that the sun owes its energy source to the process we associate with the hydrogen bomb.

The problem I have is in wondering how the sun's corona can be at 1,000,000 degrees if the sun within that corona has a surface temperature of 6,000 degrees.

I think most readers will agree that understanding the deployment of energy in a plasma composed of heavy ions and electrons, such as we have in the sun, is important and yet here we have a blatant example of something accepted by the physics community that really does not make sense. Are we to suppose that we are looking at tiny specks of sunlight emitted from single atoms of iron that have a temperature of 1,000,000 degrees, mixed in the background of the sun's surface at 6,000 degrees? Or might it be that we cannot just use Boltzmann's constant to convert energy to temperature, assuming equipartition of energy between all ions of whatever size, and thereby stay with common sense and assign the same temperature to all components of that plasma but admit there is some process at work that deploys energy unevenly? Why should we use gas laws formulated on the basis of there being no ionization when interpretating phenomena exhibited by ionized plasma?

The case I now put is that the problem confronted by Clerk Maxwell, had it been resolved, would have enlightened us on this important issue, one which has significant bearing upon the current research in the field of nuclear fusion.

Plasma Electrodynamics

Maxwell was concerned that Ampere's law of electrodynamics might not be a valid interpretation of experimental fact because it relied partly on empirical data and partly on assumption. He addressed the options available. The key point was that it was known how electric currents interact where one of the currents flows though wire around a closed circuit but it was not known how two discrete electric charges in motion might interact as a function of their motion. To define the law of force there had to be an assumption. Ampere had assumed total balance of action and reaction but one can have total balance of action and reaction for that closed circuit current condition without satisfying the precise formulation specified by Ampere.

In today's terminology the Lorentz force law suffices and meets the necessary balance criteria for such closed current circuit conditions, but an additional term, as formulated by Maxwell, is needed to cover the general case and that still depends upon an assumption. That additional term, expressed in vector form is simply:

(v.r)v'
times ee'/r3, where a charge e in motion at velocity v acts on a charge e' distant r from e and moving at velocity v'. The effect of this term integrates to zero for the closed circuit current condition.
Maxwell realized that this additional term could have any factor, positive or negative, large or small, and still comply with the empirical conditions. He opted for the factor being +1 because he knew that this would give an overall formulation for which the two charges in motion could interact without giving rise to an anomalous unidirectional net linear force that might suggest the interaction induced a linear push on something.

Instead, though it was not mentioned, that would lead to the two-charge interaction itself developing a turning couple as if it were exerting a twist action on that same something. Ampere's law had avoided both of these possibilities.

Given the belief in the existence of an aether in Maxwell's time and the fact that the motion of those charges is referenced on a frame of reference signifying a property of the aether, that 'something' did have a basis, one that could provide the balancing force along with the associated energy.

Maxwell, in being concerned with formulating force action, was addressing a problem that had important energy implications, but that seemingly escaped notice.

What I realized when I came onto the scene was that it would have been preferable for Maxwell to opt for the version with the minus sign preceding that (v.r)v' term, simply because that would avoid the twisting problem. Also, though introducing that out-of-balance net linear force, I could see that such a formulation, for v parallel with v', would, in combination with the Lorentz component, result in a law for which mutual force action between the charges was of the simple inverse square of distance form acting along the line joining the charges.

Such a law made more sense especially as, at the time I discovered this, my thoughts were on linking electromagnetism and gravity.

The formal analysis, however, then had to take account of the possible interaction of charges of different mass, such as heavy ions interacting with electrons, and that added the factor (m'/m), where m' is the mass of charge e' and m is the mass of charge e, these charges being, of course, expressed in electromagnetic units.

My paper on this duly appeared in the library archives of universities in Journal of the Franklin Institute, 287, 179 (1969) and there it sits gathering dust and serving no purpose unless whoever reads this decides to check what I am saying in this web item.

Given that, just as Clerk Maxwell saw reason to question the law of electrodynamics proposed by Ampere, I had good reason for going one step further and completing that task, I cannot understand why physicists interested in plasma experiments have not embraced what is surely the correct law.

Why is it that relevant? Well, just consider that term:

- (ee'/r3)(m'/m)(v.r)v'
and imagine m' is the mass of a heavy positive ion and m is the mass of an electron sitting in an ionized plasma, be it that of the sun or that of a nuclear fusion reactor. Consider the collective results of four types of interaction. (1) Slow moving ion with electron moving closer: Ion gains speed slightly because ee' negative, v' small and v.r positive. (2) Slow moving ion with electron moving away: Ion slows to even lower speed because ee' negative, v' small and v.r negative. (3) Fast moving ion with electron moving closer: Ion speed escalates because ee' negative, v' large and v.r positive. (4) Fast moving ion with electron moving away: Ion loses speed rapidly because ee' negative, v' large and v.r negative.
The net effect of such charge interaction electrodynamically in a plasma must therefore be to cause each positive heavy ion on average to have kinetic energy far in excess of that of the average electron. It would be an interesting, though quite complicated mathematical task to evaluate statistically the mean energy apportionment between ions and electrons, one which I trust some enthusiastic mathematician might undertake. For my part it suffices to point to the experimental evidence that supports what I am saying.

The Supporting Experimental Evidence

In my 1969 paper I drew attention to the fact that it had long been recognized that energy was being acquired anomalously by positive ions subjected to acceleration in a cold cathode gas discharge. The cathode reaction forces measured were high and inexplicable. I referred to a paper by E. Kobel in Physical Review, 36, 1636 (1930). Clearly the effect of electrons flowing in the return path outside the tube and acting on ion flow within the tube accounted for that phenomenon, based on the law of electrodynamics as revised to replace the +(v.r)v' term in Maxwell's equation by that -(m'/m)(v.r)v' term. I note that Maxwell used cartesian formulation, whereas I am using the vector notation that Sir Edmund Whittaker used in discussing this subject in his 1951 book History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. In saying that the action of electron currents exerts anomalous electrodynamic forces that accelerate heavy ions to higher than expected speeds, I am challenging orthodox theory which sees no basis for electrodynamic forces existing along the line of the ion current flow path, but the experimental evidence supports what I say. I refer to the subject of explosive arc discharges in liquids and wire rupture in experiments reported by P. Graneau and P. N. Graneau in Physics Letters, 97A, 253 (1983) and Applied Physics Letters, 46, 468 (1985). These were discussed in the context of the revised law of electrodynamics in my paper in Physics Letters, 111A, 22 (1985) but see also my paper in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-14, 282 (1986).

I also refer to my earlier paper on the subject of anomalous acceleration forces exerted by electrons on ions in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-5, 159 (1977).

This latter paper was published just one year before the two fusion research papers that I next mention, whereas my original 1969 paper antedates these by nine years. I refer to the anomalous gain of energy by heavy ions found in plasma experiments and reported without mention of the theory that I had shown to be relevant.

J. Reece Roth, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, PS-6, No. 2, June 1978, studied the effect of radial electric fields in stabilizing a plasma discharge, but found that something was causing the heavy ions in the plasma to have a much higher temperature than the free electrons. The paper is entitled: 'Effects of Applied DC Radial Electric Fields on Particle Transport in a Bumpy Torus Plasma'. Note that notion of 'temperature' as a sufficient measure of energy. What was meant was that the heavy ions have acquired a much greater energy than the electrons, whereas, seen as a kind of gas, they were supposed to have the same mean energy and so the same temperature. This was a report arising from reasearch aimed at nuclear fusion and here was energy gain by the heavy ions that are supposedly going to fuse and so deliver energy once containment and higher temperatures are reached. That observed energy gain surely warranted full investigation.

In that same year I saw a paper by J. D. Sethian, D. A. Hammer and C. B. Wharton in Physical Review Letters, 40, 451 (1978) and quote the following words from that paper saying that they have found: "Experimental evidence for an anomalous electron-ion energy transfer in a relativistic-electron-beam-heated plasma that is 1,000 times faster than can be predicted by classical processes."

At the end of their paper they suggest 'without particular justification' that the anomalous factor might be the hydrogen ion to electron mass ratio.

Here is another example of anomalous energy acquisition by heavy ions in a plasma, the energy per ion being quite enormous compared with the energy of electrons in that plasma, even though standard theory assumes they should have equal mean values.

Such research is aimed at replicating in a fusion reactor a process believed to be occurring in the sun and, for some reason, ignoring what my earlier papers have offered as explanation, those involved have not seen the common link, the fact that the sun's corona contains heavy ions that have energies far in excess (by a factor of the order of 160 greater) of that of the electrons that are seen as having the sun's temperature of 6000 degrees. Surely there is a natural physical process occurring by which apportionment of energy in a heavy ion-electron plasma favours the heavy ions in a very substantial way.

Assuming that I am right in declaring that an out-of-balance linear force action is asserted by the electromagnetic reference frame intrinsic to the medium I call the aether but which otherwise can be referred to as the quantum underworld, that medium may well be supplying that excess energy. Otherwise, it surely is interfering with the interaction between electrons and heavy ions in a way which promotes energy transfer from electrons to those ions.

Now I have stated that my writings on this matter, and particularly my 1969 paper in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, have not been heeded. I must correct that statement. There is just one instance, a quite important instance, where a researcher in Canada, Dr. Paulo Correa, somehow discovered that paper and saw its relevance to what he had discovered experimentally in his plasma discharge research. He and his wife, Alexandra Correa, in their laboratory research had discovered an anomalous inflow of energy that justified seeking patent protection for their project. My paper was a supporting reference mentioned by the Corrrea's in the patent description of their appatratus. The relevant U.S. patents are numbered 5,416,391 (issued May 16, 1995), 5,449,989 (issued September 12, 1995) and 5,502,354 (issued March 26, 1996).

Indeed, owing to the significance of that research, I did myself in 1996 write and publish a 35 page Report entitled Power from Space: The Correa Invention, which is now of record in the Report section of my website http://www.aspden.org.

Conclusion

As a conclusion I submit that there is something wrong with a highly academic scientific community funded to a large extent by governments concerned with our future energy resource problems, when research discoveries of this kind can be ignored. It seems that there can only be advances which conform strictly with scientific doctrines that are of textbook record without heeding discoveries which happen to emerge from free-lance research that trespasses outside textbook territory.

Electrodynamics was founded upon experiments confined to the interaction involving an electron currents carried around a closed wire circuit and experiment shows that textbook doctrine cannot cope with strange energy phenomena seen in plasma research where heavy ions are involved.

Is there an aether medium permeating all space or not? Textbook knowledge assures students that the aether has been eradicated, thanks to the doctrines proposed by Albert Einstein. So, if the aether is feeding energy into those plasma discharges studied by the Correas, that cannot be accepted and it is deemed appropriate to look elsewhere for our future energy resources. Where to look? Our fusion reactor research, of course, a seemingly never-ending quest, that even reveals its own anomalies. Energy seems to be creeping into the heavy ions from some mysterious source, but that has yet to warrant special study in its own right without us having to wait for the breakthrough that might come when a 100,000,000 degree temperature can be sustained for a long enough period without triggering our extinction.

I say we cannot be sure the sun is powered by nuclear fusion. Indeed I am sure it is not. However, we can be sure that energy is finding its way into heavy ions in a plasma contrary to accepted scientific principles and those in authority having concern for our energy future should heed the message here presented.



H. Aspden
30 October 2005


Dr. Aspden's websites: http://www.aspden.org, http://www.energyscience.org.uk
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

freedomrox
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by freedomrox » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:36 pm

To me, it all seems very obvious. Being raised on a farm in West Tennessee under clear skies in the 60's with an insatiable thirst for knowledge and armed with a telescope and common sense, it all seemed natural to me that all life everywhere was electrical in Nature. Wear nylon socks on carpet, get shocked. Want to move a muscle, then direct a current from the brain to the muscle and it moves. Let the wind flow across a Ham radio coax and grab it on an ungrounded portion and get electrocuted. Of course, having a grandfather whom remembered the discoveries of Tesla and being regaled with such stories surely did not hurt me any. My Papaw never seemed to get over the original Marconi decision, rest his soul.

Also, by being raised on a farm, I had to be a jack of all trades and master of none. Two of those duties required arc welding and oxygen-acetylene welding. First was an understanding of alternators, generators, and transformers. The second involved taking trips to the welding supply shop, which became the deciding factor in the formation of my own paradigm. While filling the oxygen tank one day, I asked the supplier what was in the orange cylinders. I was told it was hydrogen. I laughed at the man and said, "That must be an easy job since it is everywhere on earth." (Remember I was only 11 at the time.) His answer suprised me. "Hydrogen does not occur in Nature; there are no hydrogen wells anywhere on Earth. If you want hydrogen, it must be manufactured, and stored." I asked how, and he told me, "Electrolysis of water is the most common way. Water is converted into hydrogen and oxygen using electrical current."

SHAZAM!

It hit me like a (pardon the pun) Thunderbolt. As an already avid amatuer astronomer, I knew that the most common element occuring on uninhabitable worlds and moons and stars was hydrogen. Even our own Sun, being the most massive producer of hydrogen, could not produce hydrogen without one key essential ingredient....ELECTRICITY. Additionally, considering that hydrogen is not an energy producer and is a by-product of electrolytic conversions, and is in actuality more a capacitative storage element, then it becomes the height of arrogance, (or ignorance), for the scientific community to proclaim that the universe is a static matter-based community, rather than a close knit plasma induction coil made from matter-based metals, elements, and ores.

Again, I know this seems very simplistic for such a forum which thrives on equations and mathematical models, but for me it was that simple. Berkland currents and arc beading of planetary masses to em fields naturally flowed from this one experience. For any country boys on a farm today or to any pipe-fitters, do me a favor and just look at one of your beads or just quickly pop a piece of steel with the end of an arc welder and observe the effect, then start to look at all the planet and moon scarrings or take another look at the so-called impact craters, and you will finally know the truth of reality....

We live and function in an Electric Universe. Forget gravity as explained, and think electromagnetic field composition, as so evidently shown by the EM field of Earth and as expected, even Mercury, in which within the narrow confines of the conventional models cannot even be explained, except as a simple magnetic shield without explaining the underlying producer. All things having mass must also have an electromagnetic field density...EVERYTHING! Think + and - , and the answers become so clear that you will have to resist the urge to look up your old physics teacher and beat him/her in the head with their own textbooks.

EXCELSIOR!
Last edited by freedomrox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by Solar » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:53 pm

What a refreshing read Freedomrox. I thank you kindly.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by bboyer » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:24 pm

Ditto. I especially liked:
Again, I know this seems very simplistic for such a forum which thrives on equations and mathematical models, but for me it was that simple.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

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

A DOUBLE Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by FS3 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:31 pm

You mean ONE "problem"? ;-) I have found here a "double-problem" that could give some hints of solving the single "problem"...
Two Yellow Supergiant Eclipsing Binary Systems Discovered: First Of Their Kind Ever Found
ScienceDaily (Apr. 1, 2008) — Astronomers have spied a faraway star system that is so unusual, it was one of a kind -- until its discovery helped them pinpoint a second one that was much closer to home.

In a paper published in a recent issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Ohio State University astronomers and their colleagues suggest that these star systems are the progenitors of a rare type of supernova.

They discovered the first star system 13 million light years away, tucked inside Holmberg IX, a small galaxy that is orbiting the larger galaxy M81. They studied it between January and October 2007 with the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) on Mt. Graham in Arizona.

The star system is unusual, because it’s what the astronomers have called a “yellow supergiant eclipsing binary” -- it contains two very bright, massive yellow stars that are very closely orbiting each other. In fact, the stars are so close together that a large amount of stellar material is shared between them, so that the shape of the system resembles a peanut...
Image
The "yellow supergiant eclipsing binary” --
containing two very bright, massive yellow stars
that are very closely orbiting each other.


Do we simply see a star that was born out of the other and is "crawling back" into the womb of the originator?

It would be interesting to calculate the procedure of the minimalization of the surface in regard of a "starbirth" out of the perfect body of a sphere, where the fueling circuit gets stronger currents. Where, why and how would establish some state of equilibrity?

FS3

freedomrox
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by freedomrox » Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:56 pm

Your very welcome gentle folk. I only espouse that which can be observed and replicated. For instance, I was told that if I used a standard car battery hooked into a 800 watt power inverter running a 3 phase 3/4 hp 1750 rpm electric motor turning three alternators charging 3 battery banks hooked to an 8000 watt house inverter, that it would be impossible for me to then plug the electric motor directly to the house current produced, but I did...and it works. Of course I must have the old car battery to generate the startup current for the alternators, but with a charge controller/interrupt queing the motor to kick in at 30% discharge and disconnect when topped, I found I had a free inverter to 800 watt inverter freed up to put back in my car.

I do not believe in the word, "impossible". Of course it isn't free energy, as you still perform mechanical maintenance, just well managed, but not tied into any power grid. The whole idea originated from the same place, my grandfather's old farm. He ran a well pump, (when there were pump houses), in this manner, only he used a generator and a transformer to do the work of the inverter. Amazing all the wisdom and knowledge our grandparents had who never once read a technical manual or scientific paper claiming it wouldn't work. They just did it.

I reckon I am no better than they are, so I do instead of think. Maybe it works because I never read the laws of thermodynamics, etc. as the final word.

Peace to all!

User avatar
bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: A DOUBLE Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by bboyer » Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:31 pm

FS3 wrote:<snip>Do we simply see a star that was born out of the other and is "crawling back" into the womb of the originator?

<snip>
FS3
No, what we see ... well, what I saw ... is a yellow peanut simulation and in the actual picture a faint fuzzy blotch of light. Did you actually see anything vaguely resembling that yellow peanut in the real picture? :?

Here's the actual picture:
holmberg_ix.jpg
(click to view larger image)

Caption: Ohio State University astronomers and their colleagues took this image of the dwarf galaxy Holmberg IX with the Large Binocular Telescope. The arrow indicates the approximate location of the newly discovered star system. Image courtesy of Ohio State University.


http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/superyellow.htm

The yeller peanut caption from http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... stars.html has the caption:
"Based on real data, this artist rednering [sic]shows the shape of the two stars that share material in what's now being called a yellow supergiant eclipsing binary system. Credit: Kevin Gecsi, courtesy of Ohio State University"

:retch: :P
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by junglelord » Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:22 am

It would be nice to recover the orignal post of this thread. Hint, hint...
;)
I seem to be challanged to accomplish anything past the first page and could not unzip emailed files...
DOOH!
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by bboyer » Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:01 am

junglelord wrote:It would be nice to recover the orignal post of this thread. Hint, hint...
;)
I seem to be challanged to accomplish anything past the first page and could not unzip emailed files...
DOOH!
Nag, nag, nag .... :P

I'll get to it shortly. Don't ask me to define "shortly." ;)
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by junglelord » Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:26 pm

The entire forum owes you and several other notable members more then we could repay. All I can say is thankyou for all the time and effort that you have given to restore lost work. Please take time to live, breath and sleep...I know how much time you have already invested...it has not gone unnoticed.
Dean
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: A Problem in Plasma Science

Unread post by bboyer » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:12 pm

:oops:
respect.gif
respect.gif (785 Bytes) Viewed 16661 times
Now, enough with this off-topic slop and gushing. :lol:
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests