Earth - electric oceans

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: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:20 pm

The negative charges in the ocean repel each other, but are attracted to the positively charged ionosphere. All other factors being the same, the negative charges in the ocean would be evenly distributed, and so would the positive charges in the ionosphere. But if another factor comes into play, and alters the distribution of any one of these concentrations, it will alter all of the rest of them, in equal-but-opposite fashion.


Sparky wrote:Why doesn't charge influence evenly, to north, and south?


So, we have neg. charges being attracted toward the moon, through the ionosphere's positive charge?

Why isn't that seen in northern and southern latitudes? Northern waters would be neg. and repelling water on opposite side from moon's influence. Why don't we see Northern/Southern waters bulging.?

sorry.... :oops: ...ican'tvisualizethis.... :oops:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:09 pm

Here is a series of screen captures from a simulator:

charges.jpg


  1. In the initial condition, I just put two opposite charges, which latched onto each other.
  2. Then I added another orange one.
  3. This settled into a linear configuration, with the two oranges clinging to the blue, but the oranges distributing themselves into opposite positions, due to the repulsion between them.
  4. Then I added another blue.
  5. The new blue attracted the nearest orange, which twisted the whole line to hook up with the new blue.
So I'm saying that the ionosphere is like that last new blue one. It attracts the negatively charged oceans (i.e., the oranges), but the oceans on the far side are repelled by the concentration of negative charge on the near side, so they create a bulge directly opposite of the bulge on the near side.
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: Tides on tides off

Unread postby celeste » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:16 am

Aardwolf wrote:
Even more inexplicable, during apogee, the high tide is actually lower when the moon is directly above than it is 12 hours later! This means for 14 days the tide is higher when the moon is above and for the next 14 it's higher when the moon is furthest away.



Where did you find that? That is fascinating. The highest of tides is towards the moon for half the month,and away from the moon for the other half, but it is the moon that has moved. Meaning our highest of tides is always in the same direction in relationship to space outside the solar system.
We are seeing two effects superimposed. Start with an idea of tides that is related to the moon (i.e., as described by Charles in this thread). Then say in addition that the negatively charged oceans also feel some smaller pull in a fixed direction in space. When these effects coincide, we get the largest tides.
As long as we accept that the oceans do have some negative charge compared to the land mass, then if the earth sits in any electric field at all, we should see a "pull" on the oceans just as we are seeing here. The interesting thing here, is the electric field direction is not sunwards, but in some fixed direction in space. Do you have any more information Aardwolf?
celeste
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:42 am

The moon is blocking gravitaional forces from further out in space when it's directly above the tidal region. Therefore, gravitational forces from outer space exceed those of the moon with respect to earth. (N.B., it's established that the Sun's effect on tides is negligible compared to the moon's.)
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:11 pm

Michael Anteski wrote:The moon is blocking gravitational forces from further out in space when it's directly above the tidal region.

During a total eclipse of the Sun, would the Moon block the Sun's gravity?

Michael Anteski wrote:The Sun's effect on tides is negligible compared to the moon's.)

The solar tidal force is 46% as large as the lunar. So it's respectable enough to be considered. But I'm still trying to figure out why scientists think that it's the Sun's gravity that causes the solar tidal force. The Earth is in orbital equilibrium. This means that the gravitational and centrifugal forces are perfectly matched, with no net force, by definition. No net force means... well, it means what it says. So there's no tug on the near side to produce a tidal bulge (much less a bulge on the opposite side too). The Sun's gravity acts on every baryon in the Earth in almost exactly the same way, with only a slight decrease in force on the far side, due to the inverse square law. Likewise, the Moon's gravity acts on the entire Earth in pretty much the same way, and I'm struggling to understand why the competition between inertial and gravitational forces would produce a selective response, in which the near side is tugged away from the rest of the planet. If the Moon was close enough to issue a gravitational field with a steep gradient, I'd go along with that, but I don't see it. So the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that gravity has nothing to do with tides. Only EM can selectively operate on matter, depending on the charge, and independent of mass.
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: Tides on tides off

Unread postby JeffreyW » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:29 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
Michael Anteski wrote:The moon is blocking gravitational forces from further out in space when it's directly above the tidal region.

During a total eclipse of the Sun, would the Moon block the Sun's gravity?

Michael Anteski wrote:The Sun's effect on tides is negligible compared to the moon's.)

The solar tidal force is 46% as large as the lunar. So it's respectable enough to be considered. But I'm still trying to figure out why scientists think that it's the Sun's gravity that causes the solar tidal force. The Earth is in orbital equilibrium. This means that the gravitational and centrifugal forces are perfectly matched, with no net force, by definition. No net force means... well, it means what it says. So there's no tug on the near side to produce a tidal bulge (much less a bulge on the opposite side too). The Sun's gravity acts on every baryon in the Earth in almost exactly the same way, with only a slight decrease in force on the far side, due to the inverse square law. Likewise, the Moon's gravity acts on the entire Earth in pretty much the same way, and I'm struggling to understand why the competition between inertial and gravitational forces would produce a selective response, in which the near side is tugged away from the rest of the planet. If the Moon was close enough to issue a gravitational field with a steep gradient, I'd go along with that, but I don't see it. So the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that gravity has nothing to do with tides. Only EM can selectively operate on matter, depending on the charge, and independent of mass.


Water is diamagnetic. Diamagnetic materials create a magnetic field in opposition to an externally applied magnetic field. This could be a long shot, but I have considered the reason why Earth has a magnetic field is because it literally is Earth's oceans themselves and has absolutely nothing to do with anything internal.

Look at the other much older/dead stars such as Venus, Mars, Mercury. Then ask the question: Do they have huge oceans like the Earth, Uranus, Neptune, Jupiter, Saturn? Do they have strong global magnetic fields?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Aardwolf » Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:52 pm

celeste wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
Even more inexplicable, during apogee, the high tide is actually lower when the moon is directly above than it is 12 hours later! This means for 14 days the tide is higher when the moon is above and for the next 14 it's higher when the moon is furthest away.



Where did you find that? That is fascinating. The highest of tides is towards the moon for half the month,and away from the moon for the other half, but it is the moon that has moved. Meaning our highest of tides is always in the same direction in relationship to space outside the solar system.
We are seeing two effects superimposed. Start with an idea of tides that is related to the moon (i.e., as described by Charles in this thread). Then say in addition that the negatively charged oceans also feel some smaller pull in a fixed direction in space. When these effects coincide, we get the largest tides.
As long as we accept that the oceans do have some negative charge compared to the land mass, then if the earth sits in any electric field at all, we should see a "pull" on the oceans just as we are seeing here. The interesting thing here, is the electric field direction is not sunwards, but in some fixed direction in space. Do you have any more information Aardwolf?
I've never seen a paper detailing the phenomena. Probably because it's inexplicable (to the mainstream anyway). Just look at any tide data. Here's Advocate;

http://www.tides.gc.ca/eng/data/table/2014/wlev_sec/236

You'll notice the highest tide of the day is 14 consecutive days with the moon above and then 14 consecutive days on the other side of the planet.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Solar » Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:44 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:But I'm still trying to figure out why scientists think that it's the Sun's gravity that causes the solar tidal force. The Earth is in orbital equilibrium. This means that the gravitational and centrifugal forces are perfectly matched, with no net force, by definition. No net force means... well, it means what it says. So there's no tug on the near side to produce a tidal bulge (much less a bulge on the opposite side too). The Sun's gravity acts on every baryon in the Earth in almost exactly the same way, with only a slight decrease in force on the far side, due to the inverse square law. Likewise, the Moon's gravity acts on the entire Earth in pretty much the same way, and I'm struggling to understand why the competition between inertial and gravitational forces would produce a selective response, in which the near side is tugged away from the rest of the planet. If the Moon was close enough to issue a gravitational field with a steep gradient, I'd go along with that, but I don't see it. So the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that gravity has nothing to do with tides. Only EM can selectively operate on matter, depending on the charge, and independent of mass.


It started with Newton: The Equilibrium Theory of Tides

Over time the idea was tweaked by others circa 1740 etc: See: Reading the Principia

Today, the idea that the Earth’s tides are due to gravitational effects is simply an unquestioned given; or thereabouts. The 'proofs' are all in and its been explained away. I can easily see the relationship in your Feyman “like-likes-like” approach to electrostatically account for the oblate shape depicted in that first reference. I’m getting the eerie impression that a natural extension of your Electric Tectonics may be smoldering:

The tidal movement of sea water relative to the Earth’s magnetic field induces electromotive forces of a few millivolts per kilometre. Recent measurements off Plymouth show that the potential gradient is at right angles to the streams in that part of the English Channel. Observations on cross-channel telephone cables indicate that a considerable flow of electric current takes place, THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC EFFECTS OF TIDAL STREAMS: Royal Astronomical Society March 1949


Scientists are now mining the data sent back by the craft's imagers and instruments, including the Magnetic field and Plasma experiment (MAP), which recorded that relatively high-energy electrons gyrating in the magnetic field are are being absorbed by the lunar surface when the moon is full.

The result is a strong electric field that develops around the lunar surface around the same time as the full moon, the Kagya team reports in a paper published October 1 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Based on Kaguya's data, the team says this relatively intense electric field can be found when the moon passes through the region of the magnetosphere called the plasma sheet, which runs down the middle of Earth's magnetotail. - Full Moon Get Electrified by Earth's Magnetic "Tail" - NatGeo


Although we don’t realize it, we are walking around in a strong electric field. And it turns out that high on the Antarctic plateau is a great place to study it. Why are the earth and its atmosphere like a pair of charged parallel plates? Earth’s vertical electric field


The earth's atmosphere has an electric field that is directed radially inward. Most of my sources show that knowing the electric field of the earth can lead to the calculation of the charge on the earth's surface. Though some of the figures obtained are for the earth's atmosphere, it is true that the magnitude of the electric field outside a uniformly charged sphere is the same as if all the charge were concentrated at the center.Electric Field on Earth


[1] The tidal motion of the ocean water through the ambient magnetic field, generates secondary electric field. This motionally induced electric field can be detected in the sea or inland and has a potential for electrical soundings of the Earth. A first goal of the paper is to gain an understanding of the global distribution of the electric signal due to tidal ocean flow. We simulate the electric signals for two tidal constituents - lunar semidiurnal (M2) and diurnal (O1) tides. We assume a realistic Earth's conductivity model with a surface thin shell and 1-D mantle underneath. Simulations demonstrate that in some coastal regions the amplitudes of the electric field can reach 100 mV/km and 10 mV/km for M2 and O1 tides respectively. The changes of lithosphere resistance produce detectable changes in the tidal electric signals. We show that our predictions are in a good agreement with observations. - 3-D modelling the electric field due to ocean tidal flow and comparison with observations


Investigations are aimed at a search for and an estimation of a correlation between the electric field in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) and the lunar tides. The lunar tides and their correlation with the electric field in the ABL can be studied either by accumulation of a large experimental data arrays or by the method of signal reception at spatially separated points. The problem of investigating lunar tide manifestations in the electric field in the ABL is solved using a network of stations for monitoring the vertical electric field strength component, specially constructed models and their consequences, and procedures developed for experimental data processing. - Lunar tides in the electric field of the atmospheric boundary layer - Springer


The oceans play a special role in electromagnetic induction (qv Electromagnetic Induction), due to their relatively high conductivity and the dynamo effect of ocean currents. Typical crystalline rocks of the Earth’s crust have electrical conductivities in the range of 10 -6 to 10-2 Siemens (1/Ω) per meter. In comparison, sea water, with 2.5-6 S/m, is a very good conductor. Electrical currents are induced in the oceans by two different effects: Induction by time varying external fields and induction by motion of the sea water through the Earth’s main field (qv Main Field). – Electromagnetic ocean effects- National Geophysical Data Center


OBSERVATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SEAFLOOR VERTICAL ELECTRIC FIELD IN THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC

Its roughly 240,000 mile from Earth to Moon. What can electrically conjoin the distance? The Earth's magneto-tail can for one. But it isn't just the Earth's magneto-tail that can induce an electric field on the Moon. So probably does Sunlight and the solar wind:

Computer simulations help explain these observations by showing that a complex electric field near the lunar surface is generated by sunlight and the flow of the solar wind.

(...)

"It's remarkable that electric and magnetic fields within just a few meters (yards) of the lunar surface can cause the turbulence we see thousands of kilometers away," says Poppe. When exposed to solar winds, other moons and asteroids in the solar system should have this turbulent layer over their day sides as well, according to the team. - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind


hmmm...
"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
Solar
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Solar » Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:12 am

ughhh..

Apologies for the linkfest. I didn't mean to post all of them.
"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
Solar
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:23 am

In all the "linkfest" ensuing after my reply that the moon blocks outer spatial gravity forces, to account for the observation about tides being lower when the moon is in the above position, I didn't see any responses that addressed the question directly. Does anyone else have commentary bearing directly on the observation in question? It has to be noted that the official theory of gravity is Einsteinian curvature of space time. My counter proposal would be that gravity is basically the same force as electromagnetism, with gravity's electro- component being under-fired compared to electromagnetism's because of their different space-distance factors. To address the "moon overhead/tide height" question meaningfully, one would have to bring in a theory of gravity.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Michael Anteski » Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:33 am

If part of the explanation is that the moon is blocking gravitational forces from outer space and the effect is asymmetrical with respect to sides of the earth, the true full explanation could be that the forces from outer space are not symmetric, one side of the earth compared to the other side.
Michael Anteski
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:37 am
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:26 am

Solar wrote:I’m getting the eerie impression that a natural extension of your Electric Tectonics may be smoldering:

Actually, I think it's about to ignite. ;) Earthquakes, volcanoes, Seneca Guns, and tides (to name a few) are all related, and they're all electromagnetic. At first I thought that the Earth was basically a conventional system, but that there were a few anomalies because of the occasional presence of EM, which is a second class citizen in the standard model. But that just isn't how it works. If all of the anomalies are linked, it isn't a conventional system with a few EM anomalies -- it's fundamentally an EM system, which just happens to also have some conventional behaviors, if (and only if) the electric charges are perfectly matched. My study of electron degeneracy pressure led me to the conclusion that the defining characteristic of the Earth is two current-free double-layers, namely, a positively charged interior, with a negatively charged shell, and an electromagnetically active boundary between the two. The charges are robust, but they are evenly matched, and we're on the outside of the shell, so we don't sense much of the electric field where we are. This fooled people into thinking that EM isn't a big factor, leaving gravity as the organizing principle, but with a few EM anomalies of unknown origin. But once I started thinking in terms of two tightly bound double-layers, with us on the edge of the outer layer, all of the anomalies became explicable, proving the significance of far more powerful forces. It's like standing on the roof of a house that's on fire -- there might be just a little insignificant smoke up on the roof, but you're not going to understand the smoke, or the heat, until you come to understand where those are coming from. Then you dial 911. ;)

Just as an example of how current-free double-layers sort things out, one of the papers you quoted talked about how thunderstorms are the charging mechanism for the ionosphere and the Earth's surface, and that the reason for the 100 V/m fair weather field is that the atmosphere is a good enough insulator that such a potential can persist. But try to set up a field like that in the laboratory, and see how long it persists in a fluid medium. A gas like the atmosphere might be a respectable insulator, but with particle motions upwards of 200 mph in STP air, the charges sort themselves out pretty fast. So I never fully bought into the idea that thunderstorms maintain the fair weather field. As a matter of fact, I never fully understood the fair weather field itself. Can I charge up a 9 volt battery just by setting it on edge, such that the positive electrode is on top, and after a few days, it will take on the same potential as the fair weather field? Ummm... no! :) It doesn't work like that. For that matter, if I erect a 100 m radio tower, and run coax cable from the top down to the ground, am I going to get electrocuted by the 10,000 volts of potential on that wire? No! It's a resting potential that does not constitute an electromotive force. There is a charge separation, and you can measure the strength of it by the separation that occurs inside an electric field mill. But you can't get any current out of it, because the charges are in equilibrium in the separated state. If it was a leaky capacitor, you'd definitely be able to short it out with a long wire into the atmosphere. But if it's CFDLs, you'll get a whole lotta nothin' on that wire. The charges are separated, but they like it that way, and while it's a basic principle of EM that volts are an electromotive force, the laws of induction show how CFDLs can get set up, with charge separations but no current.

The interior of the Earth is positively charged, with a negatively charged outer shell. On the outer edge of the shell, the field is weak, since most of it is between the primary positive and negative charges inside the Earth. The field that is present at the surface is inverted, since the negative shell induces a positive charge in the atmosphere. Despite the charge separation, there is no fair weather current. Then it makes sense that the higher up you go, the more positively charged the atmosphere is. If thunderstorms were the charging mechanism, all of the charges would be in the troposphere, and if the tropopause got charged up a thunderstorm anvil, the only thing you'd see in the stratosphere would be an induced negative charge. And all of the positive charge would be quickly migrating to the ground. What we actually see is more and more positive charge in the stratosphere and mesosphere, despite the high mobility of the particles, which should respond quickly to applied forces. This makes sense if the primary charging mechanism is actually electron degeneracy pressure inside the Earth. Positive charges in the atmosphere are attracted to the negatively charged surface, but repelled by the positively charged interior, so they hit an equilibrium at some distance from the surface. Thus there is a resting potential, but discharges only occur if things are moved rapidly within the gradient.

Now look at a planet like Venus. By the standard model, it shouldn't have an atmosphere, because it has almost no magnetic field to shield it from the solar wind. Yet it has a much thicker atmosphere than the Earth. So what keeps Venus' atmosphere from getting whisked away by the solar wind? CFDLs. The interior is positively charged, the crust is negatively charged, and the atmosphere is positively charged, and they're all clinging tightly to each other. And Venus' atmosphere is far more electromagnetically active than the Earth's, despite the fact that by the standard model, there shouldn't be much convection. The atmosphere is homogenous, so there isn't any differential heating like there is on Earth. Without convection, there shouldn't be the charge transport that results in discharges. But if there's an extremely powerful resting potential, it won't take much convection to trigger a discharge, and then everything has to re-sort itself. This drives powerful convection, of an electrostatic nature, and this perpetuates the discharges. So with CFDLs, it all makes sense.

Solar wrote:Apologies for the linkfest. I didn't mean to post all of them.

No worries. We need all of the information that we can get. ;) But when reading the conventional literature, we have to bear in mind that they don't understand what they're seeing. They think that the movement of the tides within the influence of the Earth's magnetic field incurs a Lorentz force, which deflects the water, and this generates a mV/km electric field. But they can't explain why the water is charged, why the Earth has a magnetic field in the first place, or why "gravity" causes tides. So they tend to attribute phenomena to the most convenient excuse and leave it at that. But that isn't an explanation. ;)

A long time ago, Galileo said that two objects should fall at the same rate, regardless of weight or density. The reason is that gravity acts on mass, but mass also has inertial force. So a heavier object experiences more gravitational force, but its acceleration is impeded by its inertia, and since there is a 1:1 correspondence between gravity and inertia, both varying directly with mass, the acceleration is independent of mass. This was proved by the famous "hammer and feather" experiment conducted on the Moon by the Apollo 15 astronauts. So what if the Earth was a bunch of hammers bundled together, and some feathers were clinging to the bundle due to gravity, making a sort of "sea" of feathers, and what if this was exposed to lunar gravitation? Would the feathers be accelerated more than the hammers? No. So why would the oceans be more attracted to lunar gravitation than the land masses? They aren't. Does gravity cause tides? No. What else could? EM. It's that simple.
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: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:36 am

Michael Anteski wrote:In all the "linkfest" ensuing after my reply that the moon blocks outer spatial gravity forces, to account for the observation about tides being lower when the moon is in the above position, I didn't see any responses that addressed the question directly. Does anyone else have commentary bearing directly on the observation in question?

You proposal should be easy to test. The solar gravitational force on the Earth is on average 179 times stronger than the lunar. If the Moon can block gravity fields from beyond, it should block the Sun's field during a total eclipse. So just look for gravimeter readings during total eclipses.
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: Tides on tides off

Unread postby johnm33 » Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:00 pm

I'm not making any claims for this http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/tidalforce.pdf but it's worth a look. Its from this http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/FDTombe.htm archive.
johnm33
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:48 pm

johnm33 wrote:I'm not making any claims for this http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/tidalforce.pdf but it's worth a look. Its from this http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/FDTombe.htm archive.

I thought that electrons and positrons annihilated each other, so I don't see how he's going to build a lattice out of pairs of them, projecting outward from all bodies along lines of electric force, capable of exerting pressure on other bodies, squeezing them into bulges parallel to the lines of force. An expert on custom QM constructs would have to review this. Nevertheless, I added it to my list of hypotheses for tidal forces.
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 Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron