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.