meemoe_uk wrote:The rational for this is Earth has captured the lions share of the galactic current for the inner planets. Now its stuck in a positive feedback loop - the bigger it gets, the more current it attracts, the faster it grows...etc.
How does a galactic current cause the Earth to grow in size? Sure, the arrival of ions would constitute a current of sorts,
and it would add mass to the Earth. Is that what you mean?
meemoe_uk wrote:Nuclear fusion by electric arcing inside the Earth seems to be happening. Sulfur is seen to be a common product of electric arc fusion of oxygen-oxygen ( see Io's surface ), and this is often emitted from Earth's volcanoes.
I arrived at the conclusion that electric currents are pumping magma through volcanoes for a different set of reasons. Magma is an good conductor, while solid granites/basalts are poor conductors. Thus as tidal forces flex the Earth's crust, and the degree of ionization changes at depth, there will be currents, and once a magma channel gets established, the currents will prefer those channels, instead of the surrounding solid rock. This accounts for the sputtering of volcanic eruptions, which clearly isn't just hydrostatic pressure, which would cause a smooth flow. But if the rupture of the caldera relaxes the pressure in the magma channel, then at depth, magma can be de-ionized, meaning that there will be a current, and it will flow through the magma itself. Thus the rupture of the caldera triggers a massive amount of current, which causes a massive amount of ohmic heating, which causes the secondary eruption.
This would predict that the more catastrophic the eruption, the higher the sulfur content. I'll have to look that up. We could compare the sulfur content of continuous eruptions, such as Kilauea or Etna, versus episodic eruptions such as Pinatubo or St. Helen's, which
should have a higher sulfur content, if this is correct.
meemoe_uk wrote:It may be there's several alternating negative positive charge layers from the surface to the core, each of them causing high build up of electrical energy and hence electric arcs which fuse elements.
In the Sun, I have identified 5 layers of charge (3 positive and 2 negative). I know that there are more than 2 layers inside the Earth, since recent research has demonstrated that the core rotates at a different rate when compared to the lower mantle. Nested current-free double-layers become possible when there is a stratification of elements, all with different ionization energies. At the interface between each layer, there will be electric arcs, and I totally agree that fusion is occurring in those arcs.
meemoe_uk wrote:Eric Lerner's experiment team are working to get nuclear fusion from arc discharges into gas, I wonder if there's any similar experiments to find electric arc induced fusion within conductors, or ionized solids, or water.
Fusion occurs in lightning. The proof is the gamma rays, and the lingering free neutrons that have been detected. The fusion is occurring at the beginnings of the stepped leaders, where a new surge of electrons slams into stationary gas, and where the temperature and pressure are instantaneously raised above the fusion threshold (i.e., inertial confinement). Similar results in vastly larger quantities have been seen during flares on the surface of the Sun. But it takes a big arc to get fusion. So it isn't going to happen in a tabletop apparatus, at least not like that. Focus fusion is a different setup.
Sparky wrote:Mathis uses mechanical explanations of gravity and EM, and his E/M field allows for explaining many things, from atomic to cosmic levels.
I'll leave that stuff up to Mathis. For my purposes, basing all of my work on forces that can be quantified in the laboratory, a change in the quantum substrate isn't going to affect my work. If gravity turns out to be a special case of Mathis' E/M charge field, that isn't going to change the way it works at the macroscopic level. Both gravity and the electric force can be measured independently, and can be shown to be separate forces at the macroscopic level. Perhaps Mathis will succeed where Einstein failed, in demonstrating how all of the fundamental forces are just special cases of one single force. But for me, it doesn't matter whether a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark, or a packet of the charge field, or anything else for that matter. Hydrogen still has one of them, helium has two, etc., and the chemical properties remain the same. So I'm not going to wait for Mathis to re-write all of the physics books before I start working out the EM properties of stars and planets.
Sparky wrote:As for planet formation; could it be that planets are formed more than one way, including the jw dead star model?
I think that the Earth
is growing by simple ion capture, but that the abundance of heavy elements, which is way out of proportion to the interplanetary medium, indicates that it has been fusing heavy elements for a long time. I find it a lot easier to believe that it was once a lot larger, and was probably much more star-like than planet-like. Thus the Earth is a stellar remnant. But how it
formed in the first place, as a discrete entity, would have been by simple ion capture. And
that is easier to believe if it was occurring in the context of a dusty plasma collapse, which would have brought more matter together than hydrostatics would have preferred as a resting condition.
viscount aero wrote:This cognitive dissonance of mainstream cosmology and astronomy is another unrequited paradox.
Indeed.
viscount aero wrote:CharlesChandler wrote:No need for CDM -- the "missing mass" isn't mass at all -- it's just a missing force, and that force is the electric force. So that's the model I'm using, and I have developed a long list of things that can be explained this way.
Excellent. Please share your list of these things.
If you're just asking about the "missing force" body of theory, here's a quick overview.
- Dusty Plasma Collapse
- We know that stars form where there used to be dusty plasmas. Newton said that this is just because gravity overcomes the resting inertia to pull everything together. In the 1800s, scientists added the concept of hydrostatic pressure, and in the 1900s, Sir James Jeans heuristically derived the pseudo-scientific formulas for how much gravity, and how little hydrostatic pressure, it takes to enable the collapse. But in the 1980s, it was shown that gravity accounts for somewhere between 1/5 and 1/20 of the necessary force. Not wanting to re-work their gravity formulas, scientists invented a new form of matter (i.e., CDM) to supply the gravity, but the electric force does the job without having to invent anything new, and thus CDM doesn't survive Occam's Razor.
- Collapse Due to Nearby Supernova
- Dusty plasmas are famous for collapsing after there has been a nearby supernova. If Sir James Jeans was right, this is because the supernova either adds mass, or removes hydrostatic pressure, from the dusty plasma, thereby dropping it under the critical threshold. Absorbing the relativistic ejecta from a supernova will certainly add mass, but the thermalization of the relativistic velocities will add a lot more heat. So the Jeans Instability is bogus. The reason for the relationship is that the supernova issues huge quantities of UV radiation, which photo-ionize the matter, thereby increasing the charge separation in Debye cells, and thus increasing the like-likes-like force that will pull everything together.
- Collapse into Filaments, and then into Stars
- The whole dusty plasma doesn't converge radially into a single, central star. Rather, it resolves into filaments, which then collapse into one or more stars, sometimes creating a series of them, like beads on a string. Gravity doesn't favor filaments, and hydrostatic pressure hates them, so this is evidence of EM. I have shown elsewhere that in a linear filament, the like-likes-like force is stronger than the body force in a spherical arrangement of Debye cells. The reason is that in a filament, the positive and negative charges line up in an alternating sequence, where there are only attractive forces, as opposed to attractions and repulsions in a spherical arrangement. Thus if filaments form, they are more likely to collapse into stars. The filaments form on the edges of high-pressure jets coming from the supernova.
- Galactic Arms and Central Bars
- CDM is also invoked to explain the anomalous rotation of spiral galaxies, but there again, the electric force, in a like-likes-like configuration, does the job without inventing anything new. The stretching of a galaxy due to centrifugal force draws the matter into filaments, which have the additional attractive force necessary to keep the spiral arms from detaching. Thus the arms are like "skater's whips", where everybody holds hands and skates around in a circle, and the kid on the end has to hold on tightly.
- Barred Spirals can be explained in the same way.
- Stellar Organization
- Once matter is pressed together into large enough clumps, if gravity is sufficient to ionize the matter, charged double-layers will form. Since the electric force between these layers will be a lot more powerful than gravity, the layers will get pulled together more forcefully, resulting in a more compact object. This increases the density of the gravitational field, which increases the ionization, which increases the electric force, etc. Thus a force feedback loop is formed, and this is what can hold together a clump of superheated plasma in space, despite the wimpy gravitational force, and enormous hydrostatic pressure at such temperatures.
And that's just the beginning
but it lays a broad, solid foundation for a more detailed analysis of things going on in the Sun (differential rotation, torsional oscillation, magnetic field inversions, sunspots, coronal loops, granules, helmet streamers, the heliospheric current sheet, etc.) and in the Earth (volcanoes, earthquakes, Seneca Guns, tornadoes, dust devils, etc.).
