Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue Mar 17, 2020 11:27 pm

GHDW wrote:
Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
... a 12,068 year cycle ...
The creationist response to this should be obvious: that time frame is too long for a universe which is 6,000-10,000 years old, according to standard Creationist thinking at least. Note I do not expect you to hold my assumptions. I am merely saying why I don't agree with that argument.

I do vehemently disagree with Lloyd, though, regarding a stellar nova event. The last stellar nova to strike the face of the earth wiped it clean with a raging Deluge in Noah's day. If the 1859 Carrington event, a 'mere' solar flare and not a full nova, were to happen today, we would be plunged into the stone age tomorrow due to our over-reliance on electronics.

A full solar nova would see an immediate return to glow or arc mode planetary plasmasheathes as all bodies in the solar system respond to the radically changing electrical potential. There would only be a day cycle, no night, everywhere on Earth.

A new mythmaking epoch would immediately commence on every Facebook, Whatsapp and Twitter feed as humanity tries to make sense of not only the planetary disasters that would occur, but also the changed Earth sky filled with pole-to-pole auroras with phoenixes, ouroboros, dragons, marids, haechi and all the myriad other 'creatures' our ancestors spoke about in their mythmaking epochs.

To say a nova would have minimal effect on the solar system is to profess ignorance of what a nova is and how our solar system would respond to one.

Please keep reading, Lloyd!

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed Mar 18, 2020 6:01 pm

JP: To say a nova would have minimal effect on the solar system is to profess ignorance of what a nova is and how our solar system would respond to one.
I was referring to novas that occur outside of the solar system. And I don't know about all the phenomena you say would result from a nova. When Saturn went nova, it was close to the Earth, Venus and Mars. Since the planets are no longer in that arrangement, things would likely be much less intense.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Thu Mar 19, 2020 11:42 pm

Lloyd wrote:
Wed Mar 18, 2020 6:01 pm
Since the planets are no longer in that arrangement, things would likely be much less intense.
Past or present planetary arrangements are irrelevant to potential severity of a nova event. If our sun goes nova its entire plasmasphere, and everything inside it, will be affected. That includes, by default, every single object orbiting the sun. Energies affecting the outside boundary of the sun's plasmasphere will filter down inside the system.

When we talk about solar nova, an electric universe model posulates nova origins occuring from without, not from within (Standard Model). That is, the nuclear sun model says that a nova is a nuclear explosion originating from the inside of the star and expanding outward, destroying everything in its path. Electric sun model suggests that a nova is electrical stresses applied to the solar plasmaspheric circuit from an outside source, not internal. These stresses will then filter down inside the system, possibly resulting in a sudden explosive expansion or compression of the star's plasmasphere/double layers. This change would happen quickly, and result in intense electrically-caused catastrophism on all the planetary bodies orbiting within the star's plasmasphere until they, too, balance out their radically new charge potentials. This entire rebalancing process could take a number of months or even years, during which life will be nigh unlivable on earth.

GHDW wants to argue that this is already a known phenomenon according to Gleissberg's research 100 years ago.

I believe this is the kind of event the Book of Revelation and some of the prophets refer to when they describe solar instabilities as indicators of the end of this present (celestial) world age.
  • When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” (Revelation 6:12-17)

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Mar 20, 2020 6:54 pm

Charles Chandler shows at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943 that stars don't go nova till they reach the K class. The Sun is in class G, just above K. Red and brown dwarf stars are the ones that flare as novas. Saturn was apparently a brown dwarf in the K class.

Contrary to the TB team, Charles finds that stars are powered internally, like batteries. If there were powerful electric currents powering the Sun from the outside, like a light bulb, the magnetic fields of the currents should be easy to detect, but none are detected. If stars were powered externally, there's no place known that would generate the electric currents. Is there? There are no generators known.

Read Charles' Electric Astrophysics at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 . He's much more thorough and reasonable than other electric models.

Cargo
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Cargo » Fri Mar 20, 2020 10:23 pm

If stars were powered externally, there's no place known that would generate the electric currents. Is there?
Uh. It's called, The Universe. And it's fully Electric.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:23 am

In technological terms, electricity is generated by rotating magnets around coils of (usually copper) wire. The key to current generation is moving and varying magnetic fields which induce electron flow in the wire. When a magnetic field reaches its maximum value, a current will no longer be generated because the electrons will stop moving. This is why steam power plant turbines spin, to ensure a continually varying magnetic field in the generator to induce current.

The dynamic nature of cosmic plasmas ensures their magnetic fields are always moving, thus always generating current. It does not matter at this point whether the magnetic fields are pinching a cosmic Birkeland plasma filament somewhere in the galactic arm or whether its a coronal mass ejection from the sun. As long as there are varying magnetic fields and a plasma to act as the wire, current will be induced. The direction of the current flow depends on the direction of the magnetic field (+ or - voltage).

I have no doubt that the sun generates its own electricity just as much as it acts as a capacitor for charge. And to suggest "no magnetic fields" have been detected is ludicrous.

Our planet orbits inside the double layer between the corona and the heliopause. Go to those areas and you will find magnetic fields in abundance.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:14 pm

The theorized current from the heliopause to the Sun should have a strong magnetic field. Where is that magnetic field detected? Some planets have magnetic fields; the Sun has a magnetic field; sunspots have magnetic fields. But where are magnetic fields detected in the interplanetary medium between planets? You're awfully quick to call my statements ludicrous etc. Are you too busy to read Charles' material?

Cargo
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Cargo » Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:08 am

Magnetic "Ropes" connect the Sun to the Planets. Observed for the 'first time' with the Cassini spacecraft around Saturn in the mid-2000's. Also, the Solar 'Wind' is actually a Current.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphe ... rent_sheet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:34 am

Lloyd wrote:
Fri Mar 20, 2020 6:54 pm
If there were powerful electric currents powering the Sun from the outside, like a light bulb, the magnetic fields of the currents should be easy to detect, but none are detected. [Emphasis added]
How many NASA spacecraft have examined our solar system from the outside, Lloyd? There are only two even beyond the heliopause: Viking 1 & 2, and both of those are expected to have powered down most of their systems by the end of this year due to their failing plutonium batteries (or, at least, that's the public narrative we are being told; I personally believe they will continue operating clandestinely just like Chang-E operated during its 'unexpected shutdown' and the Israeli lunar lander Bereshith 'didn't make it').
Lloyd wrote:The theorized current from the heliopause to the Sun should have a strong magnetic field. Where is that magnetic field detected?
Magnetic fields are strongly present in the boundary region between the heliosheath and interstellar space,[1] exactly as we would expect if it were the current-carrying virtual cathode of the anode-model sun's plasmaspheric double layer. Like SAFIRE, the multiple double-layer system seems to have broken down with the increase in energy input. The virtual anode sheath is the chromosphere, near the sun's surface (or, in the case of Birkeland's cathode model sun, reverse these, but I am not convinced that this is the case due to the fact that the positively-charged solar wind accelerates away from the sun's surface, indicating the cathode is at the heliospheric outer boundary).

We should not expect strong magnetic fields in the regions between the sun's double layers, because these are not primary current-carrying zones. This is an area of charge separation and potential drop. Primary current carrying zones in a double-layer system should be at the anode/cathode sheaths. Any magnetic fields detectable between the layers (eg. between corona and the heliosheath) will be associated with Birkeland currents and/or orbiting bodies. These are indeed detected in 'magnetic flux ropes', aka. Birkeland currents, that connect every planetary body to the sun.

Charles is looking in all the wrong places and needs to do more work on plasma double layers and their associated phenomenon. Everything in our solar system points to a plasma universe of charge separation, virtual cathode/anode layers, double layer boundaries and interconnecting Birkeland currents. All of these are observed, in-situ, right now.

[1] L. F. Burlaga, N. F. Ness, D. B. Berdichevsky, J. Park, L. K. Jian, A. Szabo, E. C. Stone & J. D. Richardson, "Magnetic field and particle measurements made by Voyager 2 at and near the heliopause," Nature 3:1007–1012 (2019); A. Czechowski and J. Grygorczuk, "Heliosphere in a strong interstellar magnetic field," Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 900 (2017); D. Byrd, "Voyager 2 sends back insights on interstellar space," SPACE, Nov. 5, 2019.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:06 am

I haven't gotten to the magnetic fields of electric currents problem yet, but I'll start with problems with the Anode Sun model now. I think the magnetic field issue comes up in that same thread.

On TB forum 2.0, I organized Electric Sun Discussions on the Thursday preceding Tue May 15, 2012 10:57 am when I started posting the discussions at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =10&t=6124
The discussions began with me, Charles Chandler and Michael Mozina and were later joined by Brant Callahan (Upriver). I invited Thornhill, Scott and others to join in discussions, but they declined. The weekly discussions lasted about 3 months. All 3 participants happened to share the view that the Sun is a cathode.

Lately I gave an argument for why stars are not powered from outside. This is one of the points discussed in our discussions from 8 years ago. In this post
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =15#p67212
go down to the section I called "Negative Sun; Outward Flowing Electrons". Here are some quotes from that section of the discussion.
_LK: I’d like to see you guys critique Don Scott’s speech from the EU conference in January, which is posted on the TB website at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/mm/elec ... -excerpts/ [[ I think the link works in the actual thread]].
Toward the middle he shows a vacuum tube diagram with cathode and anode and describes his theory there.
_CC: I saw that. But the specificity of the contentions is extremely low. He’s just basically saying that same thing as Alfven & others have said before, that you can get anode tufting.
...
_LK: Doesn’t he say which part of the vacuum tube is equivalent to the tufted photosphere?
_CC: I think they’re saying that the tufts at the anode (the positive electrode) are analogous to the granules in the photosphere. But he doesn’t say anything about the charging mechanism, or why the interplanetary medium would be negatively charged. It is mentioned frequently by Juergens & others that there is a stream of electrons, flowing into from the interstellar medium, that lights up the Sun. But we would actually expect that to be positive, and there is no evidence of such an electron stream, and if there was, it would connect with the Sun in discharges that would look like lightning strikes, not tufts.
_CC: I think that the granules ARE tufts, but I think that this is actually a “negative glow” plasma.
...
_CC: As concerns the difference between typical negative glows and typical anode tufts, I’m thinking that if we take the stringy plasma in a negative glow, and subject it to an enormous gravitational and electric force, such that it clings tightly to the negative electrode, we’ll get the kind of “tufting” that would be somewhat more typical at the anode.
_LK: Do you mean typical on the Sun? Or photosphere?
_CC: In the lab, we’re seeing distinctive characteristics of discharges in gases, especially low density gases. I think that this is why Juergens picked the anode as the most analogous to the appearance of the granules in the photosphere. But I think that this is incorrect. I think that a cathode glow could produce that kind of tufting.
...
_CC: ... I don’t mean to bore everybody with the solar polarity thing, but I think that the ES model has it backwards, and that this is preventing progress in the model. Flipping the polarity makes it possible to build on it, and everything starts to fall into place.
_LK: CC may have a list of problems with the ES model ere long, Eh?
_CC: Yes, I’ll be working on it, but I want to hear what Brant and Michael have to say first. Never know what you’re going to learn!
_BC: I agree.. The cathode model seems to fit the observations very well. The photosphere is .6 eV in temperature which is not very far from the surface in negative glow terms. The Corona is 100eV giving you pretty good bounds on where the electron emitting surface is...
_LK: Those observations need to go on CC’s list, Brant.
_CC: The helmet streamers in the corona baffled me for the longest time. And the fact that the particles accelerate away from the Sun, which wouldn’t make any sense at all if the electrons were flowing in from outer space, because they would accelerate toward the Sun, but it makes perfect sense if the electrons are breaking away from a current divider near the Sun’s surface, and then accelerating toward a positive charge in the interplanetary medium.
- Next time I like to ask BC more questions about eV’s and temps and ionization levels in spectroscopy. I’m intrigued by the antenna idea. But indeed, the point of convergence in both models is at the cathode, and then the properties of the photosphere make sense.

In this post https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =15#p67441
_CC added: ... The standard model actually is just an energy budget. There really isn’t much physics in it. If it was a fusion furnace, we’d see a diffuse glow of gamma rays from an indistinct blob of plasma, whose density dropped off gradually. What we’re actually see[ing] is light from lower temperatures coming from a specific layer.
- The evidence that the electrons are exiting the Sun, rather than arriving at it, is the nature of the discharge. With the Sun as a cathode, the electrons distribute themselves around the edge, and leave the cathode, headed for the heliosphere, from all over the surface. They accelerate away, which is what we would expect for electrons that were close to a current divider. The further they get from the current divider, the less ambiguous the field, and they accelerate. We can also see the outward flow [[helmet streamers]] in coronagraphs. So the Sun-as-cathode makes sense. If the Sun was an anode, we’d expect the electron streams to get pinched into discrete channels as they approached the positively charged Sun. In other words, the flow of electrons would take the form of lightning, burrowing through the solar atmosphere. This, of course, is not at all what happens. The “spicules” that we see sometimes near active regions are the form that I’m talking about. But the flow in spicules is outward, and these are the exception rather than the rule. So I find the Sun-as-anode model to be untenable.

Then see "Brant's Referenced Cathode Spot Paper" in this post:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =30#p68696
_LK2b: Brant, what did you want us to understand from that paragraph?
Cathode Mechanism
_BC: That here is a mechanism for the solar wind that is pretty well studied, based on lab experiments, if you use the cathode model.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:23 pm

Following are more quotes from the Electric Sun Discussions thread about why the Anode Sun model must be wrong at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =10&t=6124

_2. EU Galactic Circuit Theory: Explain which of Scott’s and Thornhill’s Electric Sun ideas you agree and disagree with and why; for these first two points, I’d like to know especially what evidence there is that the Sun is part of a galactic electric circuit, or if the electrical effects are local.
_MM: I suppose I’ll start by saying that I LOVED Scott’s book on this topic. I don’t agree with all of it, but it open[ed] my eyes to many aspects of the theory that I was simply missing. I also enjoyed his writing style and I’m kinda picky.
- Having said all that, I think he has the wiring backwards by suggesting the sun acts as an anode rather than a cathode as Birkeland suggested. The biggest problem however with any solar model that attempts to use an external power source is going to be explaining the neutrino counts from the sun. Those counts match up quite nicely with a fusion process and a neutrino oscillation process. Any model that attempts to suggest that the energy is externally produced must also deal with those same neutrino measurements. Unfortunately I think Juergens was incorrect in assuming that the sun wasn’t also a power source. It’s fine to “wire together” a bunch of “generators”, but unless the suns generate the current, where is that current ultimately coming from?
- I’d personally be willing to entertain a fission based process in the core, but again those neutrino measurements just don’t favor such a model. IMO the neutrino counts will be something that has to be dealt with in any electric solar model.
- In theory at least, I would expect that the neutrino counts would be lower if Jeurgen’s solar model was correct. We wouldn’t need for the sun to “produce” energy per se, it could simply be a ‘resistor’ and release heat in such a scenario. However, in such a scenario, we’d also expect to see little or no neutrino output from the sun. That doesn’t seem to be the case at all.

_MM: ... Because Juergen’s model isn’t a wireless transfer model, it’s likely to require a large magnetic field to carry all that current into the sun, and its unlikely to create the correct neutrino counts from the sun. More importantly however, the current would need to ‘flow into” the solar atmosphere, making it very unlikely we’d observe whole loops rising up and through the photosphere. A cathode model however works just that way, and in fact Birkeland even filmed these kinds of discharge processes. In short the movement of the loops, the lack of an powerful external EM field and the number of neutrinos do favor an energy release process that is *inside* the sun, not mostly in the solar atmosphere.
_MM: ... I don’t see large enough magnetic fields inside the solar system to justify Juergen’s concepts related to current flowing through the plasma itself. A“wireless” transfer of energy seems more likely IMO.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed Apr 01, 2020 9:15 pm

Yay the forum is back!

I posted a reply here like a week ago which will stay lost, because I can't remember what I said now.

moses
Posts: 1135
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:18 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by moses » Thu Apr 02, 2020 2:54 am

Write your material in a text file and then copy into this area. You can then save the text file and I have hundreds, if not thousands, of such saved text files.
Cheers,
Mo

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Apr 03, 2020 5:19 pm

I hope to get some time to discuss here over the weekend. Glad the forum is back up for posting.

Lloyd
Posts: 4607
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Apr 05, 2020 4:23 pm

CATHODE SUN?
Does anyone disagree with CC's and MM's points in my previous posts that support the Cathode Sun model instead of the Anode Sun model? Bob Johnson also criticized the anode sun model about the same time, although he didn't accept the cathode model either. But his criticisms of the anode model are also good points against it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest