Paper on plasma cratering

Books, journal articles, web pages, and news reports that can help to clarify the history and promise of the Electric Universe hypothesis.
User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm
Contact:

Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by paladin17 » Thu Jan 05, 2023 1:43 am

We've just published a preprint of a new paper on EDM cratering: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202301.0071/v1

I'll send it to a couple of journals (got only one rejection at this point, wanna dial it up to at least 5 to have my conscious cleared). It's perfectly shareable even as it is though.

It proposes a mechanism of a plasma cloud (e.g. from a strong CME) producing craters via inertial current. Also shares results of some experiments made by J. Gable.

A supporting video can be found here (but better read the actual thing): https://youtu.be/_OSI5pzg8XM

Cargo
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:04 am

I am overjoyed by this paper. Huge hugs and grats. It really does work well so far. And.. hot dog, I knew I was on to something and this adds another link in my chain.
[riles.] they appear visually brighter because of the lower weathering by solar wind due to being
shielded by intrinsic magnetization (Denevi et al. (2016)), an order of magnitude higher with respect to the “ambient”
lunar rock (Hemingway and Tikoo (2018)). This magnetization may be the remnant of the currents passing through
the rille minerals in the past.
I like the coy reference to the Dark Moon too. :)
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Cargo
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:30 am

A non-science critique: If you call out a Fig that Fig should follow immediately after that para. Not several pages away.
Page 7 is the culprit.
It might break apart the meaning of the text, but you could either try smaller images (link to full version ref) to help with the document flow.
Or show the images with brief descriptions first, then bring on the solid reading para after the pics.
In fact that's what I think you should do for Section 4. Move all the pictures up, 50% resize, might get two per page. Then the text of 4.x follows.

I am not a Word professional, but that's what would look better to me.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Cargo
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:57 am

I got twitch on this minor part: "If we assume that the plasma comes from the Sun"
That's an incorrect wording. Plasma is not a thing that comes, it's a state. It is the medium of Space. Or maybe the paper doesn't want to wade into the 'planet to planet' or 'moon/comet to planet' 'current' that would also come across the plasma. You know.

I also don't follow why CME's would be a factor to consider. They are at a much higher level then what is likely causing the cratering.

Based on the experiment alone, it's 100% clear that craters are/can/will be electrical in nature. Well done.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by paladin17 » Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:15 pm

Cargo wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:30 am A non-science critique: If you call out a Fig that Fig should follow immediately after that para. Not several pages away.
...
I am not a Word professional, but that's what would look better to me.
Well, that's the thing. Nobody writes papers in Word.
It's all LaTeX since the 1990's. :D
Cargo wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 6:57 am I got twitch on this minor part: "If we assume that the plasma comes from the Sun"
That's an incorrect wording. Plasma is not a thing that comes, it's a state. It is the medium of Space. Or maybe the paper doesn't want to wade into the 'planet to planet' or 'moon/comet to planet' 'current' that would also come across the plasma. You know.

I also don't follow why CME's would be a factor to consider. They are at a much higher level then what is likely causing the cratering.

Based on the experiment alone, it's 100% clear that craters are/can/will be electrical in nature. Well done.
We've talked about this with Jacob. My argument (with which he agreed) was that it would require varying too many parameters and implying some very unlikely coincindences.

Basically, if we assume the craters are produced by close planetary encounters, then every celestial body (since they're all cratered, pretty much) has to be very close or even very close - like 10000 km or less close - to some other body to sustain any significant current between them.
And these extremely close (fantastically close) flybys have to happen repeatedly many times, so these currents could pepper the planets with craters more or less evenly on all sides.

I can't see a scenario (except for "magic") where that would be the case. Ockham's razor would imply it's some other sort of system-wide influence.
CME is the simplest answer, hence we stick to that.
One CME can easily cover 1/4 of the heliosphere and hit multiple planets at once, and a random succession of 10-15 randomly directed extremely strong CMEs could produce more or less even cratering on all sides on every body.

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by jacmac » Sat Jan 21, 2023 3:55 pm

Cargo: The
Plasma is not a thing that comes, it's a state. It is the medium of Space.
I think saying "the plasma" as a thing is valid. Plasma is matter in the plasma state, yes, but you can also speak of it as a thing.
If you wrote about gas in an article you would naturally say THE GAS does this or THE GAS moves that way.
You might write that the SOLIDS in the LIQUID clogged the pipe.
So, I believe using the word for the state of matter or for the matter itself is equally valid.
The context gives the specific meaning. IMO.

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by jacmac » Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:16 pm

From the abstract:
The source of the energy and the current itself may lie in the plasma infalling on a celestial body
The word INFALLING connotes an effect of GRAVITY; as when one falls down, or goes over a waterfall.
You might say striking, or impinging, or impacting.
Unless You intend a gravity event; in that case the sentence is not clear to me ??

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by paladin17 » Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:31 pm

jacmac wrote: Sat Jan 21, 2023 4:16 pm From the abstract:
The source of the energy and the current itself may lie in the plasma infalling on a celestial body
The word INFALLING connotes an effect of GRAVITY; as when one falls down, or goes over a waterfall.
You might say striking, or impinging, or impacting.
Unless You intend a gravity event; in that case the sentence is not clear to me ??
We ignore gravity, as its energy is at least two orders of magnitude lower than the kinetic energy of the plasma (escape velocity ~ 10^1 km/s, plasma velocity ~ 10^2-10^3 km/s).
In the model the body is stationary, so it seemed like the correct word to me. Maybe "impinging" would be better, but it sounds odd. :D

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: Paper on plasma cratering

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:17 am

As the title is plasma cratering, I assume the plasma in question is that part that is doing the cratering.
Therefore I think striking might be best, or impacting also.
As one would say lightning strikes the house, or strikes the ground.
Impinge sort of works, But an impact indicates more force.
I too think impinge sounds odd.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest