Re: Earthquakes - Electrical Precursors in Ionosphere
Nice digging, MGMirkin. I heard the story this a.m. on BBC radio, so did some digging myself.
The NASA announcement comes from Minoru Freund. Is that surname familiar? It features in Wal Thornhill's 21 December 2005 article "Electric Earthquakes" here http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=36uyr9nx about the p-hole theory of electrical activity associated with earthquakes due to Dr. Friedemann T. Freund, where Wal wrote:
The difficulties encountered in connection with p-holes are similar to others that have punctuated the history of science. The discovery of the p-holes as dormant yet powerful charge carriers in the Earth's crust calls for a new paradigm in earthquake research and beyond. More often than not, any call for a new paradigm elicits opposition. Freund closes with a quote from the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer: "all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
If Freund has a problem getting such a simple idea accepted, how much more difficult is it going to be to get both astronomers and geoscientists to accept that the Earth is a charged body in an Electric Universe?
Friedmann and Minoru are father and son. And both are now at NASA Ames. And NASA appears to be seriously interested in researching the area. So in answer to Wal's question, perhaps progress to that acceptance is being made faster than we previously thought.
Electrical pathways in rock, and how they relate to stresses and strains in rock, are further discussed in this Southern Illinois University account of research by Dr Eric Ferré here - http://www.siu.edu/~perspect/05_fall/earthquakes.html.
IMO, NASA's interest is intellectually driven by the availability of a model of which correlates ground and atmospheric events, and earthquakes. To date, most of the research has focussed on correlation analyses as ways of predicting earthquakes. As "correlation" is not the same as "cause", the existence of an explanatory model with causal linkages counts as an advance (notwithstanding Popper's falsification criterion).
The issue is going to be one of deciding what is cause and what is effect. Does the generation of p-holes by geological stress cause the observed electrical phenomena as a concomitant feature of earthquakes? Or does an electrical loading of the ionosphere induce p-holes in the ground across one or more double layers, and their resulting collapse thru the ground cause the earthquake? From the EU point of view, an account in terms of "holes" is surely as incomplete as one which tries to account for transistors in terms of holes alone.
Of social historical interest is the Tectonic Strain Theory, which correlates UFO events with stresses and strains in the Earth's crust. Extensive discussion and references here - http://www.shaktitechnology.com/tectonic.htm#Equivalents%20of%20UFO%20Phenomena. The theory is largely conjectural and arises from statistical analysis, but the way it connects electrical phenomena with known neurological and psychological features of the brain is very interesting. In particular, the discussion on how the subject might be inclined to make sense of the situation, in terms of interpreted meaningfulness, has a direct relevance to the mythological studies running parallel to the EU.
MGmirkin
Re: Earthquakes - Electrical Precursors in Ionosphere
A colleague online has noted another interesting paper from Proceedings of the IEEE:
The abstract wrote: This paper describes some unanticipated effects of the normal modes of the sun on engineering and scientific systems. We begin with historical, scientific, and statistical background, then present evidence for the effects of solar modes on various systems. Engineering evidence for these modes was first noticed in an investigation of communications satellite failures and second in a study of excessive dropped calls in cellular phone systems. The paper also includes several sections on multitaper estimates of spectra, canonical coherences, robust, and cyclostationary variants of multitapering, and related statistical techniques used to separate the various components of this complex system. In our attempt to understand this unexpected source of problems, we have found that solar modes are detectable in the interplanetary magnetic fields and energetic particles at the Ulysses spacecraft, five astronomical units from the Earth. These modes couple into the magnetosphere, the ionosphere, the geomagnetic field, and atmospheric pressure. Estimates of the power spectrum of data from solar radio telescopes and induced voltages on ocean cables show what appear to be solar modes at both lower and higher frequencies than the optically measured solar p-modes. Most surprisingly, these modes are easily detected in seismic data, where they literally shake the Earth.
The last line is a bit of a shocker...
Cheers, ~Michael Gmirkin
StevenO
Re: Earthquakes - Electrical Precursors in Ionosphere
Sorry, I can't provide no link yet, but I also have seen an article where major lightning discharges were linked to dips in the ionosphere.
MGmirkin
Re: Earthquakes - Electrical Precursors in Ionosphere
StevenO wrote: Sorry, I can't provide a link yet, but I also have seen an article where major lightning discharges were linked to dips in the ionosphere.
Hmm...
Neither of these is it, probably, but interesting anyway:
Re: Earthquakes - Electrical Precursors in Ionosphere
So...could we start comparing these phenomena to sunspots? What was Birkelands explanation from his terella experiments?
MGmirkin
Re: Earthquakes - Electrical Precursors in Ionosphere
Don't know that Birkeland had an opinion on Earthquakes...? I think he concerned himself mostly with the plasmas in the atmosphere and/or in space (evacuated chambers and whatnot for low-pressure gas discharges, etc.)... Though some of the images seem to align relatively well with Io in eclipse's apparently bright/hot surface features and clouds of "bright gas" around the equator... But I think that surface arcing was as close as Birkeland got to describing surface interactions or sub-surface interactions (don't know that he ever went "sub-surface")?
~Michael
MGmirkin
New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1812 vs the Great Comet?
A really interesting article just surfaced, purportedly from December 1811.
Many interesting things are said of it. But this snippet from the very end raised the most eyebrows.
...
NEW-ORLEANS, Jan.- 13, 3812.
Dear Sir, Agreeably to my promise in the last communication which I had the pleasure of making you, I present a further detail of the late earthquake.
Its range appears to have been by no means confined to the Mississippi. It was felt in some degree throughout the Indiana Territory, and the states of Oho and Kentucky and Tennessee. I have conversed with gentlemen from Louisville and Lexington, (in Kentucky) who state, that it was severe in both those places. At the latter, indeed, it continued for twelve days, and did some inconsiderable injuries to several dwellings. From thence it ranged the Ohio River, increasing in force until it entered the Mississippi, and extending down that river to Natchez, and probably a little lower. Beyond this it was not perceived.
It is a singular, but well authenticated fact, that in several places on the Mississippi, where the shocks were most severe, the earth was rent (as it were) by two distinct processes. By one it was burst asunder and instantaneously closed, leaving no traces whatever of the shock; by the other it was rent, and an electric flash ran along the surface, tearing the earth to pieces in its progress. These last were generally attended with an explosion, and streams of matter, in a liquid state, gushed from the gaps, which were left open when the shocks subsided, and were in many instances of an immense depth.
It is also reported, through the medium of some Indians from the country adjacent to the Washita, who arrived a few days since at the Walnut Hills, some distance above Natchez, that the Burning Mountains, up the Washita River, had been rent to its base. This information I received from a settler at the Hill, and his appearance was such as to attach credit to his information.
Your obedient servant, WM. L. PIERCE.
(Emphases mine)
Now, assuming tentatively that the article is true, what does it all mean? It was noted that during, or recently before, the great comet of 1811 had been seen for some time.
Can we trust the reliability of the source? Why would anyone fabricate such a story?
It was obviously well before the time of Velikovsky, so one cannot infer ill intent there. Much of the article appears to have been eye-witness news, some of it being second-hand.
Apparently another story was pulled from the newspaper in order to run this one instead. So, they felt it was important.
Re: New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1812 vs the Great Comet?
You are definately onto something. The effects you mentioned would have been called "UFO"'s today, (except in Sicily, where it would be called demons)
The liquids from the ground could have been plasma, and the electrical machining of the mountains and the visual 'earthquake lights' all seem to be there. Perhaps a new historical link to the EU, like Pestigo/Chicago Fire, Tunguska, Bell Island NFLD.
Lloyd
Comets vs. Meteors
- Very innerresting. I happen to be on the shore of the Mississippi just above St. Louis, where major floodwaters just crested the last 2 days. - In another thread I recently referred to something I read about 10 years ago, which mentioned that in Japan and or vicinity it was noted that earthquakes or tremors often followed meteor sightings. The theory was, I think, that the meteors caused the quakes or tremors. But EU theorists say electric discharges cause meteors to glow and melt in the atmosphere, so the same discharges may also continue to the ground to cause quakes or tremors. That seems to be the EU theory regarding the Tunguska event, which was said to likely involve a meteor in the Taurid meteor stream, I think, which also contains Comet Encke. - The liquid or molten matter sounds like lava. I wonder if that's been found in the New Madrid area or beyond.
MGmirkin
Re: Comets vs. Meteors
Lloyd wrote: - The liquid or molten matter sounds like lava. I wonder if that's been found in the New Madrid area or beyond.
However, if it was lava they would have simply said it was lava, one would think. I mean, people of the day knew what a volcano was, I think? They've been around and part of human consciousness for millennia, no? It's hard to know exactly what they described.
BUT, I got to thinking and shuffling around some thoughts in my brain... I wonder if the idea of this "outflow of matter/earth/ whatever" accompanying electrical phenomena has anything to do with the craters seen near Valles Marineris. Their "ejecta blankets" have always reminded me more of some kind of a plastic flow or a ooze of liquid... I wonder if the two processes / phenomena / structures are related...
(Not trying to be religious here...but Walt Brown's take on things is fascinating.)
GaryN
Re: New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1812 vs the Great Comet?
Electric fireball.
On June 14 there was an impessive sighting of a fireball, observed from southern California to mid Vancouver island. I was talking to a lady at the time, when she suddenly said 'Oh, my goodness!' and excitedly told me what she had seen over my shoulder. Make a wish, I said. She described the color, flaming bits falling off, a cone shape tail, and a breaking up. On the 'Net I found a log of reports, from California, Oregon and BC. My first thought was, if this object was reported to have had a terminal burst viewable from Cal. to BC, how high must it have been? I posed the question on 2 astronomy sites, and to the AMS site, but no replies. A quick mental calculation tells me it must have been outside the atmosphere.
A couple of days later, parts of California experienced a 'very unusual' dry lightning storm that set off hundreds of fires. Coincidence?
electrodogg1
Re: New Madrid Earthquakes of 1811-1812 vs the Great Comet?
GaryN,
Thanks for the link to that site. Notice that the "fireball" was going north to south and took about 30 minutes to get from viewable in BC to viewable in LA. So it wasn't viewable at the same time in BC and LA. Although the times may be approximate it seems like a long time to be visible. Very interesting.
