Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote:
So we have 2 main forces: 1) gravity from the surface and crust 2) thermodynamic pressure from the core--and actually a 3rd) centripetal force of the rotating Earth (?)
No, only in Charles' model. 1.) gravity is too correlated in strength to magnetic fields of rocky planets to be trusted, also it gives wildly different densities of so called rocky moons and planets, its says the giant planets are less dense than water. Also modern measurements of big G show its an anomalously slippery constant to pin down, It's probably wrong. Surface attraction is more likely electro-static.
Ok I'm not denying that. I agree with your premise of wrongfully attributed density and gravity to celestial objects. In mainstream theory Saturn can allegedly "float on the water" were an ocean of H20 large enough to accommodate this hypothesis.
meemoe_uk wrote: 2. Thermodynamics in itself plays a minor causal role at most in creating forces and making planets and stars into spheres with force fields. It's better described as an effect and whatever effects it has are secondary.
Ok then what constrains planets and moons spherically? Why? And how is a core formed if it cannot have any gravity? Basically planetary structure is unknown. The insides of worlds are unknown and cannot be known into the foreseeable future.
meemoe_uk wrote: 3.) The centripetal force is negligible on Earth. The sun defies conventional theory as it's spherical shape seems to ignore centripetal force completely. Only the giant planets have notable reactionary bulge in their shape, but even for them, centripetal forces are minor.
Ok good points about the Sun (it has a "too perfect" problem in its spherical shape) but oblate spheroids are common in space. Why? How is centripetal force nearly irrelevant when it indeed happens? The gas giants are not molten/plasmoids as is the Sun. The rules are a little different wouldn't you think?
meemoe_uk wrote: Vis u seem to praise Charles on his every sentence. He's only human like you or me. I can poke at what I see as flaws in his model. Most obviously, his general approach seems to use electric theory to bolster conventional models, which is diametrically opposed to the thrust of the EU community, we usually just destroy conventional models.
Insofar as what he has been stating herein, yes. As for other things he believes, not necessarily. For example Charles doesn't believe in the Primer Fields and is virtually unmoved by that theory (even with physical demonstration on video) and I don't at all share his lack of interest in it. I think the Primer Fields are one of the most compelling theories I've yet seen to explain the cosmos. But Charles is asleep and snoring about it. So is most of the EU community which I think is entirely narrow-minded and foolish particularly when the PF theory is exactly a plasma demonstration. But that is my opinion. Everyone has one.
meemoe_uk wrote: The most glaring example is Charles supports the Blackhole concept (!). Oh dear. To me, blackholes are in the 2nd tier of absurdity ( darkmatterenergy are in the 1st ) of conventional astrophysics. They were cooked up to explain X_rays and gamma rays from space when astronomers were refusing to consider electric current in space. In EU theory they are both redundant and physically absurd. When direct evidence is unobtainable, the most powerful usage of laws, rules and patterns of nature is to mimic the falsifying power of evidence ( the #1 force in science ) to show that models violate laws, are redundant, or are unsupported by any other pattern or observation we have recorded. Bolstering shaky models simply isn't good science, its only really been a habit of conventional astrophysicists, and look what happened to them. Stuck there whole lives in absurd fiction. It is fun, but doesn't have a good success rate in history of science.
Oh well, poor Charles. He can have his black holes. There is an unknown force at the centers of galaxies that stars do orbit. And the "thing" is unseen. It is therefore "black." EU posits it is a dark mode spherical plasmoid. Ok. But it cannot be proven either way.
meemoe_uk wrote: But still I can see why Charles has gone down the mad model path. I would like to have a model too, but every time I think I've got one I experience a wave of honesty and self criticism and I see I simply don't seem to have enough evidence to support it over wild speculation.
Mad model? What do you mean? Charles has a vast knowledge base. Many of his ideas are compelling. But by his own admission he is not perfect nor holds the key. He is open to learning and for that I applaud him. Many people on here are closed to learning or at least pondering anything that falls outside of Velikovskian EU theory. I don't applaud that.
GaryN
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
@viscount aero
Yes I've been a proponent of hollow planets for years now. I believe at least some planets are geodes. The Moon and Mercury are, to me, the same things and are probably just giant geodes in space.
Yes I've noticed the very tunnel-visioned manner of EU theory, ie, that everything must be due to a Birkeland current, including all geological forms, oceans, everything. There is no such thing as erosion in EU theory. All "erosion" is suspicious and probably due to some form of lightning or thunder. Water cannot flow anywhere for any reason. Liquid doesn't exist anywhere for EU theory. Nothing is wet. There is no weather anywhere. Rain is electrical. Your physiology is due to a Birkeland current and a z-pinch, your sense of smell is really a Birkeland current, etc... It is as if the EU doesn't recognize traditional physical mechanics. I find that highly ludicrous.
If it could ever be shown that the planets and moons, and perhaps asteriods, are hollow, which I belive very likely, then how are they formed? There is only one method I believe, and it can be demonstrated in a plasma laboratory. The Coulomb crystal. Anyway, I think we should be more willing to accept what we have been told by some legends, particularly the American natives, that great upheavals befell the Earth, mountains growing and disolving in hours or days. The ancient Greeks, through what they heard from the ancient Egyptians, told us of many past destructions. And many more to come. And even the Bible suggests such events:
Psalm 46
1 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. 2 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; 3 though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof.
Though the earth be removed. This idea is also found elsewhere, the Earth being disolved, and re-formed, in the space of a few days. The Oahspe Bible claims that if the Solar vortex dissolves, the planets and moons will also dissolve, and reappear when the Solar vortex spins up again. Those ideas are based on the idea of Aether vortices. Anyway, I'm not a religious type in the conventional sense, but I do find some of the young vs old Earth arguments interesting, was just looking at this site.Nowhere though is the possibility of rapid change by electrical and plasma events considered.
GEOLOGY and the Fact of an Ancient Earth Neglect of Geologic Data Sedimentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth Creationist Writings.
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Vis please edit that last bit out, that stuff on charles and black holes is wrong, i was mistaken.
>Ok then what constrains planets and moons spherically? Why?
Electro-static forces. there's an ionized interior and the surface is negatively charged. I don't understand why.
And how is a core formed if it cannot have any gravity?
Early in a planet's formation its just a small chunk of rock, its held together by molecular forces. Later I'm not sure how a core is stable. That's why I'm open to hollow planetstar theory. Even the moon's behaviour is consistent with being hollow.
oblate spheroids are common in space. Why?
I'm not sure thats true. Just point us to some evidence there pls.
Why? How is centripetal force nearly irrelevant when it indeed happens?
In the same way a midge is irrelevant to a volcano. Indeed the midge happens, but the volcano doesn't change its behaviour because of the midge. Things don't fly off the Earth at the equator because the centripetal force there is much weaker than force pulling things to the ground. In fact its hard to notice centripetal acceleration even if you are stood at the equator.
The gas giants are not molten/plasmoids as is the Sun.
Given that the Earth seems pretty hot underground, i wouldn't assert that the giant planets are not molten at some internal radius. Plasmoid physics is an interesting model application to planet physics. The sun has plasmoid characteristics, and the giant planets have similar relevant physics to the sun. It could be a supported plasmoid model would explain planet nature. When i say supported, I'm comparing it to the lab plasmoids of focus fusion research, which are unstable and collapse rapidly. Planets may be a solid structure that house a plasmoid whose magnetic fields would otherwise not be able to sustain itself. This is why I'm interested in plasmoids in solids. Currently we only have hard evidence of plasmoids in plasmas, but in theory they should be stable in any good conductor medium. Magma is a good conductor. So, with stars known to act like plasmoids, with giant planets having similar characteristics and plasma and plasmoid physics known to be completely scalable from nanoscopic to galactic, I believe all planets will have some plasmoid physics going on. Definitely something to work on.
Ozelo
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Nice stuff. Sorry, could I just mention a small off topic stuff? I just think it could enlighten the discussion a bit:
Often a theory completely rejects other theories because mostly of its concepts may be a totally different proposed perspective and, as mentioned above, it is always much easier for anyone, to learn new assumptions than forget old ones, specially when practicality, simplicity and utility come into account for concurrent explanations.
Afaik, there are a thin (almost invisible) line between a philosophical horizon, a scientific horizon and the philosophy of science that we must NOT leave behind and EU obviously will face these lines. Such thing always happen for changing paradigms and they are mostly preceded by a diving in crises, such as we see in the current mainstream of science. And yet, technology still the only thing that really matter last.
I feel like I shouldn't have said that.
CharlesChandler
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: Don't get me wrong, I enjoy this site.
Me too — that's why I'm still here. Despite my disagreements with the EU, I should like to point out that they built the meeting house that we're using. And I don't just mean that in a mundane sense, like we should be more polite to our hosts here. In the history of science, the pivotal point in a scientific revolution is the development of a new conception of how things work. The rest is just working out the details. So Birkeland, Langmuir, Bruce, Alfven, Juergens et al. did a bunch of investigations, and came up with some new ideas. These were all just special case amendments to conventional science. But then Thornhill took those isolated independent investigations and realized that connecting the dots revealed an entirely different picture of the Universe. Birkeland didn't think that the whole Universe was electric — he just thought that EM theory could explain the aurora and perhaps some of the features of the Sun, leaving the rest up to conventional science. Same with Langmuir and the others — they were all just tacking special case footnotes onto the existing science. But Thornhill is no conventional scientist — he's a revolutionary, and he's the one who conceived a whole new world. When future historians sort this out, they'll identify him as the key to the next level of scientific understanding. When you stop thinking of the Universe as being controlled by gravity, with a few errata being supplied by EM, and start thinking that EM controls the Universe, with a few errata being supplied by gravity, you have undergone a paradigm shift. This is what Thornhill did. We're just working out the details.
Sparky wrote: Standard theory has been working on it's consensus for hundreds of years, and it is still far off on some things. EU really has only been consolidating data and hypothesis, by a very small number of people, for a few decades. And you expect a comprehensive theory from that?
I don't expect a theory of a certain degree of completion within a certain period of time. But when problems are identified, I expect answers, even if it's just, "I don't know." My respect for Thornhill, as noted above, still stands. But problems have been identified in various aspects of EU theory, and the problems have not been acknowledged, much less properly addressed, and I have a right to call attention to these matters.
For example, I have shown that Scott's PNP transistor model of the Sun is just a bait-n-switch. He uses repulsion from the positive side of a double-layer in the chromosphere to throttle the flow of +ions out of the Sun. (Otherwise, all of the potential driving the current would get discharged in one massive heliospheric lightning strike, and the Sun would go dark.) That repulsion is a force, otherwise it wouldn't do the job that Scott assigns to it. But the same force is exerted in the opposite direction, begging the question of what keeps the double-layer in place, so that it can throttle the flow of +ions out of the Sun. That's a fatal flaw, but it hasn't been acknowledged, much less addressed.
Furthermore, I supplied the answer, and that hasn't been acknowledged. The throttling is easily explained with the CFDL model, which provides a current divider in the photosphere. The heliosphere is positively charged, and there is a layer of positive charge deeper inside the Sun. Electrons in the photosphere are pulled in both directions, meaning little net force. As the double-layers erode due to CMEs, electrons are released outwards. They move slowly at first, and accelerate as they get further from the Sun, which is typical of current dividers. And the CFDL model doesn't just solve that problem — it functions happily through the entire problem domain. So it isn't just one proposed solution to the problem — it's a solution that has been double-checked against all of the other solar observations, and it checks out. So why aren't any of the EU theorists interested in this? With all of the effort that they're expending on building a consensus in the larger community, they won't spend any time at all fixing fatal flaws in the foundation. That's odd. Analogously, if Scott's car was broken down on the side of the road, and I had the replacement part and the tools to install it, why wouldn't he let me fix it? Is it just because he doesn't want to admit that his car is broken? How long can he pretend that he parked his car there on purpose?
meemoe_uk wrote:
>Ok then what constrains planets and moons spherically? Why?
Electro-static forces. there's an ionized interior and the surface is negatively charged. I don't understand why.
In the CFDL model, the core gets ionized by pressure, and the expelled electrons congregate at a higher altitude, where there is less pressure, and there is the room for electrons between the atoms. This negative layer might go on to induce a positive charge in the layer above it. So once the initial charge separation has occurred, there might be several layers of alternating charge caused by it. Anyway, the ionization in the core allows it to flow like a liquid, because the valence electrons responsible for the rigid crystal structure are missing. The fluidity under pressure results in a spherical shape. The minimum radius for spherical shapes in celestial objects is roughly 750 km — everything bigger than that is spherical, and everything smaller than that is irregular. So that's the point at which the ionization becomes sufficient for fluidity in the core.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk, your replies are good. We are both at a loss for planetary formation But we believe there is clearly a plasma/plasmoid element to it. Realize that Jovian atmospheres at their cloudtops are cryogenically frozen or near it. And the gas giants do not radiate vibrant photospheres. The surface of the Sun is nothing like Jupiter. The Sun does not fit the profile of a Jovian planet. It is only on the interior of gas planets that things heat up (which I assume would only continue down to the core of the planet as the Jovian planets create their own heat).
I think we ought to revisit Galileo data at this point. It contradicted planetary and "nebular collapse" theory--something which has somehow been forgotten. I will post an entire JPL article here as I think it deserves attention. Take note that Galileo contradicted Jovian density estimates It also basically refuted planetary models for gas planets even though it barely went into the planet. "Convection" models are shattered here. Pay particular attention to the contradictory data against initial Shoemaker Levy data (which was interpreted as "proof" of a wet and gushing Jupiter). So much was gained and learned from Galileo but it has in short order been swept under the rug--blatantly so:
Preliminary analysis of early data returned by NASA's historic Galileo probe mission into Jupiter's atmosphere has provided a series of startling discoveries for project scientists. Information on the extent of water and clouds and on the chemical composition of the Jovian atmosphere is particularly revealing. Probe instruments found the entry region of Jupiter to be drier than anticipated, and they did not detect the three-tiered cloud structure that most researchers had postulated. The amount of helium measured was about one-half of what was expected.
These initial findings are encouraging scientists to rethink their theories of Jupiter's formation and the nature of planetary evolution processes, according to probe project scientist Dr. Richard Young of NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA.
"The quality of the Galileo probe data exceeds all of our most optimistic predictions," said Dr. Wesley Huntress, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science. "It will allow the scientific community to develop valuable new insights into the formation and evolution of our solar system, and the origins of life within it."
The probe made the most difficult planetary atmospheric entry ever attempted, according to probe manager Marcie Smith of NASA Ames. Entering Jupiter's atmosphere on Dec. 7, 1995, it survived entry speeds of over 106,000 mph, temperatures twice those on the surface of the Sun and deceleration forces up to 230 times the strength of gravity on Earth. It relayed data obtained during its 57-minute descent mission back to the Galileo orbiter more than 130,000 miles overhead for storage and transmission to Earth. The orbiter is now embarking on a two-year mission to study Jupiter and its moons.
"The probe detected extremely strong winds and very intense turbulence during its descent through Jupiter's thick atmosphere. This provides evidence that the energy source driving much of Jupiter's distinctive circulation phenomena is probably heat escaping from the deep interior of the planet," Young said. "The probe also discovered an intense new radiation belt approximately 31,000 miles above Jupiter's cloud tops, and a veritable absence of lightning," he noted.
The composition of Jupiter's atmosphere offered some surprises, according to project scientists. It contains significantly lower than expected levels of helium, neon, and certain heavy elements, such as carbon, oxygen and sulfur.
The issue of the colors of Jupiter's atmosphere has been much-debated, but no consensus has developed from probe data to date. The probe encountered no solid objects or surfaces during its entire 373-mile (600 km) journey. This was as expected for a gas-giant planet such as Jupiter.
What are the implications of these findings? Most scientists believe that Jupiter has a bulk composition similar to that of the gas and dust cloud of the primitive solar nebula from which the planets and our Sun were formed, with added heavy elements from comets and meteorites. The probe's measurements may necessitate a re-evaluation of existing views of how Jupiter evolved from the solar nebula. For example, the lower-than-expected helium and neon levels on Jupiter relative to the Sun influence scientific understanding of the process of fractionation, the "raining out" of helium and neon during planetary evolution.
During the probe's high-speed, atmospheric-entry phase, deceleration measurements high in the atmosphere showed atmospheric density to be much greater than expected. Corresponding temperatures were also much higher than predicted. The high temperatures appear to require an unidentified heating mechanism for this region of the atmosphere.
Following probe parachute deployment, six science instruments on the probe collected data throughout 97 miles (156 km) of the descent. During that time, the probe endured severe winds, periods of intense cold and heat and strong turbulence. The extreme temperatures and pressures of the Jovian environment eventually caused the probe communications subsystem to terminate data transmission operations.
Earth-based telescopic observations suggest that the probe entry site may well have been one of the least cloudy areas on Jupiter. At this location, the probe did not detect the three distinct layers of clouds (a topmost layer of ammonia crystals, a middle layer of ammonium hydrosulfide, and a final, thick layer of water and ice crystals) that researchers had anticipated.
Some indication of a high-level ammonia ice cloud was detected by the net flux radiometer. Evidence for a thin cloud which might be the postulated ammonium hydrosulfide cloud was provided by the nephelometer experiment. There was no data to suggest the presence of water clouds of any significance. The vertical temperature gradient obtained by the atmospheric structure instrument was characteristic of a dry atmosphere, free of condensation. Only the one, distinctive cloud structure was identified, and that was of modest proportion.
The latest analyses of data from the Voyager spacecraft that flew by Jupiter in 1979 have suggested a water abundance for the planet of twice the solar level (based on the Sun's oxygen content). Observations of the propagation of atmospheric waves across Jupiter's cloud tops from the Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacts implied that Jupiter might have a water content of ten times the solar level. Actual probe measurements, while subject to scientific debate, suggest a level near that of the Sun. Scientists are left to wonder, "where is the oxygen?," "where is the water?," and to reconsider their interpretation of the S-L 9 impacts.
Scientists had expected to find severe winds on Jupiter ranging up to 220 mph. However, the probe appears to have detected winds far greater, perhaps up to 330 mph. The winds remained fairly constant as the probe descended deep into the Jovian atmosphere. This suggests that Jupiter's winds are not caused by differential sunlight at the equator versus the poles or by heat released by water condensation as on Earth, according to project scientists.
"The origin of Jupiter's winds appears to be the internal heat source which radiates energy up into the atmosphere from the planet's deep interior," Young said. "This impacts Jupiter's climate and circulation patterns, and suggests a jet stream-like mechanism rather than swirling hurricane or tornado-like storms."
The probe found that lightning occurs on Jupiter only about one-tenth as often as on Earth. This is puzzling, but consistent with the absence of water clouds. A virtual absence of lightning reduces the probability of finding complex organic molecules in Jupiter's atmosphere, particularly given its hostile, predominantly hydrogen composition.
Scientists caution that results obtained to date, while dramatic and exciting, are only preliminary and subject to much further analysis and refinement. Data transmission problems associated with solar conjunction between the Earth and Jupiter, the need to refine estimates based on probe and orbiter trajectories, the presence of higher than anticipated instrument temperatures, and the need for improved calibration all require a cautious approach to these early findings.
Additional information will be forthcoming over the next few months as scientists continue to evaluate the wealth of data obtained by the probe and to cross-compare results of individual scientific instruments. Further information and images about the Galileo mission to Jupiter can be accessed on the Internet through the following three URLs:
The Galileo probe project is managed by NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, CA. Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA, designed and built the probe; General Electric, Philadelphia, PA, built the probe's heat shield. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, built the Galileo orbiter spacecraft and manages the overall mission.
CharlesChandler
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Ozelo wrote: Often a theory completely rejects other theories because mostly of its concepts may be a totally different proposed perspective and, as mentioned above, it is always much easier for anyone, to learn new assumptions than forget old ones, specially when practicality, simplicity and utility come into account for concurrent explanations.
You're right about this. All-or-nothing seems to make ideas more accessible, especially at first glance. And we are all aware of how consensus-building sometimes requires downplaying the problems with a new proposal. But I think that we're in the next stage now. Thornhill developed a new paradigm, and presented it to the world. (I'm not discounting the efforts of Dave Talbot, Dwardu Cardona, or any of the others who helped build the Thunderbolts Project — I'm just focusing on the plasma physics piece. Anyway...) The early adopters of the new paradigm then evangelized it all over the Internet. People in the mainstream found flaws. With continued evangelism, the EU community got polarized against the mainstream, and the mainstream got polarized against the EU. As best as I can tell (just by forum activity), the EU isn't gaining any ground anymore, on this board, or on any other board. Most astronomy boards have explicit policies banning EU evangelism, and activity on this board is a fraction of what it was 5 years ago. I think that people gave the EU a chance, but when flaws were revealed, and not addressed, eventually people moved on. Now either the problems get fixed, or that's the end of it. So I think that the "this is our story and we're sticking with it" thing has already run its course. Now it's time to take the next step, which is the development of accurate models. And this seems to be within reach, so I think that it's time to go for it.
Sparky
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote:
Sparky wrote: aero:
So we have 2 main forces: 1) gravity from the surface and crust 2) thermodynamic pressure from the core--and actually a 3rd) centripetal force of the rotating Earth (?)
Erosion is discussed several places. And why make a big deal of erosion if the point of the theory is to explain electrical effects? Erosion comes to play after the electrical discharge has radically modified the geography!
That is why they are looking at relative dry planets and moons!
It seems that liquids and fluvial action don't exist in EU theory at any level, Sparky. At least they are deemed virtually irrelevant and of negligible value.
Unfortunately, EU treats the issue of geological processes, particularly surface erosion, like Superman holding Kryptonite. EU hates the idea of erosion unless it comes from some kind of thunder or lightning. In other words, water is a verboten substance and accounts for virtually NOTHING in EU theory. Same with wind. Wind is verboten, doesn't exist, nor bears any influence upon anything geological. EU takes this to the point of comedy. Everything to EU, including fluids flowing down hillsides, simply cannot exist. For example, nothing on Mars' surface is due to physical or mechanical erosion. Nothing. It is all "machined."
After reading up on this forum for the past few years this has finally dawned on me: Make one mention that water (or liquid in general) or atmospheric wind has eroded a planetary surface and you are shown the door in EU theory.The only planet allowed to have water, to show signs of erosion due to water or fluvial action or wind, is Earth. And even on Earth fluvial behavior is looked at with skepticism. Otherwise to EU no other planet in all of the cosmos can have erosion this way. None.
Another strawman
I expect realism and logic, not fascist adherence to erroneous conclusions.
Rhetoric mostly subjective and biased nonsense...You've been sleeping with jw too much.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Sparky wrote:
viscount aero wrote: After reading up on this forum for the past few years this has finally dawned on me: Make one mention that water (or liquid in general) or atmospheric wind has eroded a planetary surface and you are shown the door in EU theory.The only planet allowed to have water, to show signs of erosion due to water or fluvial action or wind, is Earth. And even on Earth fluvial behavior is looked at with skepticism. Otherwise to EU no other planet in all of the cosmos can have erosion this way. None.
Another strawman
I expect realism and logic, not fascist adherence to erroneous conclusions.
Rhetoric mostly subjective and biased nonsense...You've been sleeping with jw too much.
Ok have it that way, then I can object to EU theory from time to time. I don't agree with all of it. I never did. You must admit, though, that there is a big reluctance (to the point of denial as if trying to avoid catching the Bubonic Plague) that natural weather on other planets doesn't exist apart from lighting and "arc machining" in EU theory. It is as if weather on the Earth doesn't actually exist either! EU theory miraculously abandons nearly ALL conventional physics by trying to explain nearly everything as a "plasma" event. Don't you find that a bit ridiculous?
meemoe_uk
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
activity on this board is a fraction of what it was 5 years ago.
Ah thats a bit sad. Are you sure about this? Your sure your not making the days when you were 1st learning all the new awesome stuff a bit too romantic in your mind? Or has the 1st golden age of EU and the internet been and gone already? I hope the old forumers with there hundreds of posts and dozens of threads experience will make the effort to talk to the new people only just finding this forum.
Myself I think I'm still learning stuff, but yeah its now mostly my own research and ideas that are new. It's been a while since thunderbolts has spoon-fed me a new awesome insight. There's the annual conference soon. I have faith in learning something from bob Johnson, he always has dazzling new insight based on hard work he's done recently.
meemoe_uk
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
>but when flaws were revealed, and not addressed, eventually people moved on.
When i argued with conventional astronomers they never once stumped me with any intractable flaw with EU theory. There were dumb dismissive excuses like electricity can't flow in space, charges can't be separate, all the really nieve ' i got a PHD in astrophysics but i failed by highschool electricity questions ' stuff.
One thing they liked to repeat was 'EU has no power source for these galactic currents that are spose to power the stars
I'm guessing that 5 years ago Thunderbolts wasn't quick enough or aware enough of Eric Lerner's work on plasmoid fusion to answer the critics. His lab results are vital in showing electricity can induce fusion and that electric induced fusion experiments in the lab have distinct, unique and unmistakable similarities with high power objects in space.
When I shot them down with my Eric lerner plasmoid reply they didn't have any substantial response.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote:
activity on this board is a fraction of what it was 5 years ago.
Ah thats a bit sad. Are you sure about this? Your sure your not making the days when you were 1st learning all the new awesome stuff a bit too romantic in your mind? Or has the 1st golden age of EU and the internet been and gone already? I hope the old forumers with there hundreds of posts and dozens of threads experience will make the effort to talk to the new people only just finding this forum.
Myself I think I'm still learning stuff, but yeah its now mostly my own research and ideas that are new. It's been a while since thunderbolts has spoon-fed me a new awesome insight. There's the annual conference soon. I have faith in learning something from bob Johnson, he always has dazzling new insight based on hard work he's done recently.
I find the newest electric comet documentary very informative, particularly with the explanation of the process for the creation of the volatiles (hydroxyls). I'm always fascinated and learning new things here. My qualm with EU is in its apparent refusal to admit to conventional physics as having any cosmological relevance (and I don't mean to imply an embrace of big bang cosmology). For example gravity may be purely geometric and a simple compression of mass against an aether (space). Certainly there is more to uncover and consider.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote:
>but when flaws were revealed, and not addressed, eventually people moved on.
When i argued with conventional astronomers they never once stumped me with any intractable flaw with EU theory. There were dumb dismissive excuses like electricity can't flow in space, charges can't be separate, all the really nieve ' i got a PHD in astrophysics but i failed by highschool electricity questions ' stuff.
One thing they liked to repeat was 'EU has no power source for these galactic currents that are spose to power the stars
I'm guessing that 5 years ago Thunderbolts wasn't quick enough or aware enough of Eric Lerner's work on plasmoid fusion to answer the critics. His lab results are vital in showing electricity can induce fusion and that electric induced fusion experiments in the lab have distinct, unique and unmistakable similarities with high power objects in space.
When I shot them down with my Eric lerner plasmoid reply they didn't have any substantial response.
Of course you realize that conventional astronomers are never taught plasma physics as applied to astronomy and are intentionally guided away from it. Although I've been on a rant here about EU's glaring shortcomings it is FAR beyond the standard model in explanatory detail of what is actually observed in the cosmos. The naive assertions and condescending attitudes of traditional physics is as much a function of its arrogance as it is a lack of knowledge of an entire scientific realm. Plasma physics, however, is actually gaining in momentum despite what Charles alleges. More and more people are catching onto electric cosmos theory thanks to the internet.
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote:
activity on this board is a fraction of what it was 5 years ago.
Are you sure about this?
Yes. Back in 2008, if you started a thread and wanted to keep it on the opening page of that forum, you had to make sure that something got posted to that thread every day, or the thread fall off to page 2, and then nobody would ever see it again, because nobody had the time to go deeper than the first page. Now, you only have to make sure something gets posted to the thread once a month to stay on the first page of the forum. So that's 1/30 of the new threads getting created.
meemoe_uk wrote: One thing they liked to repeat was EU has no power source for these galactic currents that are spose to power the stars
Some of those criticisms are actually legitimate, though I'll grant you that in a dozen BS arguments, it's easy to miss the one legitimate point. Nevertheless, if 1026 watts of power were flowing into the Sun to make it light up the way it does, there would be evidence, and yet we see none. If the Sun was externally powered, it would look like a plasma lamp, with sustained discharges through the void, and the footpoints of those discharges would be the brightest points on the Sun. So where are those charge streams, and bright footpoints? The answer is that they don't exist.
And it's not that electricity cannot flow in space (i.e., because of too much resistance) — you're right that this is a bogus criticism. The actual criticism is that electricity flows far too easily, because there isn't much resistance. With a breakdown voltage of only 1 V/m in the interplanetary medium, any trivial potential would get discharged instantaneously. Analogously, how much work can you do with the potential between the tip of a grounded wire and the Earth? That's right — none — because there is no potential between the Earth and a grounded wire! Without any resistance, there is no way to get a charge separation, and if there were, you wouldn't be able to do any work with it. So the reason for the absence of interstellar discharges isn't too much resistance — it's too little. But either way, those discharges just aren't there.
meemoe_uk wrote: I'm guessing that 5 years ago Thunderbolts wasn't quick enough or aware enough of Eric Lerner's work on plasmoid fusion to answer the critics. His lab results are vital in showing electricity can induce fusion and that electric induced fusion experiments in the lab have distinct, unique and unmistakable similarities with high power objects in space. When I shot them down with my Eric lerner plasmoid reply they didn't have any substantial response.
I can respond to that. First of all, the last time I checked, after 30 years of research, Lerner still hasn't gotten focus fusion to actually work — it's still just an unproven hypothesis. So you're counting an egg that hasn't hatched yet, and it's been in the incubator for a really long time. Second, if, after 30 years, it still isn't working, this can only mean that if he ever does get it working, it's going to be with an extremely rare set of circumstances, otherwise he would have already stumbled on the right combination of factors. The significance is that this "extremely rare set of circumstances" isn't likely to be happening naturally — at least not the way Lerner has it. So saying that this is how stars naturally produce energy is relying on their ability to naturally fall into some sort of extremely rare configuration, and then they have to stay in that configuration for extremely long periods of time, which is highly unlikely. Third, even if the theory were correct, and the practice were easy, it wouldn't apply to stars like the Sun. Focus fusion relies on the magnetic pinch effect to consolidate matter (at least in principle), which requires relativistic velocities to generate a magnetic field that can compete with the electrostatic repulsion inherent in fusion. And yet the particle velocities in the Sun are nowhere near relativistic. Furthermore, the magnetic fields that are measured at the surface of the Sun are not consistent with any sort of toroidal plasmoid (focus fusion or otherwise). I believe that exotic stars (e.g., white dwarfs, quasars, etc.) are toroidal plasmoids, and there, we do see incredible magnetic fields (> 100 million Gauss!). Yet the average field in the Sun is just 1 Gauss. A refrigerator magnetic has a stronger field, and it isn't a nuclear fusion reactor. So focus fusion might one day explain a rare star, but it will never be a standard stellar model. (Sorry, viscount, but that's my opinion. )
But this doesn't mean that the Universe is not electric — it is, just not like that. I believe that exotic stars are like tokamaks, which support nuclear fusion due to extreme angular velocities, and that stars like our Sun are made of current-free double-layers that are slowly recombining, producing a sustained arc discharge.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
CharlesChandler wrote: I believe that exotic stars (e.g., white dwarfs, quasars, etc.) are toroidal plasmoids, and there, we do see incredible magnetic fields (> 100 million Gauss!). Yet the average field in the Sun is just 1 Gauss. A refrigerator magnetic has a stronger field, and it isn't a nuclear fusion reactor. So focus fusion might one day explain a rare star, but it will never be a standard stellar model. (Sorry, viscount, but that's my opinion.;))
It's ok. I'm not offended I don't claim to know how the Sun works. I believe it is hollow and that fusion occurs in the corona. Where is it powered from? I don't know. I actually tend to believe in Eric Dollard's stellar model in that it is a hollow veil whose power emanates from another dimension.
CharlesChandler wrote: But this doesn't mean that the Universe is not electric — it is, just not like that. I believe that exotic stars are like tokamaks, which support nuclear fusion due to extreme angular velocities, and that stars like our Sun are made of current-free double-layers that are slowly recombining, producing a sustained arc discharge.
Explain tomahawks more and what do you mean by current-free double layers? Isn't that a paradox?
Sorry, could I just mention a small off topic stuff? I just think it could enlighten the discussion a bit:
But we believe there is clearly a plasma/plasmoid element to it. Realize that Jovian atmospheres at their cloudtops are cryogenically frozen or near it. And the gas giants do not radiate vibrant photospheres. The surface of the Sun is nothing like Jupiter. The Sun does not fit the profile of a Jovian planet. It is only on the interior of gas planets that things heat up (which I assume would only continue down to the core of the planet as the Jovian planets create their own heat).
It also basically refuted planetary models for gas planets even though it barely went into the planet. "Convection" models are shattered here. Pay particular attention to the contradictory data against initial Shoemaker Levy data (which was interpreted as "proof" of a wet and gushing Jupiter). So much was gained and learned from Galileo but it has in short order been swept under the rug--blatantly so:
Rhetoric
I can object to EU theory from time to time. I don't agree with all of it. I never did. You must admit, though, that there is a big reluctance (to the point of denial as if trying to avoid catching the Bubonic Plague) that natural weather on other planets doesn't exist apart from lighting and "arc machining" in EU theory. It is as if weather on the Earth doesn't actually exist either! EU theory miraculously abandons nearly ALL conventional physics by trying to explain nearly everything as a "plasma" event. Don't you find that a bit ridiculous?
