Thunderbolts Forum

'12-02-20, 01:46 Michael V	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles, Presumably, the mention of Maxwell brings kudos and thereby plausibility to the conjecture. Maxwell also invented the non-physical construct of transverse electro-magnetic waves, so his track record for causing damning and lasting harm to physics is well proven. Michael
'12-02-20, 03:02 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Mass = L^3/T^2? Charles said: Here's as far as I can get into Mathis' Unified Field Theory: Mathis wrote: Maxwell showed in one of his papers* that mass can be expressed as length3/time2 ( L3/T2).Can somebody explain that to me? * If you do a net search for: Maxwell "L3/T2"; as per this link, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp ... 24&bih=442 , one of the links that comes up may have an explanation. The second link there is to a Google book by Mathis, at http://books.google.com/books?id=XFB0Vk ... 22&f=false , which says: In article 5 {Chapter 1} in Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, he tells us that mass may be expressed in terms of length and time, in this way: M = L^3/T^2. He derives these dimensions from a simple substitution into two classical equations. A = m/r^2 S = at^2/2 M = 2r^2s/t^2 Notice that L^3/T^2 may be thought of as the acceleration of a volume, or a three-dimensional acceleration. This is very suggestive. – This passing idea of Maxwell caused me to reconsider the concept of mass. His math is true, except for one thing. His first equation is not really correct. As written it should be a proportionality. To be an equation requires the constant G. A = Gm/r^2 The dimensions of G are L^3/MT^2, which gives the mass and acceleration the correct current dimensions. But what if G is a sort of mirage or misdirection? To pursue this further, I went to Newton's gravity equation, like Maxwell had [done]. F = Gmm/r^2 Ma = 2Gmm/r^2 A = 2Gm/r^2 * The last sentence or two leads to the next step of Mathis' procedure, so I won't go any farther than this for now. But does that explain it well enough for you, at least tentatively? I don't mean to suggest that I understand things all that well myself. But it does seem to make sense to me that mass can be expressed in terms of length and time, at least with respect to our visual senses. Our tactile senses would understand force, i.e. the sensation of pressure, but it seems that our visual senses only perceive length, time and color.
'12-02-20, 03:15 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Michael V wrote: Mass is easily and irrefutably defined: Mass is directly equivalent to matter. OK, define "matter" (in a way that doesn't reference mass, and without simply substituting some other word for it, such as substance, stuff, essence, etc.). I maintain that mass is irreducible, and can only be taken as an axiom. Furthermore, we only know it by its effects (i.e., its inertial force, and the amount of energy that can be stored in it by acceleration). (BTW, thanks for correcting my sloppy usage of inertia in place of momentum — I should be more careful. ) Force, distance, and time are also irreducible. Hence F = m * d / t2 is comprised purely of axioms. Mathis correctly states that time is actually a ratio of one distance to another, but then he seems to forget that this makes it a dimensionless variable. If you cross-multiply it with other distances, you can't lose the subscripts or you're out of context. When studying physics, keep both eyes on the physicist! Lloyd wrote: A = m/r^2 S = at^2/2 M = 2r^2s/t^2 Does that explain it well enough for you, at least tentatively? No, please elaborate. Tentatively accepting erroneous definitions can result in a lot of wasted time. Is that "acceleration equals mass / distance squared"? If so, can you explain that to start?
'12-02-20, 04:24 Michael V	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles, OK, define "matter" (in a way that doesn't reference mass, and without simply substituting some other word for it, such as substance, stuff, essence, etc.). Well that it actually my point. I could say MASS=MATTER, which is almost OK, but MATTER is the stuff/substance/essence whereas MASS is the measurement of said. By this definition of matter, all that physically exists is matter: aether, electrons, protons. Due to the convenience of historical legacy, I will often state these as aether and matter, but this is not to safeguard myself against confusion. Nevertheless mass and matter are to all intents and purposes, the same thing. The same can also be said of distance and time, they are mutually defined : 1 second = 300,000,000 metres. Michael
'12-02-20, 05:14 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Maxwell Mistake Michael said: Presumably, the mention of Maxwell brings kudos and thereby plausibility to the conjecture. - Maxwell also invented the non-physical construct of transverse electro-magnetic waves, so his track record for causing damning and lasting harm to physics is well proven. * I think everyone makes mistakes, and everyone can learn to correct mistakes, so we should be able to undo all the harm done by previous mistakes. Right? Mass in Visual Perception Charles said: OK, define "matter" (in a way that doesn't reference mass, and without simply substituting some other word for it, such as substance, stuff, essence, etc.). - I maintain that mass is irreducible, and can only be taken as an axiom. Furthermore, we only know it by its effects (i.e., its inertial force, and the amount of energy that can be stored in it by acceleration). (BTW, thanks for correcting my sloppy usage of inertia in place of momentum — I should be more careful. - Force, distance, and time are also irreducible. Hence F = m * d / t2 is comprised purely of axioms. * (I edited my previous post apparently after you replied to it, so most of my added statement was:) "But it does seem to make sense to me that mass can be expressed in terms of length and time, at least with respect to our visual senses. Our tactile senses would understand force, i.e. the sensation of pressure, but it seems that our visual senses only perceive length, time and color." (Now, I'll add to that.) It seems to be most convenient to define things in terms of our visual perception, rather than our tactile perception, so defining mass, force, pressure etc in terms of motion would be necessary for that. When we feel force, we also see it as motion, so that's how we can translate it. Can't we? That's how we can put it into formulas and calculations. (The same would apply to heat, which is another tactile perception. Also sound is not a visual perception, but is an auditory one. It too would need to be translated into visual terms. Likewise, smell and taste perception.) Mathis on (Visual?) Mass - Mathis correctly states that time is actually a ratio of one distance to another, but then he seems to forget that this makes it a dimensionless variable. If you cross-multiply it with other distances, you can't lose the subscripts or you're out of context. - When studying physics, keep both eyes on the physicist! * Where specifically do you think he made mistakes in that regard? Did he make such mistakes in the paper we're discussing now? If so, where? (I don't remember him making the statement that you say he made about time, but I'll assume for now that he did say it.) - Lloyd wrote: A = m/r2 S = at2/2 M = 2r2s/t2 Does that explain it well enough for you, at least tentatively?- No, please elaborate. Tentatively accepting erroneous definitions can result in a lot of wasted time. Is that "acceleration equals mass / distance squared"? If so, can you explain that to start? * (Granted, shoddy definitions can undermine learning. It can also waste time to try to perfectly define every word used, so I usually tentatively settle for imperfect definitions. Isn't it an axiom that mentation cannot perfectly mimic perception and perception cannot perfectly mimic physical reality? At least my logic and mentation tell me that. - I didn't mean for those 3 equations to start with capital letters. My Word program automatically capitalized them without me noticing.) * Mathis said those first 2 equations are classical equations and I think he meant that Maxwell derived the third one from the other two. Mathis doesn't seem to have elaborated beyond that. Do you accept that those first two are classical equations and that Maxwell probably did derive the equation, m = L3/T2, from them? * I did a net search for a = m/r2 and found at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2980.pdf, titled Anisotropic fluid inside a relativistic star, that it says: "We replaced g (valid outside the star) with the constant acceleration a so that --> = a/2|- r ( a is specific to any particular star; for a star of mass M and radius R, a is given by its surface value, namely a = M/R2)." (I don't know what "--> = a/2|-r" means, does anyone? Does --> mean approaching? And does |- mean perpendicular? This program doesn't make the arrow and perpendicular[?] symbols, so I'm not able to show the original symbols here.) * If that's insufficient, I can ask Mathis to explain better. Should I do that?
'12-02-20, 05:49 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: We should be able to undo all the harm done by previous mistakes. Right? One can hope... Lloyd wrote: I don't remember him making the statement that you say he made about time, but I'll assume for now that he did say it. A Revaluation of Time Lloyd wrote: Do you accept that those first two are classical equations and that Maxwell probably did derive the equation, m = L3/T2, from them? I'm challenging Maxwell. Lloyd wrote: Anisotropic fluid inside a relativistic star... Oh really? Lloyd wrote: I can ask Mathis to explain better. Should I do that? Yes, please.
'12-02-20, 11:41 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient * I asked Mathis to explain, but I don't know if I worded the question clearly. Visual Mass * In the mean time, doesn't it make sense that tactile perceptions, i.e. force, pressure, mass, need to be translated into visual terms of motion in order to be able to make more meaningful formulas and calculations? We don't SEE force, but we see motion that results from forces. So we can interpret motions in observations and calculations as equivalent to forces. Right? I'll try to think of an example, if the following don't provide it. Interpreting L^3/T^2 * Someone here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104340&page=3 said: If Mass units are Length cubed over Time squared ( L^3/T^2 ) as noted by Maxwell's consideration, then empirically there are only 2 logical choices: A rotating sphere is a volume ( L^3 ) [which] would be angular accelerating (Theta/ T^2 ); ( L^3 )(Theta/ T^2 ) = L^3/T^2; Or [a] point on [a] surface (linear accel (L/ T^2 )) of a rotating SA sphere (L^2 ); (L/ T^2 )(L^2 ) = L^3/T^2. - But what are the spheres rotating (accelerating) relative to? ... [T]here must be a basic "set" spin of the universe which I believe can be shown to be the speed of light as SET by its carrier medium (aether). * Mathis said elsewhere: Notice that L^3/T^2 may be thought of as the acceleration of a volume, or a three-dimensional acceleration. - Newton had to give the dimensions L^3/MT^2 to G only because he had mistakenly assigned mass a new dimension. Mass is not a new dimension. It is reducible to the old fundamental dimensions of length and time. Constants * And this site http://www.ppt2txt.com/r/642241ea/ says: Constants and Laws Each of the fundamental constants arises as a simple proportionality constant in some fundamental physical law: Newton's Law. Bodies exert an attractive force proportional to their masses and the inverse square of their separation: F.grav = G·(m1m2/d^2) [Mathis says this equation contains 2 hidden equations of both gravity and EM force.] Coulomb's Law. Electrical charges exert a force proportional to their charges and the inverse square of their separation: F.elec = kC·(q1q2/d^2) Constancy of the speed of light (Maxwell). The distance traversed by an electromagnetic disturbance (e.g., light) is proportional to the elapsed time: ? = c·t Boltzmann's Relation. The amount of energy added to a system as heat is proportional to its temperature times the increase in its information capacity. dE = kB·{T d(Log[W])} Quantization principle (Planck, Einstein). Electromagnetic disturbances come in discrete units (quanta) having an energy proportional to their frequency: E = h·f The Unification of Physical Quantities By letting fundamental constants be dimensionless, we can establish identities between different physical dimensions: If we let G be dimensionless, we get: M=L^3/T^2 (mass = rate of acceleration of volume?) If we let kC be dimensionless, we get: Q^2=ML^3/T^2 (charge squared = mass - volume acceleration?) This is how charge units such as the Franklin/statcoulomb/electrostatic unit are defined With both G and kC dimensionless, we get Q=M (charge=mass) If we let c be dimensionless, we get: T=L (time=length), and E=M (energy=mass). With G dimensionless also, we get M=L. If we let kB be dimensionless, we get: T=E/S (temperature = energy per unit uncertainty)
'12-02-20, 13:17 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Hey Lloyd, I realize that you're working really hard to try to make sense out of all of this, and I appreciate your efforts. But you need to understand that sometimes, there just isn't any sense in it. There is a lot of gibberish out there, in and out of the mainstream. Just because somebody is a world renowned scientist (e.g., Newton, Maxwell, or Einstein) doesn't mean that they're right. Just because somebody is a fringe theorist thinking along the same lines as you (e.g., Mathis, Kanarev, or Brant) doesn't mean that they're right. We all make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes are very fundamental, and those are especially tough to spot. I enjoyed reading some of Mathis' papers, as this is something that he seems to understand, at least by the way he talks about what he's doing. But he needs to scrutinize his own work as diligently as he does other people's. One mistake will make gibberish out of everything that follows. You can end up 100% convinced of something that never had anything to do with reality, and never will. So you need to be willing to inspect every piece of the puzzle. There is a lot of guesswork in science, in deciding which approach to a problem seems to be the most promising. But in the end, success isn't guesswork — it only comes after you've put the whole puzzle together, and then you've taken it back apart again to inspect every piece, once and for all. It's an iterative process, and as a general rule, if you haven't already started over from the beginning at least 6 times, after thinking that you were already done, you're probably not very close to a solution yet. At least that's how it goes with me. Regards, Charles
'12-02-20, 13:56 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Since this thread doesn't seem to know any bounds here's another tid-bit that has come out of my studies recently. I keep asking myself how modern astronomy got so screwed up, with black holes and neutron stars and all kinds of abstract constructs that merely obfuscate the problems instead of revealing and solving them. Why don't astronomers acknowledge the existence of EM forces? There are a lot of smart people in this world, and when you see a whole bunch of smart people acting stupid, it makes you wonder what's going on. Some people think it's a conspiracy, but I'm suspicious of conspiracy theorists. So here's my opinion. In order to understand modern astronomy, forget about physics, and study psychology instead! All of the problems with modern physics come from Isaac Newton, and not because his work was wrong, but because it continued to be proved right, over and over again. Newton came to be considered the father of modern science, and disagreeing with him was an uphill battle. In the mid~late 1800s, scientists were making great strides in the study of electromagnetism, and in the implications that it held for atomic theory. In no sense did Newton anticipate such work. In the early 1900s, scientists had discovered protons, neutrons, and electrons, and were beginning to understand nuclear forces. Newton didn't anticipate any of that either. Still, scientists asserting the existence of non-Newtonian forces were met with suspicion and contempt. So how do you fight Isaac Newton? Well, you don't... Einstein Breaks the Newtonian Deadlock! Elsewhere I have discussed how one of Newton's formulas, energy = mass × speed, got upgraded to E = mc2 (energy = mass × the speed of light squared). Einstein was working on a unified field theory, and he wanted to unify energy and mass, so he tentatively set them equal to each other (times the speed of light squared), to see where that led. It actually didn't work, yet the scientific community latched onto it and wouldn't let go. Why? The reason is that it tips its hat to Newton, and then takes the next step. They weren't disagreeing with Newton — they were extending Newton. And what an extension it was! The speed of light is a big number, and then it gets squared, and that's how much new energy scientists have discovered... wow! And the general public lapped up every drop of that. Newton had been dead for over 200 hundred years at that point, and people were ready for something new. And this is what Einstein figured out. His physics may have been flawed, but his psychology and sociology were absolutely perfect! Similarly, astronomers were finding things that didn't obey Newton's law of gravity, but they couldn't argue with Newton. So they said that sometimes, there is so much gravity that it breaks all of the other laws of physics. In other words, modern astronomy started with a sarcastic jab at Sir Isaac. And that, too, worked really well. So the Newtonian deadlock was broken, and scientists could move forward. But what they didn't realize was that these bastardizations of Newtonian physics got written into their charter. Credibility was (and still is) the primary issue. Once they established themselves as capable of extending Newton by adding a new twist, they could never get the twist out. Now there are two fundamental principles that simply cannot be challenged: E = mc2, and gravity is the most powerful of the fundamental forces. Yet neither of these is true, and anything based on them is not true. Now we need to break the Einsteinian deadlock...
'12-02-21, 01:41 ifrean	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Hi Charles, stil following your thread with interest and would like to comment that it seems a lot of us on here are cut from the same cloth so to speak. I commend your ability to communicate your ideas and speculations. seems access to the raw data is the order of the day unfortunatley access is restricted which only leads us around in circles of decreasing magnitude, the spiral of knowledge I would question you conspiracy theory position though, if we werent so stuck in the mud in the mainstream of the sciences I could agree with you
'12-02-21, 02:27 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient ifrean wrote: ...a lot of us on here are cut from the same cloth... Indeed, a pioneer is a pioneer. We might all disagree on where the next big discovery will be made, and on how to get there. And when we get up from the table, we might all go in separate directions. But we all agree on what it means to be a pioneer... the next discovery isn't behind us, it's in front of us! Cheers! BTW, Lloyd mentioned Mathis' idea of a spinning Universe, which is a really cool idea. It accounts for the (apparent) acceleration of distant galaxies, which the BBT does not, at least not all by itself. So I have included it in my framework (with appropriate mention of the source, of course). Mathis doesn't speculate on the source of the angular momentum, but my framework makes a suggestion. In repetitive implosion/explosion cycles, magnetic pressure between matter with radial momentum (due to the converging angles) will nudge the matter into unified motion, meaning spiraling inflow and outflow, and thus the conversion of radial to angular momentum. I was already using this construct at the stellar and galactic scales. Now I'm intrigued that it might be useful at the universal scale as well. A stellar implosion creates a supernova, leaving a rotating black hole behind. A galactic implosion creates a superduper nova, leaving a quasar behind. And a universal implosion creates a hypermassive superduper nova, which would otherwise be known as a Big Bang. In all cases, angular momentum emerges from radial momentum, and magnetic pressure is a possible force that would affect that conversion. But Mathis acknowledges that if there was only one spin, the stuff along the universal equator would be accelerating away, while the stuff along the universal axis would not, because there wouldn't be any centrifugal force along the axis of rotation, so it would just have a ballistic velocity from the explosion. He is toying around with multiple spins, which his construct seems to allow, and which mine apparently does not. So I don't know if the two ideas are actually compatible. To be continued...
'12-02-21, 15:11 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Spin * Charles, I'll be interested if you come up with any breakthroughs while contemplating the idea of universal spin. How would that contradict your model anyway? Space Charge * I just posted some info on charge and the heliospheric current sheet here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. That's at the Mathis Interview thread. * Last week or so here we discussed Thornhill's article about .3 ly diameter filaments in a star forming region. Have you thought about how those could form? In the above link, I also posted Mathis' info about a galactic electric current. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that too. Models * Brant said he's willing to discuss sun models with us, though he said it may take a while to answer sometimes. Did you see the thread on his iron sun model? Would you like to discuss with him?
'12-02-22, 04:44 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: ...the idea of universal spin... How would that contradict your model anyway? My model only has one axis of rotation, which would produce outward acceleration only on the equatorial plane, yet (correct me if I'm wrong) the Universe "appears" to be expanding and accelerating away from us in all directions. So I can't touch this right now. But now I'm wondering if my fundamental understanding of the problem is even correct. Supposedly, the Universe is expanding. That's one thing. Then, the expansion also appears to be accelerating, wherein stuff further away from us isn't moving away at a consistent rate — it's speed is increasing. Is that correct? If so, it defies Newtonian physics, but the first thing to check is the way we measure it. Some people argue that redshift doesn't even equal distance, or at least not without perturbations. If redshift does equal distance, and if there are perturbations, the errors will get greater with distance. Hence the conclusion that the expansion is accelerating might reduce to dirty data. So how do we determine "acceleration" anyway? Redshift only tells us velocity (+/- perturbations). We put velocities together with standard candle constructs to get redshift = distance. (Is that correct?) But how would we know that something is moving faster and faster? I'm confused. As concerns Mathis' spins, do they account for the "acceleration" (if that exists), or just the "expansion"? As concerns the heliospheric current sheet: Mathis wrote: The current number for the density of space in the Solar System is around 1 fg/m3. That's 10-18 kg/m3. To achieve or measure a current of 10−10 A/m2 across that is extraordinary, to say the least, but they won't tell you that. They just dismiss it as uninteresting. It is extraordinary because a matter density that low shouldn't create or carry any current, and the mainstream never explains how current can travel through empty space. Actually, the standard model has current as a function of the movement of charged particles (protons or electrons). This movement does not require the presence of a medium of any kind, and a perfect vacuum is a perfect conductor, as there is nothing at all to impede the flow of charged particles, so they are accelerated by a simple function of the force of the electric field minus their inertial forces. For electrons, the inertial force is small, so they achieve relativistic speeds even in short distances and in weak fields. Hence we don't expect less current in a vacuum, we expect more, and if we're seeing a current of 10−10 A/m2, that's a weak current, and that's all it is. Lloyd wrote: Last week or so here we discussed Thornhill's article about .3 ly diameter filaments in a star forming region. Have you thought about how those could form? For book-keeping purposes, you're talking about an ESA article, quoted by Thornhill, which we discussed in this, this, and this posts. I still don't have an opinion on what causes these filaments, and I'm still questioning whether they are jets or currents (the former being ejecta from something that gave them ballistic velocities, and the latter being motivated by an electric field). Jets and currents would both make different types of contributions to star formation, so the difference is significant. But I don't have an opinion on this. Lloyd wrote: In the above link, I also posted Mathis' info about a galactic electric current. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that too. Here again I'd like to challenge whether it's a jet or a current (this time on a galactic scale). I think that it's a jet, consistent with my model of ejecta from a natural tokamak, which stays organized due to the magnetic pinch effect, having been accelerated to relativistic speeds by nuclear reactions in the AGN. Sure, it's a charged jet, which means that it's a current also, and will have the associated magnetic fields. But you're saying that these "currents" flow out of one galaxy and into another. So why don't these "currents" stay organized all of the way to the destination? In the sparsely populated intergalactic space, they should achieve their fastest speeds, and the magnetic pinch effect should accomplish the tightest consolidation of the charge stream. And yet all of the imagery that I've seen of AGNs shows the jets falling apart in intergalactic space. Mike's post includes a great example of a high-pressure jet displaying classic turbulent properties as it decelerates away from the source of the energy. The paper that Mathis cites describes a jet/current that doesn't stay organized indefinitely either. If there was a current divider, we'd see a reduction in the current density past the split, and perhaps the visible aspect of the jet would "stop" abruptly. But it wouldn't look like a high-pressure jet encountering friction and succumbing to turbulence, and there wouldn't be a bow shock — the jet would just thin out. So I don't think that the data support the intergalactic current concept, even if the data do reveal charges in the jets. Lloyd wrote: Brant said he's willing to discuss sun models with us, though he said it may take a while to answer sometimes. Did you see the thread on his iron sun model? Would you like to discuss with him? I'd be happy to discuss models with him, but I'm not going to read through thousands of posts to piece together his model in my own mind. If he has a model, he has to lay it out, not just as a series of statements in a discussion, and not just as bullet points extracted from such discussions without the context and the supporting arguments, but as an essay that presents the assertions and the reasoning. So if he wants to criticize my model, that's fine. If he wants to suggest alternatives, that's fine too. But if he wants to lay out a complete model, he has to do that elsewhere, and tell us where it is so we can pick it apart here.
'12-02-22, 15:00 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Interplanetary Lightning? * Charles, Mathis said the charge field in the heliospheric current sheet is very strong and that, if ions as dense as water were present, the power of 3 million lightning bolts would be seen, I think on a steady basis. I wouldn't expect ions that dense to occur between planets, but it does seem very suggestive that, if planets encountered each other with comet dust etc between them, major lightning events would occur, and as seems evident has already occurred on most of the planets, moons, asteroids and comets. That's not taking into account the bodies' own charges. Have you looked into the evidence of electric discharges on rocky bodies? * Regarding the intergalactic current piece, your idea seems reasonable. I didn't mean to suggest that I think it's a current from one galaxy to another. I'm favoring now the ideas that these other guys say applies, i.e. aether or photons move from the galactic centers to the stars directly and from the stars to other bodies directly and the electric currents are generated locally by them. No Expansion * I don't agree that there's much expansion of the universe. I think only the low redshift values are possibly connected to velocity, and the rest are caused by ions. So there's little if any expansion. Brant's Model * See Brant's Aether Battery Iron Sun model here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. It's pretty dense information. I compiled most of it from a thread he had on the Randi forum. Then I interviewed him to get more details. I can go through it to reorganize the info, if you like, but it should be fairly satisfactory as is, to start with. What do you think?
'12-02-23, 03:58 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: Mathis said the charge field in the heliospheric current sheet is very strong and that, if ions as dense as water were present, the power of 3 million lightning bolts would be seen, I think on a steady basis. I wouldn't expect ions that dense to occur between planets, but it does seem very suggestive that, if planets encountered each other with comet dust etc between them, major lightning events would occur, and as seems evident has already occurred on most of the planets, moons, asteroids and comets. It seems that you guys think that a thread of plasma in interstellar space can act like an extension cord, being a conduit for the flow of electricity. Plasma (especially if it's hot) is an excellent conductor, but that doesn't make it like an extension cord out in space. A perfect vacuum is a perfect conductor. In the near-perfect vacuum of interstellar space, you don't need an extension cord there, to act as a conduit for electricity. In fact, if space actually was a perfect vacuum, and if there was an extension cord there, in the presence of an electric field, no electricity would flow through the extension cord. Even extension cords have a little bit of resistance, while perfect vacuums have none. So the electric current would see the extension cord as an insulator compared to the conductivity of the surrounding vacuum. You guys need to think about the implications of this, as I think that your conceptual framework is fundamentally flawed. The denser the plasma, the more the resistance — it's that simple. Plasma filaments in free space are not extension cords transporting energy. If there is an electric current through the plasma, ohmic heating disperses the plasma, and the current flows through the void, as there is less resistance there. Note that Marklund convection can condense matter if a current is flowing through a dense medium, but the current isn't going to favor the dense medium in the first place. I think this is where one of the errors is being made, and once made, you can end up thinking that an external electric field (of unknown origins, but that's a different issue) generates a current through the plasma filament, and then pinches it into solid matter. The next thing you know, planets and stars are popping out. But that just isn't correct. Lloyd wrote: Have you looked into the evidence of electric discharges on rocky bodies? I don't doubt that there are charge disparities in space — my model relies on them, asserting that aggregates become negatively charged, while the surrounding plasma is positively charged. An asteroid zipping through the plasma will then adopt the positive charge of the plasma. Near its impact with a planet that is stationary with respect to its atmosphere, and which therefore has become negatively charged, there can be an arc between the positively charged asteroid and the negatively charged planet. The high temperatures in the arc will do a little bit of EDM on the surface of both bodies, but most of the evidence of this will be lost in the collision. Lloyd wrote: I'm favoring now the ideas that these other guys say applies, i.e. aether or photons move from the galactic centers to the stars directly and from the stars to other bodies directly and the electric currents are generated locally by them. I just got another 12-pack of Quatro-Glides from the Occam Razor Company, and I'm going to be doing some shaving. Altering the properties of photons, or asserting the existence of aether, just isn't necessary. I'm in the process of demonstrating that while "mainstream physics" is an oxymoron, real physics can answer the questions, and without having to invent anything. CDM goes away, and so does aether, photonic matter, etc. Lloyd wrote: See Brant's Aether Battery Iron Sun model here: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. It's pretty dense information. I compiled most of it from a thread he had on the Randi forum. Then I interviewed him to get more details. I can go through it to reorganize the info, if you like, but it should be fairly satisfactory as is, to start with. What do you think? I got part-way into it. To liken planets and stars to iron spherules ejected from an electric arc through molten iron is just conflation. And thinking that the iron inside the Sun is acting like an antenna begs the question of why we can't measure the influx of energy that it is attracting. Saying that the energy is aetherial, and therefore cannot be measured until the Sun converts it, is no different from the mysticism that drove me out of the mainstream. Nevertheless, one of Brant's references added another block in the foundation that I'm building, so I have to thank him for his research labors. He cites Bryan Gaensler's study of supernova remnants being aligned to the galactic planes as being evidence of pinched, field-aligned currents. This begs the question of why the current flowed through plasma dense enough to condense, instead of flowing around the plasma, as noted above. Here's my take on the alignment data, as posted on my site: In a recent study of the radio emissions from supernova remnants (SNRs), it was found that the bilateral axes of almost all of these SNRs are aligned with their respective galactic planes, while the probability of this distribution occurring by chance is only 0.0007. This is clear proof of some sort of forcing mechanism. The galactic magnetic field runs parallel to its plane of rotation. It is commonly (and correctly) acknowledged that the magnetic field is not strong enough to have dynamical effects on the SNR itself, so the general opinion is that the galactic magnetic field steers the polar jets into alignment after ejection from the SNR. Yet in none of the cases is there any evidence of course changes moving away from the SNR, meaning that all of the "steering" would have to occur very near the SNR, when the ejecta are at their peak speeds. This is highly unlikely. It also does not account for the fact that the accretion discs associated with SNRs are always perpendicular to the polar jets. Steering the ejecta isn't going to steer the accretion onto a perpendicular plane at the same time. It's more reasonable to acknowledge the direct relationship between the plane of the accretion disc and the polar jet axis, and then to wonder what got the accretion disc rotating perpendicular to the galactic plane. The present model maintains that the relativistic speeds of matter in the accretion disc are generating extremely powerful magnetic fields. Outside of the star, the magnetic field forms a solenoid, with the greatest field density along the axis of the stellar rotation. All other factors being the same, we would expect this axis to be aligned with an external magnetic field (if present). The ejecta from the toroidal fusion engine in the star are accelerated outward, with the inner 50% of the ejecta getting collimated along the axis. (See Figure 1.) Figure 1. Section of a toroidal explosion, showing that 50% of the ejecta merge into "axial" jets (25% each way). This means that the ejecta are accelerated outward in a direction that just happens to be parallel with the external magnetic field. Once parallel, the jets will then tend to stay parallel as B-field-aligned currents. (Note that these are poleless currents, not responding to electric fields, but are simply "currents" in the sense that they are moving charged particles.) The synchrotron emissions from within the jets then makes sense as the products of the helical motion of charged particles in a field-aligned current. Along the same lines, it has been noted that galaxies at the edge of galactic clusters tend to rotate on a plane facing away from the center of the cluster. If the magnetic lines of force in the cluster face inward toward the center, the alignment of the solenoidal field from the galactic rotation with the "external" field of the cluster would make sense for the same set of reasons. References Gaensler, B. M., 1999: Morphological Studies of Extragalactic Supernova Remnants. Perspectives on Radio Astronomy: Science with Large Antenna Arrays, 271-274 Bhatnagar, S., 2001: Radio Study of Galactic Supernova Remnants and the Interstellar Medium. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Pune, India This is what I am calling real physics. Granted, it's a work-in-progress. But from past efforts, I have found that when each new bit of research adds further clarity to the framework already under consideration, that's a good sign that you're on the right track. So I'm going with it. And please don't take my assertive tone as offensive. This is the frontier. You have to be brave. Wishy-washy, evasive contentions are harder to process. You have to come out and say what's on your mind, and be prepared to be proved wrong. For example, my dismissal of the Iron Sun model earlier in this thread was based on the "fact" that it would throw off the density of the Sun, given that we know the mass and volume of the Sun. That was before I actually calculated the density, and found that an iron core would throw the density "on", not "off". Now I agree that iron has to be present in the Sun, or the known density, given the mass and volume, wouldn't make sense. Perhaps I am wrong about the Solar Antenna thing too. But if I'm wrong, we're going to find out, aren't we?