It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Grand Canyon Created by an Electric Arc

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Recently, I have been pondering how the Anti-Christ fits in with different end times scenarios based on statements others have made about the concept of man creating a second star in our solar system through the use of a nuclear explosion or catalyst on Jupiter or Saturn. There is enough information being circulated out there about this idea summed up as “The Lucifer Project”. Do a google search for more information.

This lead me to quite a few good reads across the internet and then one through Crank Dot Net about the Birkeland Solar Model. Of course I didn't know there was even a name for this theory, but I have always felt the sun was better described as an electromagnetic energy source than just a giant nuclear reactor.

See the Birkeland Theory here


Since I am not a cosmologist and just smart enough to comprehend basic ideas enough to relate that they seem plausible, then in my opinion the Birkeland Theory makes just as much sense to me as the conventional theory of how the sun functions. While both theories explain many things, I am not educated enough to prove or disprove either one since they both have their holes that don't explain already accepted concepts or create new mysteries, so I won't go into that here at this time due to my lack of knowledge. What I would like to propose is not so much whether the Birkeland Model is true or not, but supposing that it is, the idea that at some point when the sun was under the influence of a more energetic state that high energy plasma bonds connected strongly with the earth and the other planets forming at least some geographic features.

I did not entirely get this idea from my own mind but found this article here:

Article




The great scar of Valles Marineris looks as if it has been burnt into the planet's face.

It seems that a cosmic thunderbolt has struck Mars with two huge filaments or plasmoids focussed on a spot now occupied by the deepest central canyons of Valles Marineris. Electromagnetic forces then constrained the discharge across the surface of Mars to the classic shape of a barred spiral.






The shape of Valles Marineris resembles what is known as a spiraling plasmoid.

Wiki definition of plasmoids


What this means in mine and yours laymens terms is that the planets are connected to the sun electrically. It is like an electrical circuit. Current flows both ways through a plasma but since current flow generates an electromagnetic field, each plasma filament seperates itself into ropes or bands which are referred to as Birkeland Filaments. Think of a spiraling pair of wires. What the article about Valles Marineris suggests is that at one time the electrical circuit between the sun and mars experienced a time when the sun produce a huge flow of energy resulting in a very hot plasma arc between the two bodies and producing the canyon by melting the martian rock into its shape shown above in the mars geographical photo. The shape of the canyon is similar to a twisted spiral and if you look at the entire website about this theory it seems to make sense.

We talk of our Grand Canyon being formed by weathering through conventional erosion, primarily the Colorado River, tributaries, wind and maybe a lot of squirrels disturbing the soil. But on Mars, we have a much larger canyon with no river going to or from anywhere (the primary contributor to cutting our canyon). So I have to ask is the mars canyon a product of a huge plasma arc similar to a gigantinormous solar flare that stretched its tentacles to mars and burned a scar in its side?

Lets look at a topographical map of Grand Canyon National Park:




If you notice, it too has the same classic spiral pattern in the exact orientation that Valles Marineris has. It is said that a river will find the path of least resistance. If you also notice, the Colorado leaves Lake Powell and runs SW until it reaches a place near Point Imperial, which is boundaried by a green swath. This green swath is not forest but forest and a higher altitude. Their was once a mild ridge running parallel with rt 67 where the canyon cuts through it. (I am sure Rt 67 is newer than the canyon though LOL).

What I am saying here is that a swift river will probably run along this ridge rather than decide to turn west and cut through it and then go on west and cut through a few more. The idea that the Colorado in my opinion did this altogether is garbage. This river would have taken a much better course than it did if this was natural, which is why I was delighted to read about this concept of geography being formed by external means an addition to what we already know.

Additional article on cratering anomolies


Comments welcome.


Images used under title 17 section 107 USC fair use of copyrights.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by ben91069]

mod edit: Please read this link-ATTN: Image Size Guidelines

[edit on 2-12-2006 by sanctum]




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
After reading a bit further, I realized they deduced the same thing on this site:

LINK


It amazes me that the striking similarities in lab tests produces the same scarring that is observed on all our planets with a much simpler explanation of the process that creates it, although I think the reason it isn't widely known or studied is because it opens up a quagmire of figuring out where the source of all this energy originates and what causes discharges to occur.

It probably has spiritual implications as well as to the nature of the universe as being rather short than being billions of years old.



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Very interesting points you bring up as i am also looking into the
Birkeland Theory. I suggest you continue your research on the followingsite as not only will you discover great new theories and reading material but get to interact , on the forum, with the author himself. Tom van Flandern has the background and his previous employment record speaks volumes about his education in the this field.

Well let me know what you found as this is certainly the first time i heard about this particular 'proof' of the Birkeland model.

Enjoyed your post and i hope you keep it up!

Stellar



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
OK , a few points in no particular order :

firstly - the grand canyon [ earth ] displays zero evidence of any historic electrical activity on the scale required to cut the canyon .

the pattersns of erosion , and striations are however wholey consistant with the errosion model [ water ]

so why do people want to try and dismiss an explaination that fits all evidence [water errosion ] and replace it with one that has no evidence [ spark errosion ]

second "spark errosion ", and plasma gouging is not a scalable commodity - it works spectacularly at a scale of a few centimeters across -but it will not scale up to kilometeres acriss - no matter how much energy you pump into the arc

thridly - Valles Marineris only conforms to your plasma spiroid pattern for a very small fraction of its length - and it is HUGE

alsp Valles Marineris demonstrates may properties of a rift valley in several key areas

examine a topo map of it , here is a fly through

warning - needs boradband

lastly - you cannot stamp a single cookie cutter solution onto such a vast , ancient and complex feature as Valles Marineris , so please stop pretending that a single simple solution will explain it .

Valles Marineris - has been shaped by multiple factors over the millenia



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
OK , a few points in no particular order :

firstly - the grand canyon [ earth ] displays zero evidence of any historic electrical activity on the scale required to cut the canyon .


I am there is a solid scientific foundation for this claim? Feel free to enlighten me as i am not expert at all.



the pattersns of erosion , and striations are however wholey consistant with the errosion model [ water ]


Observation is always 'consistent' with current models until they are suddenly not so please don't use this as a excuse not to evaluate alternatives.


so why do people want to try and dismiss an explaination that fits all evidence [water errosion ] and replace it with one that has no evidence [ spark errosion


Because it's in my nature to try keep the possible alternatives in mind? What do you mean "no evidence?


second "spark errosion ", and plasma gouging is not a scalable commodity - it works spectacularly at a scale of a few centimeters across -but it will not scale up to kilometeres acriss - no matter how much energy you pump into the arc


I am sure you are making this claim for reasons well beyond my current understanding so feel free to share some more details.


thridly - Valles Marineris only conforms to your plasma spiroid pattern for a very small fraction of its length - and it is HUGE


It's not his theory and you have only one reason to pretend otherwise.


alsp Valles Marineris demonstrates may properties of a rift valley in several key areas

examine a topo map of it , here is a fly through


Thanks.


lastly - you cannot stamp a single cookie cutter solution onto such a vast , ancient and complex feature as Valles Marineris , so please stop pretending that a single simple solution will explain it .


Thanks for sharing your opinion.


Valles Marineris - has been shaped by multiple factors over the millenia


That's what they always so when the do not want to change convention and established views while having to admit some contradictions.

How we would survive without your dispassionate completely objective and impartial agreement with scientific convention i have no idea!

Thanks for being you.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Ape pretty well covered it -- there's no evidence at all for any kind of electrical-based erosion.


TIMING, ACCORDING TO THE PLASMA SCENARIO

The scenario for an electrical formation would mean that the whole area would be totally flat with NO Rio Grande running across it up until the last 100,000 years or so (just about the time of the rise of homo sapiens.) That date is about the time the land rose to its current height but before people came (when we do have some data on changes in the river.)


ASSUMPTIONS OF THE PLASMA MODEL

So there'd be no river system draining the whole Rocky Mountain range. That's pretty unlikely and is contradicted by a lot of geology. The water has to reach the sea somehow. Then the theory says that plasma manages to get from the sun to the Earth (intact), doesn't cool off, and does manage to come in with enough energy to vaporize out the Grand Canyon within a few seconds.


WHAT WOULD A PLASMA STRIKE REALLY DO TO THINGS?

Heat + limestone/sandstone = fused quartz/glass for the sandstone and fried rubble for the limestone. If the Grand Canyon had been formed by plasma, the walls should be composed of layers of glass and limestone sand. They aren't.

Carving out the canyon requires a high energy explosion (plasma hits the stone and vaporizes it instantly... that's an explosion) of about 1,000 cubic miles of rock.


NOT VERY PAINFUL MATH

Now (hold on to your hat... we're getting into math and physics, but I promise it won't be painful) let's look at how much force that explosion is going to generate. For those of you who want to take a peek at where this comes from, it's from Richard Muller's "Physics For Future Presidents" course at Berkeley: muller.lbl.gov...

The amount of force that's generated when you vaporize one gram of limestone or silica isn't shown there, but we can assume it would give off about the same energy as a battery (also inorganic compounds.) It's about .015 times the energy of the same amount of one gram of TNT.

Why TNT? Well, nuclear bombs are measured in terms of "tons of TNT." A 1 kiloton bomb is equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT going "BOOOM!" all at the same time.

So... being the lazy Byrdie that I am, I found an online calculator and found out that 1,000 cubic miles turns out to be 4,168,181,843,058.454 cubic meters. And because I'm lazy, I'm going to do my "reduce that by .0001" right now (I reduced the explosive estimate of limestone there, just to be fair and to make things easier, but it's probably more than that)

...and then multiply by 1,000 (because there's 1,000 cc in a cubic meter.

So..................... (drumroll, please)..........

The energy release that results from "carving out the Grand Canyon by plasma" is roughly equivalent to 416,818,184 1 kiloton hydrogen bombs.


COMPARING EXPLOSIONS

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons.

To form the Grand Canyon by plasma, you'd release the energy of nearly 28 million (27,787,878.9, actually) Hiroshima bombs, or the energy of nearly 417,000 H-bombs (416,818.184 H-bombs, to be precise.)

But let's put it in more familiar terms: the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was about 30 cubic miles of matter similar to the "stuff" that makes up the Grand Canyon (which had 1,000 cubic miles of "stuff" that needed to be removed.)

Now, imagine what happens to the Earth (and all life and all the continents) if it's hit by a force equivalent to almost 35 of those dino-killer asteroids simultaneously landing on one 200 mile spot on Earth. And this is the LOW estimate. True figures are probably a bit higher than that, but I don't have a good math calculator handy.


CONCLUSION

...and that is why the Grand Canyon wasn't formed by a plasma strike.



references

One review of the geological evidence for the Grand Canyon is here (he's refuting a creationist, so his material suffers from that tiny focus):
home.entouch.net...

More info on kilotons and joules (so you can check my VERY BAD math estimates) is here:
www.answers.com...

[edit on 12-12-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Don't know what to say. i don't think that the grand canyon nor the valley marineris were cut by the galactic equivelent of a plasma cutter.

However, talking about how the sun and the planets are electrically or magnetically conected makes some sense. You should read up on the Swedish Plasma Physicist Alvenes (Sp) He co-wrote a book called The Big Bang Never Happened. The book discusses how the univeres could be and in his opinion is formed primarily through plasma dynamics.

He argues that the interaction of magnetic and electric fields work scaleably from the microscopic to the galactic level. He demonstrates that the galaxies form similar to plasmoids, and that the galaxies themselves operate like giant alternators that put out A** loads of power from their axis and that these inturn form large electromagnetic filiments that eventually allow the formation of matter and galaxies and everything else but mainly along these intergalactic sized electromagnetic filiments.

So it could be possible and is probably likely that the planets in the solar system do form a type of 'circuite' electrically if not through the interaction of the planets traveling through the suns magnetic field, forming an alternator like situation. How powerfull this effect is could be from barley usable, to a near unlimited power source to tap into. I really have no idea.

The physicist expaines all this MUCH better than I do, or can. But it is compeling and makes sense once you sart reading through it. Although it gets sorta dry, and technical in parts. But, there are lots of pictures and diagrams demonstrating the properties of electromagnetic plasma vorticies.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
firstly - the grand canyon [ earth ] displays zero evidence of any historic electrical activity on the scale required to cut the canyon .


Quite possibly plasma discharges may not leave much evidence because it removes material much like an EDM machine. This is just a theory BTW, but it is quite possible that some evidence could have been destroyed through conventional erosion since the plasma arc event, depending on just how long ago it may have occurred.



the pattersns of erosion , and striations are however wholey consistant with the errosion model [ water ]


Rightly so, as this is the only model mainstream science is looking for, but plasma erosion may just be an attribute of natural erosion whether it be a violent arc or a subtle one that may remove material with little evidence at all. Plasma can exist without even being visible. I would also like to add that the erosion model varies quite a bit for many different types of strata and events and that it tries to explain the best it can of many different types of geography. What seems apparent may not always be true just because it is convenient to understand it. Many people at one time thought the earth was flat because it looked flat. Just because something can be explained with the simplest theory doesn not mean it is the correct one.



so why do people want to try and dismiss an explaination that fits all evidence [water errosion ] and replace it with one that has no evidence [ spark errosion ]


A cosmic model that takes into account electrical energy inherent in all matter can lead us to better understanding how the universe functions and may bring us closer to understanding our past and our future. As I stated above, just because one does not see any evidence, does not mean that there is none or that a lack of it means it isn't true. Besides, I am not dismissing the conventional erosion model, just adding to it. They both can exist without negating the other as types of erosion.



second "spark errosion ", and plasma gouging is not a scalable commodity - it works spectacularly at a scale of a few centimeters across -but it will not scale up to kilometeres acriss - no matter how much energy you pump into the arc


I would really like to hear your evidence to support that it isn't scalable. Anyone can say it isn't or it is, and I feel that neither one of us can make this claim off the top of our heads. IMO I don't see why it wouldn't be, in fact I have read claims that it is scalable, but I have no basis to prove it from someones say so. Care to enlighten me of what prevents this type of phenomenon from happening if you are dealing with very large arcs??




alsp Valles Marineris demonstrates may properties of a rift valley in several key areas


I will try to get back to you about the rift valley explanation. Stay tuned.




lastly - you cannot stamp a single cookie cutter solution onto such a vast , ancient and complex feature as Valles Marineris , so please stop pretending that a single simple solution will explain it .

Valles Marineris - has been shaped by multiple factors over the millenia


Sorry if it seemed I was saying that plasma discharge was the only source of erosion for these geographic features. That is not what I was suggesting, but that they may have been primarily shaped by a plasma event and then other factors blended them in somewhat.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
WHAT WOULD A PLASMA STRIKE REALLY DO TO THINGS?

Heat + limestone/sandstone = fused quartz/glass for the sandstone and fried rubble for the limestone. If the Grand Canyon had been formed by plasma, the walls should be composed of layers of glass and limestone sand. They aren't.

Carving out the canyon requires a high energy explosion (plasma hits the stone and vaporizes it instantly... that's an explosion) of about 1,000 cubic miles of rock.


I have a question for you. Does a lightning strike create glass all the time? This event could have occured over a period of time and not in one flash. The plasma filaments could have attached much like an embilical cord to a newborn allowing a long process of eroding a gouge. The feature may have taken its shape from being struck the majority of the time in this spot of weak electromagnetic resistance even through partial rotations of the planet. You are thinking too much of a classic electrical arc that happens in an instant and is then gone much like lightning, but I am thinking more along the lines of a slow burn like a fluorescent lamp that is tuned at a frequency.



NOT VERY PAINFUL MATH


Sorry I am not going to pick apart your math here, because frankly you are trying to show anyone that it just isn't possible because the numbers are so large, when in fact they will be large because we are dealing with cosmic forces here, not a thundercloud or a electric power plant. The scale of energy we are dealing with would probably make your explosion magnitude numbers look like you were just counting your fingers and toes anyway, and besides we aren't talking explosions here either, but electrical energy over time. I would probably send you $10 to go to a machine shop and watch them burn something into a block of steel for 6 or 7 hours and tell me if they can zap it in a millisecond. It is the release of concentrated energy over time, which is entirely possible to have occurred.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
I have a question for you. Does a lightning strike create glass all the time?


Yes. If it strikes silica, you get tektites and other glass artifacts. Every time. That stuff is beyond hot.


You are thinking too much of a classic electrical arc that happens in an instant and is then gone much like lightning, but I am thinking more along the lines of a slow burn like a fluorescent lamp that is tuned at a frequency.


That's the way plasma behaves. To strike something 100% of the time you need a special environment so the beam doesn't go astray, a steady source of energy (9 billion lightning strikes won't do it, I'm afraid) and something that directs the plasma to the target (like a particularly conductive metal.

If that was happening, no large metal deposit on the Earth would be safe from the sun.

But, again, we don't see the effects of plasma strikes in the Grand Canyon. We do see the impact of plasma strikes here on Earth... lightning from thunderstorms. They can be destructive, but are not powerful enough to gouge out much of the Earth. And they've never caused geological formations, even in Florida (the lightning capital of the US.)



I would probably send you $10 to go to a machine shop and watch them burn something into a block of steel for 6 or 7 hours and tell me if they can zap it in a millisecond. It is the release of concentrated energy over time, which is entirely possible to have occurred.


I've seen that. I have a friend who works with them. They require a gas that can be ionized and a lot of electricity. And they only cut conductive materials.

Limestone and sandstone aren't particularly conductive.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Byrd
I have a question for you. Does a lightning strike create glass all the time?


Yes. If it strikes silica, you get tektites and other glass artifacts. Every time. That stuff is beyond hot.


In that case, why isn't the ground made of glass, because silicon is one of most abundant elements on the planet and lightning has struck nearly every square inch of it since the beginning of time.

If plasma is so hot, why is a fluorescent light cold enough to hold in your hands? Is not a plasma screen on your computer a form of plasma? Plasma need not be hot to be plasma. In fact, fire is also plasma and some of it is not hot enough to melt steel, but it is still plasma.




To strike something 100% of the time you need a special environment so the beam doesn't go astray, a steady source of energy (9 billion lightning strikes won't do it, I'm afraid) and something that directs the plasma to the target (like a particularly conductive metal.


I truly think that you have not seen enough electricity to understand what can be done with this energy. EDM machines use thousands of small electrical arcs to produce etching in the shape of an electrode over a long period of time. No two arcs ever really strike in the same spot. You do not need a metal conductor to direct a plasma arc to a point. Many elements are conductors and when dealing with plasmas, the path of least resistance is where the current will begin to flow.




If that was happening, no large metal deposit on the Earth would be safe from the sun.


You are forgetting that this event is and was dependent on a time of an elevated energy state of the cosmos. The elevation of this energy is just as much a mystery as the nature of why particles have a net charge. The fact that they do have an electromagnetic charge which in massive numbers can produce current flow does not explain what makes them charged. It is obvious that we arent experiencing this energy level today. Need I say again, metals are not the only conductors in the periodic table.






I would probably send you $10 to go to a machine shop and watch them burn something into a block of steel for 6 or 7 hours and tell me if they can zap it in a millisecond. It is the release of concentrated energy over time, which is entirely possible to have occurred.


I've seen that. I have a friend who works with them. They require a gas that can be ionized and a lot of electricity. And they only cut conductive materials.


I think you are speaking of plasma cutting which uses an ionized gas. EDM's use a liquid medium of either an oil or ionized water in the case of a wire EDM. Sinker EDM's use oil to float away the grit of electrode carbon and metal after a discharge. A wire EDM uses the same principle but uses water with ionized molecules to wash away debri as a coated wire cuts through a part similar to both a saw and an EDM action at the same time producing complex 3D shapes and geometries.




Limestone and sandstone aren't particularly conductive.


Apply enough potential and they can conduct like a piece of copper. The source of energy is more important in this case than the materials involved.


Dae

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
You have voted ben91069 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Nice work ben!

As it is, I believe that the electric nature of our universe is deliberately being played down or downright ignored. And I know why too. If we are allowed to discover the electric nature of life and the universe, many doors will be opened to us, from space travel, predicting the weather, wireless transmission of energy to understanding the creation of matter.

I would like to point out a recent article that should hopefully push scientists in the right direction.

Researchers identify driver for near-Earth space weather


New findings indicate that the aurora and other near-Earth space weather are driven by the rate at which the Earth’s and sun’s magnetic fields connect, or merge, and not by the solar wind’s electric field as was previously assumed.


This next quote is important I think, it highlights how shocked these scientists were by the discovery of how well this simple formula works. My belief is that the universe isnt all that complicated, as in "Oh my god, we have no idea why this is happening" which is prevalent in space science, to "Wow, we predicted that correctly and derived a single formula that seems to work amazingly well!"


They questioned whether the electric field activity was really the best predictor, or if each phenomenon would require its own formula, and were surprised to learn that a single formula—for the merging rate—gave the best clues to the behavior of these 10 aspects of space weather.

Professors George Siscoe of Boston University and Stanley Cowley of Leicester University had previously suggested that the merging rate would better explain near-Earth convection, but Newell and his colleagues were surprised at how well the single new formula works.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
In that case, why isn't the ground made of glass, because silicon is one of most abundant elements on the planet and lightning has struck nearly every square inch of it since the beginning of time.


If you march outside and look at the ground, you'll find it's actually a layer of organic material (except in deserts and on rocks.)

And lightning doesn't strike the ground every time. There's a lot of air-to-air lightning, air-to-water, etc, etc. But when it strikes sandy soil, you get fulgerites (not tekties... my bad)

plaza.ufl.edu...


If plasma is so hot, why is a fluorescent light cold enough to hold in your hands?


Because what's in there is only a tiny amount of mercury. And it's flourescing... it's not a plasma.
home.howstuffworks.com...


Is not a plasma screen on your computer a form of plasma?

Yes and no. It's thousands of tiny cells, each with a few molecules inside them. When an small electrical charge hits it, they become a few plasma ions.


[quoteIn fact, fire is also plasma and some of it is not hot enough to melt steel, but it is still plasma.

Sorry, but fire isn't hot enough to be a plasma:
www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov...



I truly think that you have not seen enough electricity to understand what can be done with this energy.



You'd be wrong there. I'm a computer engineer and I tinker with robotics and with rockets on occasion. I've helped with demonstrations of electricity at the science museum and watched them play with the giant spark generator (I didn't get to play with it because their insurance doesn't cover that.)


You are forgetting that this event is and was dependent on a time of an elevated energy state of the cosmos.

The Grand Canyon was formed during the Tertiary era, within the past million years or so.



It is obvious that we arent experiencing this energy level today.


That's an interesting attempt at an explaination, but it doesn't match any of the evidence. Life had long been established on the planet Earth and there's no evidence of a "changed energy level". You'd see that in the types of compounds formed.


Need I say again, metals are not the only conductors in the periodic table.


Well, metals and metaloids but only of a certain grade of purity.



I think you are speaking of plasma cutting which uses an ionized gas. EDM's use a liquid medium of either an oil or ionized water in the case of a wire EDM.


I don't see any evidence that the Earth was covered with patches of machine grade oil or ionized water and that the sun was sending arc-welding bursts of plasma in minute filaments. Given the speed of rotation of the sun and the speed of rotation of the Earth and the distance that the filament has to travel without cooling (and to do it constantly), the EDM explaination doesn't make good sense.

You might as well hypothesize that the Grand Canyon was formed by an unending series of lightning strikes. That's unworkable, too.




Limestone and sandstone aren't particularly conductive.

Apply enough potential and they can conduct like a piece of copper. The source of energy is more important in this case than the materials involved.

Limestone is not an element, nor is sandstone. They have all sorts of impurities in them and they aren't a consistant chemical formula. They don't conduct.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Thankyou Dae. I certainly have read the research on lightning, auroras, and weather patterns. It seems to me that it would be much easier to develop a model using an electic field to predict these things than it would be with our current understandings. I hope more research is done and more people come to an understanding that electric fields are ever present in the universe.

Think about the fact that not very long ago, we did not know that sprites and elves existed atop of thunderclouds during lightning strikes. It took a vantage point of space to see them and confirm that they do exist. I think within the next 100 years, physics and cosmology will be the greatest areas of scientific achievement for the human race. Watch and see.




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
If you march outside and look at the ground, you'll find it's actually a layer of organic material (except in deserts and on rocks.)

And lightning doesn't strike the ground every time. There's a lot of air-to-air lightning, air-to-water, etc, etc. But when it strikes sandy soil, you get fulgerites (not tekties... my bad)


All things being equal, there should be a lot of glass around from lightning strikes. Perhaps not on soils rich in organic matter, but what about the "lightning capitol" of Florida. If I recall correctly, the soil is pretty much sugar sand and not a lot of organic matter. Surely you would have a lot of glass down there. Either way, my argument is not about the concept of a super hot arc that flashes and gouges in an instant, but rather a long slow burn that took quite a bit of time to do its job.





If plasma is so hot, why is a fluorescent light cold enough to hold in your hands?


Because what's in there is only a tiny amount of mercury. And it's flourescing... it's not a plasma.
home.howstuffworks.com...


What you are calling fluorescing is the result of creating a low energy plasma .



A fluorescent lamp is a gas-discharge lamp that uses electricity to excite mercury vapor in argon or neon gas, resulting in a plasma that produces short-wave ultraviolet light. This light then causes a phosphor to fluoresce, producing visible light.

from Wikipedia





Is not a plasma screen on your computer a form of plasma?

Yes and no. It's thousands of tiny cells, each with a few molecules inside them. When an small electrical charge hits it, they become a few plasma ions.


So it is still a plasma. It need not be super hot to be a plasma. It need not melt things to still be classified as plasma. This is one of my points that seems to be a stumbling block that some people are thinking that the gougin of the Grand Canyon had to be done by melting of strata very quickly producing long lasting evidence and such. Not so. It could have taken a very long time using an etching action but still achieved the topography much quicker than the Colorado as being the culprit.




In fact, fire is also plasma and some of it is not hot enough to melt steel, but it is still plasma.


Sorry, but fire isn't hot enough to be a plasma:
www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov...




A candle flame. Fire can be considered to be a low temperature partial plasma.

wikipedia







I truly think that you have not seen enough electricity to understand what can be done with this energy.


You'd be wrong there. I'm a computer engineer and I tinker with robotics and with rockets on occasion. I've helped with demonstrations of electricity at the science museum and watched them play with the giant spark generator (I didn't get to play with it because their insurance doesn't cover that.)


No offense, but there is a big difference in someone schooled in the realm of digital electronics and say someone who learned electronics 50 years ago. I would presume after you learned basic theory you began learning about computer architecture and such. Electronics dealing with DC circuits would not have a lot to do with high voltage and frequency plasma circuits. I seriously think your area of expertise is narrowing your viewpoint of how a circuit utilizing a plasma could achieve what I am postulating.



The Grand Canyon was formed during the Tertiary era, within the past million years or so.


I really hope you understood my previous posts about how people once thought the earth was flat. They used the same logic as you are now using. It seems obvious and we are told that it is so. Tell me why the canyon couldn't have been etched out in a much shorter time and then the river flowed through it after the fact? Besides, if the volume of the canyon was eroded by the river, where is all the sediment in the Gulf of California? Do you see a huge delta there or anything like that?




It is obvious that we arent experiencing this energy level today.


Life had long been established on the planet Earth and there's no evidence of a "changed energy level". You'd see that in the types of compounds formed.


I still do not see where it is that you presume to know when this plasma strike probably happened to know that it didn't affect compounds. For all anyone knows, it could have also been a catalyst for life itself and the evidence is right in front of you.




Need I say again, metals are not the only conductors in the periodic table.


Well, metals and metaloids but only of a certain grade of purity.


With enough voltage, many things will conduct. It isn't about whether something is a metal or not that makes it a conductor, but how likely it will conduct based on the number of valent electrons in its outer shell, still an element can conduct very easily if it is ionized - even a piece of limestone.




I don't see any evidence that the Earth was covered with patches of machine grade oil or ionized water and that the sun was sending arc-welding bursts of plasma in minute filaments.


Supposedly, the region around the Grand Canyon was once an inland sea. With a large plasma arc, the entire sea could be ionized and act as a solution to carry away all the debri.



You might as well hypothesize that the Grand Canyon was formed by an unending series of lightning strikes. That's unworkable, too.


Where would the fun be in that? Besides, most things that became workable are the result of people who thought outside of what was considered accepted theory until it was proven. So far, people like us are not going to prove it or disprove it, because all our information is coming from books and the internet.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
All things being equal, there should be a lot of glass around from lightning strikes.

They're uncommon but not excessively rare. It takes looking at places where lightning hits... if it hits the right place. Google up fulgerites sometime and you can see them.




What you are calling fluorescing is the result of creating a low energy plasma .

Quite right. I read it as plasma the first time and then hit a page that didn't mention plasma. I'm only passingly familiar with the details of these lights.


So it is still a plasma. It need not be super hot to be a plasma.

Actually, it is... but there's just a few ions of it and there's a LOT of insulation between you and those ions.



A candle flame. Fire can be considered to be a low temperature partial plasma.
wikipedia

Wikipedia, being edited by the world at large, is occasionally wrong. Temperatures in flames aren't hot enough to turn ordinary burnables into plasma.


No offense, but there is a big difference in someone schooled in the realm of digital electronics and say someone who learned electronics 50 years ago.

I'm over 50. I dealt with vacum tube technology and all that other klunky stuff (in spite of having "girl cooties.".) One of my science fair projects in the 1950's was on magnetic lifting. I come from a family of folks who tinkered with both machinery and electricity (including my mom.) I retired as a computer engineer 3 years ago and am a peripheral member of the robotics club. I taught science. I still teach science.

Your dismissing my arguments on the grounds of my being inexperienced or unknowledgeable on this is just a little tiresome. Address the arguments, please, and quit trying to second guess my experience and education.



Tell me why the canyon couldn't have been etched out in a much shorter time and then the river flowed through it after the fact?

You sound as though you're unfamilar with the timescale, here.

It's a very new feature -- around 5 million years old. It starts when mountain building processes cause the land to rise, changing the flow of rivers across that area of the continent. We see that from ancient river channels... if you're a rock hound (as I am) you're familiar with the way these features look (cobbles in fine layers of silt in the formations.)

Blockage of the river created a huge lake (again, we know this from the pattern of sediment deposits... great stuff to look at if you have one of those "roadside geology" books and like to look at the road cuts as you drive along (like we do.) When the lake's head finally eroded enough to allow water to flow, the water itself carved out the canyon.
www.kaibab.org...

Perhaps you might like to read more about the geology of the canyon and the history and geology that are evidence of this event. If so, here's a real neat page on the subject by a geologist who studies ancient rivers:
www.durangobill.com...


Besides, if the volume of the canyon was eroded by the river, where is all the sediment in the Gulf of California? Do you see a huge delta there or anything like that?

Uhm... your geography is just a little bit off there, by about 2,000 miles. The Colorado becomes the Rio Grande and goes to the Gulf of Mexico.



I still do not see where it is that you presume to know when this plasma strike probably happened to know that it didn't affect compounds. For all anyone knows, it could have also been a catalyst for life itself and the evidence is right in front of you.


Uhm... no. Life's been around considerably longer than 5 million years.





With enough voltage, many things will conduct. It isn't about whether something is a metal or not that makes it a conductor, but how likely it will conduct based on the number of valent electrons in its outer shell, still an element can conduct very easily if it is ionized - even a piece of limestone.

Limestone isn't an element. It's a sedimentary rock composed of layers of a compound called calcite (CaCO3). Carbon (one of the elements in limestone) and oxygen are both non-metals.

Carbon and oxygen and don't conduct electricity because they don't lose electrons.


Supposedly, the region around the Grand Canyon was once an inland sea. With a large plasma arc, the entire sea could be ionized and act as a solution to carry away all the debri.


I think you need to check your fact sources again -- particularly the paleogeology. There was a lake there, not a sea. The sea was on the OTHER side of the Rocky Mountains.

You might also like to read up on what happens when lightning (a plasma arc much hotter than the sun) hits water. In brief, water doesn't attract lightning as much as land does, but when it hits, the charge spreads out (doesn't stay focused) and the heat and energy dissapate quickly because water's not a good conductor. Lightning strikes on the ocean are rarer than lightning strikes on land.



So far, people like us are not going to prove it or disprove it, because all our information is coming from books and the internet.


Perhaps yours comes from there. Mine comes from a lot of hands-on stuff, and a lot of exploring and rockhounding as well as some hardcore research. I use the information on the Internet to confirm that my discussion has some basis in reality and I'm not just sitting here thinking of weird arguments.

And I still disagree with your model. It relies on a lot of "miracles" that occur just once and "because". It doesn't explain or predict (as good science does) -- it just presupposes an event that's produced when "a miracle occurred and voila!"

The "it was created by water and a rapid draining of a vast lake" is something that we do see in the geological record time and time again. We can see erosional canyons forming and measure how they change and grow. We know what evidence is left behind when plasma arcs hit the earth.

There isn't a single shred of evidence to support the "plasma created the Grand Canyon" idea.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


All you say is very correct.....especially since your statement "1000cc = 1 cubic meter" ...............as was probably pointed out by others, 1000cc = 1liter.
So the energy demand to blast a Grand Canyon would be like 1000 times more than you estimated.
Thank you for your attention



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Well, to me, the arc discharge is a good theory, not as substantial as the water erosion, but then we don't know everything. We are making new discoveries by the day and plasma cosmology has only recently (past 30 years or so) been given some real attention and I feel it will explain alot more in our universe, not saying it's perfect, because nothing is.

EMM



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join