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.

 

Electrical Weather

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
History Channel had a show on the driest places on Earth.

Apparently one is located in Chile by the Tropic Zone as the
rainfall from the Equator on South has left nothing for that
region.

Nothing electrical yet, but rocks in the region were analyzed
for He3 deposits made by Cosmic Rays when the skies are
not cloudy all day.

No rain in a very long time and determined in sort of an
electric atomic way.




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Thanks to all who have posted, I will keep trying to add information on various weather and their POSSIBLE connection to Electricitym tbh I thought the thread had died.

Astrynax, stomp and scream all you want, I'm only offering an alternative, you may think that our weather is explained, but I think the job is far from done,there is too much that is just not explained properly.

As for the physics queries you asked for, I specifically said at the start of this thread that this wouldn't turn into an EU-Standard model debate, I am offering information for people to go out and research themselves, if they think it may have merit, wonderful, if not, I hope the find what they're looking for.

Besides, any examples I could give I'm sure you've heard before, or you will say that they are not needed, as there is already a suitable explanation.

I will try to add more information as I find it, enjoy.

EMM



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 

No problem. This here is a discussion forum. I'm here to present the other side of the story - the truth in my opinion, though clearly not in yours. As an ATS membe, I get to do that. I'm not here to belittle you, to tell you that you're an idiot or a lunatic; simply to point out that perfectly good and testable explanations for most meteorological phenomena already exist and that, since you're the guy making the unorthodox claims, you're the guy who bears the burden of proof.

To make your proposition fly, you have to:

1. Show why the ordinary explanations of meteorological phenomena are wrong.

2. Produce explanations based on an electric-weather model that better fit the facts.

You haven't done that yet. You've posted a set of resemblences, coincidences and correspondences. That's not scientific, I'm afraid; it's magic. 'Like breeds like,' 'as above, so below,' that kind of thing.

If you don't want to take it down to electric-universe fundamentals, that's fine by me. But just for fun, can you propose electric-weather explanations for
  • clouds?

  • rain?

  • wind?

  • hail?

  • snow?

  • hurricanes?

  • mirages?

  • inversion layers?

  • fog?

I'd be very interested in reading whatever you post.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 

No problem. This here is a discussion forum. I'm here to present the other side of the story - the truth in my opinion, though clearly not in yours. As an ATS membe, I get to do that. I'm not here to belittle you, to tell you that you're an idiot or a lunatic; simply to point out that perfectly good and testable explanations for most meteorological phenomena already exist and that, since you're the guy making the unorthodox claims, you're the guy who bears the burden of proof.


Oh most definitely, I wouldn't dream of preventing your opinion, but could you please keep an open mind, 'I don't believe this to be true..' or 'IMO, this just doesn't ask the questions... rather than shouting how its all rubbish and not needed? I think we could have a better discussion.

I am not here to prove, I am not a physicist, meteorologist or plasma cosmologist, I am simply here to put forward an idea. The most striking part about Electrical weather, for me, is that it doesn't disprove the conventional view of heat and pressure to be the cause of the weather, instead, it would explain the cause of the heat and pressure differentials.


To make your proposition fly, you have to:

1. Show why the ordinary explanations of meteorological phenomena are wrong.


As I said above, they are not 'wrong' they are just not right (IMO), they still have a lot of work to do and i think this is the right direction for us to move into, I was putting this up here to introduce people to the possibility of Electrical weather and if they find it interesting, plasma cosmology and ES theory.


2. Produce explanations based on an electric-weather model that better fit the facts.


I am attempting to do this, but since I have no background in it, it is more of an interest, I am just giving people enough information to consider it and if they so wish, to research it more in-depth. I am doing the same thing, just trying to get a better handle on it. I have no idea whether I'm wrong, close, or right, I am just offering an idea I had, which is gaining more interest. If you go back and look at the links, there are alot researchers looking into this stuff.


You haven't done that yet. You've posted a set of resemblences, coincidences and correspondences. That's not scientific, I'm afraid; it's magic. 'Like breeds like,' 'as above, so below,' that kind of thing.


Any unknown technology is like magic to those who don't understand, not saying it is magic, it just maybe beyond what we currently understand. As I have said, this thread ISN'T meant to be scientific, or dead on, or a claim of the 'Secret to weather!!11!' I am linking to the science and trying to explain them, I'll admit, I may not do a very good job.


If you don't want to take it down to electric-universe fundamentals, that's fine by me. But just for fun, can you propose electric-weather explanations for
  • clouds?

  • rain?

  • wind?

  • hail?

  • snow?

  • hurricanes?

  • mirages?

  • inversion layers?

  • fog?

I'd be very interested in reading whatever you post.


Actually, Hurricane information is in the thread, as is a small bit about hail. Snow, rain and clouds will be covered some time over the next few days, aswell as earthquakes and all the phenomena that are associated with them.

As for mirages, surely thats a psychological phenomena? Has that been linked to weather (beside the obvious heat factor)? I'd be interested for you to link any infromation, that sounds really interesting. Fog or inversion layers, I have not run across any information yet, but I'll keep looking.

EMM

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Great job so far EMM.

I wanted to drop this one in.


According to a study in Geographical Research published by Wiley-Blackwell, the droughts in eastern Australia are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect....
...“The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover, could contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations.

www.physorg.com...

Similarly, a link in a longer time frame is present. And this may also share some connection to TeslaandLyne's post above.


Climate records stretching back 5000 years seem to show a strong link between rainfall in the tropics and changes in the Earth's magnetic field, according to new research.


Quite an interesting read.
planetearth.nerc.ac.uk...

All things are connected, there are no isolated systems, only systems within systems.
Since we only have an atmosphere because we are protected by a magnetic shield which in turn is affected by the sun, stands to reason space weather should impact the atmospheric systems. the system doesn't just stop at the boundary of space as recent evidence has clearly shown.

Electricity is fundamental in all things, from the atom through to life itself and into cosmos.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Electricity is fundamental in all things, from the atom through to life itself and into cosmos.

Well... let's say that electricity has a lot to do with matter and energy. I wouldn't say it's fundamental. What about the strong force? Or the one electric-universe theorists despise so much, gravity? Not so fundamental? Why not?

Next level down, charge is fundamental to some particles, but neutrons, photons and neutrinos have no charge. More particles have mass than have charge, and all particles have spin (angular momentum). So how is electricity more fundamental than spin?

As to your links - of course the sun affects Earth weather. Any idiot knows that; where do you think the energy comes from to power the planetary meteorological engine? Nothing in those two articles points to an electric-universe explanation of anything. Ordinary science explains these phenomena without any trouble.

Anyway, this is all embroidery. Where are your fundamentals? Where is the electric-weather theory? Fact: you don't have one.

OP, if you put forward an idea, you'd better put some proof forward along with it. How else do you expect to make people believe you?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Well hi to you too Asty, you've yet to provide anything in all of our little chats that can falsify an of the theories. I'm surprised your still willing to give it a go. And once again your assumptions are based on archaic or misunderstood information.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Well... let's say that electricity has a lot to do with matter and energy. I wouldn't say it's fundamental. What about the strong force? Or the one electric-universe theorists despise so much, gravity? Not so fundamental? Why not?


Yes there are other fundamental forces of course. Someone who pays attention may see the relationship between charge and mass, and no EU theorists don't despise gravity but understand it as a part of the electric force. Particles are nothing but wave packets, units of charge. It's theorised that all the forces are ultimately derived from the electric force at the sub atomic level(s).


Next level down, charge is fundamental to some particles, but neutrons, photons and neutrinos have no charge. More particles have mass than have charge, and all particles have spin (angular momentum). So how is electricity more fundamental than spin?


Well neutrons are actually a combination of smaller positive and negative charges. So your simply wrong there.

Photons..

In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not really my area, and not the subject of this thread. Wall Thornhill has some great articles in this area, easy to find. If your really interested in what EU theorizes about gravity and the atom, get informed. And it seems you could brush up on the mainstream stuff as well.



As to your links - of course the sun affects Earth weather. Any idiot knows that; where do you think the energy comes from to power the planetary meteorological engine? Nothing in those two articles points to an electric-universe explanation of anything. Ordinary science explains these phenomena without any trouble.


Did you read the links? Magnetism is generated by electric currents and electric currents only I'm told. Note the phrase "Earth's magnetic field".
Recent discoveries have confirmed that the magnetosphere is charged from electric currents traveling along what they call magnetic flux ropes from the Sun, aka Birkeland currents. The articles are not talking about thermal heat. Please try to keep up Asty.


Anyway, this is all embroidery. Where are your fundamentals? Where is the electric-weather theory? Fact: you don't have one.
OP, if you put forward an idea, you'd better put some proof forward along with it. How else do you expect to make people believe you?


You are rude sir, and simply don't know enough about the theories to argue them, as you've clearly demonstrated in this thread and the others. I suggest actually reading the posts and looking at the links instead of grumbling. And how about you actually show us where some of the claims are wrong? and how? this is part of science, yes? How about some falsification? All your argument consist of is...

We already know it,
There's nothing new to learn,
And anything related to an electrical theory is nonsense and agitates me.

The rest is a just a lot of thermal currents.


Edit to add...
There is no electric weather theory as such, it should be an investigation into what role electricity and magnetism play in the weather systems. In many cases it's not a replacement for standard weather phenomena but offers new line of research and bridges some of the sciences together so we can see a bigger picture.
The system within the system.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Someone who pays attention may see the relationship between charge and mass

Well, you can turn mass into electrical energy just like you can change it into any other kind of energy, but apart from that? Is mass an electrical phenomenon? Why?

Mass: Wikipedia


EU theorists don't despise gravity but understand it as a part of the electric force.

Yes. This is the bit for which there is no theory and no evidence.


It's theorised that all the forces are ultimately derived from the electric force at the sub atomic level(s).

No it isn't, at least not according to the Standard Model.

Force: Wikipedia

Boson: Wikipedia


Neutrons are actually a combination of smaller positive and negative charges. So your simply wrong there.

No, you are. Dipole moments and beta decay notwithstanding, a neutron has no charge. It is called a neutron because it is electrically neutral.


A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.

True. Nevertheless, a photon has no charge


Wall Thornhill has some great articles in this area, easy to find.

If he has anything that lends credible support to these odd ideas, post or link to it by all means.


If your really interested in what EU theorizes about gravity and the atom, get informed.

Of course I'm not interested; why should I be? I'm interested in physics, not fringe theories. The day you show me how EU theories rigorously explain something mainstream physics doesn't, preferably with experimental evidence to support the theory, I'll get really interested really fast. So instead of regarding me as some kind of immovable object of prejudice, try and bring up something that will convince me. I'm a far easier sell than any real physicist you and your fellow-believers will have to convince if you ever hope to get your model accepted. So come on: give it a shot.


And it seems you could brush up on the mainstream stuff as well.

No doubt we both could.


Magnetism is generated by electric currents and electric currents only I'm told. Note the phrase "Earth's magnetic field". Recent discoveries have confirmed that the magnetosphere is charged from electric currents traveling along what they call magnetic flux ropes from the Sun, aka Birkeland currents. The articles are not talking about thermal heat. Please try to keep up Asty.

Energy can be transformed from one form into another. There is nothing impossible in the idea of magnetic energy being converted to heat. The point is, where is the EU (or 'electric-weather) theory that describes how and why this is happening? Where is the science?

Look: this is from the abstract of the original paper one of your linked articles was talking about.


Using data from 1876 to the present, the exploratory analysis suggests that when the Sun's South Pole is positive in the Hale Cycle, the likelihood of strongly positive and negative Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) values increase after certain phases in the cyclic ~22 yr solar magnetic field. The SOI is also shown to track the pairing of sunspot cycles in ~88 yr periods. This coupling of odd cycles, 23–15, 21–13 and 19–11, produces an apparently close charting in positive and negative SOI fluctuations for each grouping. This Gleissberg effect is also apparent for the southern hemisphere rainfall anomaly. Over the last decade, the SOI and rainfall fluctuations have been tracking similar values to that recorded in Cycle 15 (1914–1924).

The paper merely describes correspondences. It does not even pretend to offer an explanation for them; the author is a geographer, not a physicist. So the door's wide open for you to present us with a watertight, elegant and rigorous explanation, based on electric-universe theories, for the phenomenon.

It the same with the other link you posted. Nothing incredible in the idea that rainfall and terrestrial magnetic field fluctuations may be linked in some way. But how? That's where your theory should come in; that's where you should be offering us an explanation. Instead of which, you draw attention to the magical correspondence ('as above, so below') and say you've proved your case.

Prove it? You haven't even laid it out. Which brings me back to what I posted earlier:


Where are your fundamentals? Where is the electric-weather theory? Fact: you don't have one.

I repeat the questions. They are fair, not rude. The comment that you have no theory is nothing but the plain truth.

As you yourself at finally admit - and kudos to you for having the honesty, in the end, to edit your post to inform us that in fact


there is no electric weather theory

It's good to hear it the horse's mouth.

And - be truthful, now - there isn't any electric-universe theory either, is there?



posted on May, 2 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Of course I'm not interested; why should I be? I'm interested in physics, not fringe theories. The day you show me how EU theories rigorously explain something mainstream physics doesn't, preferably with experimental evidence to support the theory.


The Eu theories main attraction is that it can all be expreimentally shown, in a lab, on Earth. The standard model has no way to explain the seemingly infinite nuclear reactions going on inside the Sun.

Also, as I have linked in this thread, which you quite obviously haven't even bothered to read, I have shown they have discovered tornadoes on the sun, now with the EU theory, this isn't a problem, could you explain how tornadoes that big can form on the Sun?

Can you explain why there is a 'tether' linking the Sun to the Earth, pumping in 650,000 Amps every couple of minutes?

Can you explain where that energy goes?

As I stated before, plasma cosmology isn't here to usurp the standard model, it can just give a broader outlook, is it totally right? Of course not! but IMO, it's a lot closer than the standard model


It the same with the other link you posted. Nothing incredible in the idea that rainfall and terrestrial magnetic field fluctuations may be linked in some way. But how? That's where your theory should come in; that's where you should be offering us an explanation. Instead of which, you draw attention to the magical correspondence ('as above, so below') and say you've proved your case.


The standard model has so many holes in it, it can't explain many things without adding invisible, undetectable forces, and because we show links, 'coincidences' or outright patterns, but can't connect them, our theory is invalid? Bad logic there.


Prove it? You haven't even laid it out. Which brings me back to what I posted earlier:

As you yourself at finally admit - and kudos to you for having the honesty, in the end, to edit your post to inform us that in fact


there is no electric weather theory

It's good to hear it the horse's mouth.

And - be truthful, now - there isn't any electric-universe theory either, is there?


Lol, if the standard model can be considred a theory on the flimsy evidence it shows and the tenuous links it 'tries' to make, then I think EU is pretty sound.

Now I have admitted, there isn't any Ekectrical weather theory, which is one of the main reasons I made this thread, as there is only odd papers out, with interesting correlations with the Sun and our Earth weather, I tried to explain it within the framework of the EU.

Now back on topic, if you don't like the theory, fine! It was only an idea, and I thought it was worth putting on here for people to read, if you want to argue the veracity of the EU model, go to an EU thread and kick and stomp there.

There is an EU model, it does answer many questions that the standard model can't, it can't answer some questions that the standard model can, because funnilly enough, it's a work in progress, unlike the standard model, which is apparently infallible and answers everything.

How about we accept that we both only believe our theory is better than the other? Neither of us know, although I'm sure we're both pretty positive.

EMM

p.s. There maybe some unauthorised puns in this post, I apologise.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 2-5-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
I have shown they have discovered tornadoes on the sun, now with the EU theory, this isn't a problem, could you explain how tornadoes that big can form on the Sun?

What's the explanation for it according to EU theory?


Can you explain why there is a 'tether' linking the Sun to the Earth, pumping in 650,000 Amps every couple of minutes?

Can you explain where that energy goes?

What's the explanation for it according to EU theory?


Because we show links, 'coincidences' or outright patterns, but can't connect them, our theory is invalid? Bad logic there.

Links, 'coincidences' and patterns do not a theory make.

What's the explanation for them according to EU theory?


Lol, if the standard model can be considred a theory on the flimsy evidence it shows and the tenuous links it 'tries' to make, then I think EU is pretty sound.

But where is the EU theory?

The trouble, you see, is that there is no electric-universe theory. Its proponents may be developing one. When they have done so, and shown that it describes some aspect of the world better than ordinary physics and cosmology do and in ways that do not contradict what we already know (I mean physical facts about the universe), then will be plenty of time to take electric-universe models seriously.

At the moment there is no electric-universe theory, so what you're trying to do is to explain real phenomena (rain, clouds, etc. - remember my list?) in terms of a nonexistent theory. How on earth do you expect to achieve that?

Anyway, my point is made. I shan't trouble you again.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Originally posted by Astyanax
We do not need to speculate about the causes of Earth's weather. They are quite well understood. Weather is caused by things like the rotation and gravitational pull of the planet, its varying topography, the varying degrees to which it and its atmosphere are heated by the sun and the normal behaviour of fluids under differentials of temperature and pressure. These causes are as plain as the nose on your face.


With your apparent grasp of basic physics, it surprises me that you would so quickly dismiss an expanded model of meteorology which takes electromagnetism into account. You acknowledge that gravity, fluid dynamics, the sun, the rotation of the earth, and surface topology all have a role to play in properly modeling the weather. Why not, then, include electromagnetic forces as well?

Your assertion that the underlying mechanism of weather is "well understood" smacks of hubris. At one time the cause of disease was "well understood" to result from the interaction of "humors" and "essences" within the body. The fringe-lunatics of the time who espoused "germ theories" of disease were ridiculed.

Let's stand back for a moment and look at the system which we are trying to model. We wish to describe the dynamics of earth's atmosphere. This is a very complex system, with many, many interacting elements. Now, any model, by virtue of being a model in the first place, must be built from a subset of variables whose interactions play a significant role in the evolution of the system under study. Your remarks suggest that you believe that electrical forces play at best a marginal role in shaping the weather. I suggest that you may be ignoring the elephant in the room.


Of course, there is an electrical side to the weather: lightning and associated phenomena. These are mostly discharges of static electricity.


Ah, but what causes this "static" electricity you speak of? Could it be the electrical properties of water droplets suspended in air, and their interactions? Are not thunderheads akin to huge dynamos which transform mechanical energy into electrical energy via charge separation? Why does one's hair stand on-end near the vapor cloud of a waterfall? As a somewhat abstract point of reference, I call your attention to Lord Kelvin's water dropper experiment.


However, no links have ever been shown between what we call 'space weather' - which is mainly driven by the electromagnetic activity of the sun and includes phenomena like auroras and your Ethiopian ion plume - and terrestrial weather, the sort that makes us buy umbrellas.


Here you are just plain wrong. It is increasingly being recognized amongst the geophysical community that "space weather" has a tangible and significant effect on our atmospheric weather. To take one example, the phenomenon known as "charged particle precipitation" has been convincingly shown to affect the formation of clouds. Indeed, there is an obvious anlaogy with the classic "cloud chamber" (a common apparatus for rendering the trails of subatomic particles visible). When precipitating electrons or other charged particles interact with saturated water vapor in the atmosphere, they may seed the formation of clouds. So-called "earthquake clouds" are a well-documented, (if poorly understood), manifestation of this phenomenon.

I don't want to divert the conversation too much, but I feel the need to float the idea that many of the persistent contrails (aka "chemtrails") which we now routinely witness in the sky are a result of such charged particle precipitation interacting with the water vapor in jet airplanes' wakes. While most charged particle precipitation is natural in origin, facilities like HAARP are perfectly capable of triggering it artificially.

[edit on 3-5-2009 by zerotensor]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by zerotensor
 

Static electric effects are very different from the electromagnetic effects claimed buy the OP (and the electric universe theory). There is no current in a thunderhead until the potential builds to the point of discharge. The static charge is an effect of the turbulence within a cumulonimbus cloud, not a cause.

Charged particle precipitation on the macro scale (as opposed to cloud chambers, an obsolete technology, btw) has not been shown to have any effect on weather or climate. A cloud chamber is a supersaturated environment, in a situation of less than 100% humidity the passage of charged or uncharged particles has no significant effect. If clouds are existent, a very high influx of solar particles (somehow not deflected by the magnetosphere) may have some sort of effect but there is no indication that they would ever contribute to the formation of clouds or any other sort of weather.

The definition of "earthquake clouds" seems to be highly subjective, it seems that only the "experts" are able to distinguish the difference between them and clouds produced by shearlines and atmospheric waves.

HAARP affects an extremely limited volume of the ionosphere. The effects of the ionosphere on weather, if any, are little understood and it is doubtful that HAARP has any capability of affecting it.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Well I was going dissect all that misunderstanding and waffle, but not much really has to do with the subject at hand and I won't feed your troll like behavior in explaining my every comment you take out of context.

I was referring to models to obviously are unfamiliar with, not the standard model, I recommended where to look for the information because it's beyond the scope of this thread. But your not interested, yet you feel qualified to denounce them. Pure ignorance in all it's glory.

But I do feel the need for this one.


We find that the neutron-parton charge density is negative at the center, so that the square of the transverse charge radius is positive, in contrast with many expectations. Additionally, the proton's central d quark charge density is larger than that of the u quark by about 30%. The proton (neutron) charge density has a long range positively (negatively) charged component.

scitation.aip.org...

And the photon? Well when they split photons they first become a positron and electron pair.
But all beside the point. Sorry.

As for the weather?

Where's the theory? read the links


As I said there is no singular theory for the entire weather system, just as there is no singular element responsible in our current understanding.

You still offer nothing of value on the subject at hand as usual. I think your not even sure what your arguing about. I think that's why you want some sort of summary of the questions raised here. Right?




[edit on 3-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by zerotensor
 


With your apparent grasp of basic physics, it surprises me that you would so quickly dismiss an expanded model of meteorology which takes electromagnetism into account. You acknowledge that gravity, fluid dynamics, the sun, the rotation of the earth, and surface topology all have a role to play in properly modeling the weather. Why not, then, include electromagnetic forces as well?

Please see my later posts on the thread.

It would be foolish to deny that electromagnetic factors may affect weather, though no-one has yet shown how they do so.

However, this is somewhat different from the intent of the OP in this thread, which is to propose an explanation for weather based on a nonexistent electric-universe theory.

As I said in an earlier post, correlations and correspondences do not a theory make.



[edit on 4/5/09 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I was referring to models to obviously are unfamiliar with, not the standard model.

Zounds! Rumbled! Yes, you're right, I have little familiarity with crank physics - electric universe theories and so forth. I am, however, familiar enough with what some disparage as 'mainstream' physics to know that the claims you're making are not supported by it - or by any evidence.


'We find that the neutron-parton charge density is negative at the center, so that the square of the transverse charge radius is positive...'

Getting a bit desperate, are we? I won't pretend to understand what that paper is about from the abstract (perhaps, if you're an PRL subscriber, you could post the .pdf for us?) but whatever the arrangement of charges within a neutron and the mathematical calisthenics one can do with them, the neutron is a particle with no charge.

Likewise a photon, whatever it splits up into.

And the links you post do not take me to an electric-universe theory. Because, of course, there is no such theory.

[edit on 4/5/09 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Charged particle precipitation on the macro scale (as opposed to cloud chambers, an obsolete technology, btw) has not been shown to have any effect on weather or climate. A cloud chamber is a supersaturated environment, in a situation of less than 100% humidity the passage of charged or uncharged particles has no significant effect. If clouds are existent, a very high influx of solar particles (somehow not deflected by the magnetosphere) may have some sort of effect but there is no indication that they would ever contribute to the formation of clouds or any other sort of weather.


The invocation of "cloud chambers" was as an analogy, so the fact that this technology is archaic matters not at all. I am simply pointing out that energetic, microscopic particles can interact with a medium and produce macroscopic effects.



There is no current in a thunderhead until the potential builds to the point of discharge. The static charge is an effect of the turbulence within a cumulonimbus cloud, not a cause.


No current? Well, then, please tell me how the charges became separated to begin with, and how does that not constitute a "current"?

Here's a clip from a graduate-level text titled, "Panetary Sciences"*:


*Planetary Sciences
By Imke De Pater, Jack Jonathan Lissauer
Edition: illustrated, reprint
Published by Cambridge University Press, 2001
pp. 66-67



HAARP affects an extremely limited volume of the ionosphere. The effects of the ionosphere on weather, if any, are little understood and it is doubtful that HAARP has any capability of affecting it.


Modulation of the auroral electrojet --even within a limited volume -- can result in significant global effects. It's analogous to a transistor.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by zerotensor]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Getting a bit desperate, are we? I won't pretend to understand what that paper is about from the abstract (perhaps, if you're an PRL subscriber, you could post the .pdf for us?) but whatever the arrangement of charges within a neutron and the mathematical calisthenics one can do with them, the neutron is a particle with no charge.


Desperate? I'll tell you what it's about. It means the neutron is composed of smaller positive and negative charges. As I originally stated.
A neutron is a particle with a NET zero charge.

You'd have us believed that plasma cosmology is pseudo science when it is accepted as legitimate area of study by one of the largest professional organizations the IEEE. As well as being studied at Los Alamos.
And that NASA scientist recently sat in on a EU presentation that was well accepted.
All at the same time having to swallow all the BS, unprovable, untestable theories of mainstream cosmology. I'll tell you what psuedo science is, it's big bang science. It fits all the criteria.

Still no falsification Asty? Can you not tell us why it is flawed?
I'd gladly debate any aspect of plasma cosmology with you, however this is weather related, what exactly are you disputing? be specific, you haven't mentioned any of the original information.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Here's a some NASA footage of some sprites and jets. Note the first line of text "the global electric circuit". You better contact them Asty and set em straight.



They have no solid explanation for spites and elves, likewise no real answer for lightning. They have no answer for why the Earth has a vertical electric field up to 100 volts per meter in dry air.
Just like cosmology they are missing a fundamental piece.


[edit on 4-5-2009 by squiz]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


A neutron is a particle with a NET zero charge.

Another admission! Gosh, squiz, we'll make a reasonable fellow of you yet.


They have no solid explanation for spites and elves, likewise no real answer for lightning.

Neither has EU 'theory'. If I'm wrong, show it to us. I'm not talking about the usual speculative like-begets-like explanations, of which EU believers have a plenitude; I'm talking about something real and scientifically rigorous.

This is getting a bit tedious, I fear. You won't be hearing more from me on this thread unless you post something meaningful. 'Bye for now.

[edit on 4/5/09 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

A neutron is a particle with a NET zero charge.

Another admission! Gosh, squiz, we'll make a reasonable fellow of you yet.


Yeah right, you still don't get it do you? A neutron is composed of up quark with a CHARGE of +2/3 and two down quarks with a CHARGE -1/3. Just like I originally said.





They have no solid explanation for spites and elves, likewise no real answer for lightning.

Neither has EU 'theory'. If I'm wrong, show it to us.


Whaa! perahps go back and actually read the thread.
Since you won't bother to read the links, and the theory was outlined on the first page. This is just for you.


The Electric Universe model suggests that the Earth plays a cathode role in the Sun's discharge and therefore is in the business of supplying negative electrons to space and receiving positive ions from the solar wind. It is interesting therefore that the presence of solar wind ions inside the earth's magnetosphere has puzzled scientists. Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud "condenser" is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud "condenser" gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa. By creating a short-circuit to high altitudes in the storm the lightning effectively "throws the switch" connected to the glow discharge "tube" in the upper atmosphere. It then makes perfect sense that the much taller positive cloud-to-ground discharge will be more effective at providing power to the glow discharge than will low-level negative cloud-to-ground lightning because the circuit resistance is lower. Ultimately, lightning on Earth is driven by electric power focused on the Sun but minutely intercepted by the Earth. So lightning on Earth is a pale imitation of what is happening on the Sun.

It is not surprising, therefore, that it took a man who was an electrical researcher, astronomer, and expert on the effects of lightning, Dr. Charles E. R. Bruce of the Electrical Research Association in England, to recognize the fact. That was in 1941! Such is the inertia of science.


www.holoscience.com...


I'm not talking about the usual speculative like-begets-like explanations, of which EU believers have a plenitude; I'm talking about something real and scientifically rigorous.


None of which you can even present a decent argument for it seems.
And oh no mainstream cosmology is devoid of speculation and is completely tested scientifically. What a joke, you can keep your big bang fantasy full of unverifiables and ridiculous inventions.
And for all that speculation from EU theorists also come a swag of successful predictions, not bad for pseudo science eh?


Come on Asty, just one little bit of falsification on anything presented here.


This is getting a bit tedious, I fear. You won't be hearing more from me on this thread unless you post something meaningful. 'Bye for now.


No? OK, bye bye then.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by squiz]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join