Are the planets growing?

[Julian Braggins]

orrery,
From memory there was an experiment done in the 18thC with a willow tree seedling planted, in soil that was dried and weighed, in a container, nothing was added but water, air and sunlight. After 17 years the biomass of the tree was dried and weighed, the soil dried and weighed, the result was that the soil had reduced by 2 and a half ounces in weight, the tree had gained 170lbs (?)in dry weight.

I'm not sure if it was deduced at the time, but the explanation as I recall was the CO2 in the atmosphere supplied the carbon, and the water was split to obtain the H in the carbohydrates, the soil supplied the trace elements, all 2 1/2oz. Oxygen is emitted by plants of course, being the leftover from splitting water and the residue from CO2.

This was the 'Carbon Cycle' that was known for over 200 years, but has recently been omitted from our "education" system
I read recently that by GPS measurement the pacific ocean is widening on average by 18mm a year but it is zeroed out as it complicates things. Of course this could be a nasty rumour by the expanding earth advocates

[allynh]

Here is another great example of a Near Earth object.

Asteroid Is a Dance Partner for Planet Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMh0MmqHKcQ

Asteroid Is a Dance Partner for Planet Earth

JEFFREY BROWN: Finally tonight, a dance partner for planet Earth. It's called a "Trojan" asteroid, one that shares a planet's orbit circling around the sun. Many such asteroids have been found near other planets. Now, as reported in the journal "Nature," the first has been discovered near the Earth.

We get an explanation from Mike Brown, a planetary astronomer at the California Institute of Technology.

So, tell us a bit more about a "Trojan" asteroid. In this case, it's held in the gravitational pull between the Earth and the sun?

MIKE BROWN, California Institute of Technology: That's right. It's not between the Earth and the sun. It's actually in the same orbit as the Earth, so it goes around the sun in one year, just like the Earth goes around the sun in one year. And, on average, it's about the same distance from the sun as the Earth is.

So, we're really just following it along in its orbit around the sun.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, if it's -- if it's relatively close, and how close is it exactly, why has it taken so long to see?

An asteroid is caught in a synchronized orbit with the Earth.

MIKE BROWN: It's close. And it's so close that, on average, we overtake its position about every two months. So, in two months from now, we are going to be where it is right now.

The reason it takes so long to see, the reason it has been so long to find one of these things is because, most of the time when we're looking for asteroids or anything else in the solar system, we look out beyond the Earth. We look into the night sky. To find these things that are actually in the same orbit of the Earth, you really have to look in the very early morning or the very, very early evening, as the sky is really quite bright, so no one has found these things up until now.

JEFFREY BROWN: And do we know where it came from, how it got there?

MIKE BROWN: That's actually the really interesting question.

It's only been watched for a little bit of time right now. So -- and it's on the very intricate dance in front of the Earth. And so figuring out how long it's been there or exactly where it's going to go is a difficult thing.

What we know right now is it has been in its approximate position for at least 10,000 years -- 10,000 years, though, is a really, really short amount of time for the solar system. So, we don't know if it's been there forever, 4.5 billion years, since the solar system formed, or if it really just essentially fell into place yesterday.

JEFFREY BROWN: You know, you referred to it as a dance. We had a graphic up -- and maybe we will run it again -- this animation. It's not really running alongside the Earth. It's -- it's constantly moving as well.

MIKE BROWN: Yes, it's -- on average, it stays 60 degrees in front of the Earth as it goes. But it doesn't really stay in that spot. It goes ahead and then comes back behind and then keeps circling around.

And so it's in this position where it's a stable orbit, where it can stay in that place for a long time. But because of the Earth and because of the sun, it keeps on moving it around.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, what is the importance of asteroids, of finding and studying them? What do they tell us? There's even been talk about, of course, a NASA mission where we could go get to one, right?

MIKE BROWN: Right.

So there are two ways to think of asteroids, at least the way I think of them, is that they are sort of technologically interesting and sort of sociologically interesting, in that they might be the next place that we go to in manned spaceflight. There's sort of a natural stepping-stone to go to the next even further destinations, like Mars perhaps.

They're also something that we care a lot about because they are continuously pummeling into the Earth's atmosphere. And there is always that chance that one of them might have our name on it and be coming in our way. So the more we know about them, the better we are prepared to deal with that possibility.

For me, though, I think they're interesting much more because of their scientific interest. They really are these windows into the very earliest solar system. They are materials that are left over from when the sun and the Earth and the planets formed. And they have been sitting around in space for that past 4.5 billion years.

And if we can find them and study them and figure out where they are and where they have come from, we have learned an awful lot about our very own origins.

JEFFREY BROWN: And just briefly, just since you raised it, we better reassure people, because of that fear of asteroids coming to Earth. This one is sort of stuck in place, right, so that is not likely?

MIKE BROWN: Yes, this is actually a really good one to have found, because even though it has the same orbit as us, it can never come any closer to us than a certain distance, because it's stuck by the Earth, never -- OK, maybe in -- maybe in 20,000 years. We don't know what is going to happen then.

But, for the foreseeable future, it's going to be staying there. We are going to be watching it. It's going to be a really fun dance to watch.

JEFFREY BROWN: OK, reassuring in our -- in most of our time frames.

Mike Brown, thank you very much.

MIKE BROWN: Oh, it was my pleasure.

The official designation is 2010 TK7.

2010 TK7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_TK7

2010 TK7
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=3548081

Now watch the animation, and remember that while all this is going on, the Moon does not orbit the Earth, and all of the other Near Earth objects like Cruithne are buzzing around at the same time. HA!

NASA animation of its motion
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/PIA14404.mov

Other moons of Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_moon ... satellites

[Anaconda]

PHYSORG.com (July 28, 2011)

The title of the article: Earth is getting fatter

Like many of its inhabitants, the Earth is getting thicker around the middle -- that's what a new study out this week says. The increased bulge is due to the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-earth-fatter.html

But are the supposed assumptions cited in the Physorg article for why the Earth is expanding at the equator the actual physical causes for this expansion? Of course, the article never uses the word "expansion" as that would come too close to suggesting or opening the door to consideration of the Expanding Earth Theory as an explanation for this apparent expansion of the Earth at the equator.

If the measurements reported are correct, then the Earth is EXPANDING at the equator.

Scientists had observed the bulge shrinking for years, but then something changed. Around the middle of the 1990s, they noticed that the trend reversed and the Earth was getting fatter, like a ball squeezed at the top and bottom -- but until recently they didn't have the tools to understand why.

So, for years scientists were observing the planet "getting fatter", but didn't know why (and likely didn't forcefully report the fact to the general public because the scientists didn't have an explanation which fit in with their preconceived assumptions of a fixed size and amount of matter of the Earth).

And, apparently, the Earth was also expanding in the higher lattitudes towards the poles:

... the land underneath [the higher lattitudes and polar regions] has "rebounded" causing the Earth to become more spherical, said Steve Nerem, an aerospace engineer at the University of Colorado at Boulder and coauthor of a new analysis of the Earth's bulge.

Here we have it, scientists admit the Earth has been expanding during the course of their observations & measurements, first at the higher lattitudes and poles, and, now, at the equator.

So-called "rebounding" (a secular rise in elevation of the Earth's crust at the higher lattitudes) caused by glacial melting is an assumption.

Also an assumption is the supposed cause of the Earth "getting fatter" [note the insistence on using the euphemism, "fatter", instead of "expansion"] claimed by these scientists.

They found that melting glaciers Greenland and Antarctica were indeed the biggest contributors to the Earth's growing spare tire, as the huge amount of water was pulled to the equator. According to the researchers, the two regions are losing a combined 382 billion tons of ice a year. While the reduced mass on the continents will allow the land to spring back and make the planet more round, that process takes thousands of years. And in the meantime, the bulge is growing at about .28 inches per decade.

Other researchers dispute and contradict the claimed amount of ice loss on Greenland and on Antarctica.

And, if the ice loss claimed by these researcher is false, then what explains the expansion at the equator?

And, if the "glacial rebound" hypothesis is also a false assumption...

A reasonable alternative investigative avenue to consider and explore, given the extraordinary amount of additional scientific facts & evidence supporting the expanding Earth hypothesis, is that the Earth is "getting fatter" at the equator and "rebounding" at the higher lattitudes because there is an overall expansion of the Earth caused by an increase in total matter.

An interesting sidenote, already discussed in this thread is the consistent and secular uplift in elevation of the Earth's crust reported in areas around earthquake epicenters.

[allynh]

Now add this TPOD to show the connection between EU and Growing Earth Theory.

Forty-four Trillion Watts
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... tyfour.htm

According to geologists, the heat from uranium, thorium, and potassium isotope decay is what powers Earth's great engines. Bore hole temperature data from over 20,000 worldwide locations confirms an estimated heat flow in excess of 44 terawatts escaping Earth's interior. However, it is now thought that only fifty percent of that loss is due to radioactive element decay.

44 terawatts is a great number to know. It will come in handy down the road.

Perhaps what is needed is a track change away from conventional destinations and into new areas of thought: thought that takes into account Earth's interaction with colossal electrical forces at some time in the recent past.

That has been the point of this thread from almost the beginning. GET is powered by the same forces that the EU guys talk about.

So-called "telluric currents" circulate through Earth's crust because our magnetic field induces current flow in conductive strata. Hundreds of thousands of amperes stream beneath the surface, the current strength varying according to the conductivity of the strata. Since the Sun can affect Earth's magnetic field through geomagnetic storms, fluctuations in telluric currents can occur when solar activity increases. This happens because of oscillations in the ionosphere. The slight variations that have been found are probably accounted for in this way.

Not all of the energy is induced from outside the Earth's crust, but from within the crust as well. Read the Freund posts starting here to make that clear.

When blocks of acrylic plastic are exposed to a high intensity electron beam, they accumulate a significant electric charge. After the blocks are discharged by driving a nail into their sides, the traces of feathery figures remain embedded in the plastic. The lightning-like pathways are called Lichtenberg figures. They result from electrons rushing through the acrylic toward the point of discharge. The tension caused by the current flow leaves micro-fractures behind. Interestingly, the blocks continue to exhibit flashes from internal electric discharges for several minutes.

Love the imagery. This brings up the obvious point: now, hold on, it's on the way....

If small plastic blocks were converted to quartz and scaled-up to the size of North America, and the electron beam were scaled up to an electric discharge of planetary dimensions, giant scars might be left behind: scars like the Grand Canyon's Lichtenberg geography, or something as incredible as the Mid-Atlantic ridge. The remanent electromagnetic fields could also generate a great deal of thermodynamic energy.

Yes, discharges can create features like the Grand Canyon, but they cannot create features like the Mid-Atlantic ridge.

- When all that you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You knew I was going to say that. HA!

[Lloyd]

* Cardona said in the interview thread that there has been some expansion and I think also contraction during Earth's history.
* Brant says most cosmic bodies contain iron, possibly as shells, and they act as antennas that convert aether into electrons. I'll have to ask him if that means they then expand, or if they merely cause electric currents etc. He finds the iron sun theory highly probable. Is the Sun expanding?

[allynh]

Is the Sun expanding?

Yes. HA!

This is not just about Growing Earth Theory, it's about the Growing Universe as well.

Heavy elements are constantly being transmuted in the photosphere, while hydrogen is being transmuted from the aether in the Sun itself.

- The Sun grows, reaches a point of instability and spins off gas giants.

That's how all of the gas giants in the Solar System formed. They are not captures from outside the system(That idea is silly). Each gas giant, with its unique axis tilt and spin, is the result of the instability of the Sun when each was spun out from the Sun at the time.

- Think of each axis tilt and spin of the gas giants as the fossil record of the Sun at the time they were spun out. HA!

The Sun has grown and spun out new gas giants over and over. Those gas giants are also growing and when they reach a certain size they will be spun out of the Solar System to form their own systems.

- Stellar systems do not come together to form stellar systems. Stellar systems fission as their gas giants grow.

Remember, Andromeda spit out the Milky Way as a quasar under vast electrical stress. As the quasar aged, it expanded massively trying to spread that electrical load over as large a surface as possible. That electrical load on the quasar transmuted more aether into atoms along the way.

- You had stars spinning off stars to spread that load, the Milky Way growing all that time, and it is still growing in size as the electrical current transmutes more aether into atoms.

This process will not stop until the electrical load vs surface area reaches some equilibrium. Then the Milky Way will be as large as Andromeda is now. In the meantime, Andromeda is probably still growing, so I don't know the limits of growth.

There has to be some limit to that growth, otherwise we would see vast galaxies. Just as a lightning bolt makes a finite size Lichtenberg pattern, there must be a limit to a galaxy's growth.

When that equilibrium happens, and the vast lightning bolt that powers everything ends, the Milky way will fade out, going dark just as a lightning bolt finally goes dark. HA!

[Lloyd]

* Even if stellar systems can eject gas giant systems as brown or red dwarf systems, there's nothing to prevent brown dwarf systems ejected from one stellar system or galaxy from being captured by a stellar system, as the Saturn System was captured by the Solar System, after being ejected from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.
* The human race witnessed Saturn's entry into the Solar System and recorded it in myths 10,000 years ago.

[allynh]

Lloyd, you lost me on that one. HA!

I have a problem having the Saturn System traveling halfway across the Milky Way to somehow end up in the Solar System.

My version is simpler: continuous growth through transmutation, and fissioning stellar systems seems more fun. HA!

[allynh]

As a followup to my earlier post:

Here is a simple example showing that atoms are being transmuted from the aether, and that everything is growing. Start with this fact:

Each galaxy spits out quasars that become new galaxies which spit out quasars, etc..., Arp has pointed this out in his book.

Now take a salt shaker, and pour a small pile of salt on the table. Spread it out with your finger to make a spiral galaxy pattern.

Now look at that spiral of salt, and ask yourself how are you going to have salt quasars come out of that salt spiral to grow and make more salt spirals. Where is the new salt going to come from to make salt quasars and still have a parent salt galaxy that keeps growing as it ages.

There is no way the parent salt galaxy can spit out even one salt quasar, that will spread out to become a new salt galaxy, without more salt coming in from somewhere, yet it seems quasar production is constant.

You can't say that the salt already exists and is simply spread all over the table, and is gathered together to form the spirals, because how is more salt pulled into the salt galaxies to spit out more salt quasars. Where is all that salt coming from.

Simple, you can't do it unless more salt is being made in every part of the process.

Literally take a salt shaker and do the example. There is a vast difference between a thought problem, and actually touching a physical example.

You cannot have new galaxies being formed from a finite supply of atoms spread all around. New atoms must be transmuted from the aether on a regular basis, or none of this EU stuff works. HA!

[allynh]

Here is an interesting one.

Were Antarctica, North America once attached?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44163383/ns ... lKt23Onx-A

Remote Antarctic rocks hold strong new evidence that parts of Antarctica and North America were connected more than a billion years ago, researchers say.

The suspected link between the two widely separated continents helps paint a picture of what the planet was like when complex multicellular life was emerging.

An international team of scientists found that the combination of lead isotopes in rocks peeking out of the Antarctic ice is the same as in rocks from a rift that cuts across the United States.

Staci Loewy, a geochemist at California State University, Bakersfield, who has studied the rift, said: "I can go to the Franklin Mountains in West Texas and stand next to what was once part of Coats Land in Antarctica. That's so amazing."

Supercontinents

Geologists have known for decades that Earth's continents move around as part of the tectonic plates that join together like puzzle pieces to make up the planet's crust. Comparing features on one continent, such as mountain ranges, coastlines and fossils, to those on another can show they were once attached.

At various times in Earth's history, the continents have been stuck together in huge lumps of land called supercontinents.

The supercontinent Pangaea formed about 250 million years ago, but scientists think ancestral North America and East Antarctica were joined in a much earlier supercontinent called Rodinia. The new find supports that idea.

"To me, this is some of the most compelling pieces of evidence that there was a connection between part of Antarctica and North America," said study team member Ian Dalziel, a tectonicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

Failed separation

The North American Mid-Continent Rift System extends from the Great Lakes to Texas. The rift, which is 1.1 billion years old, apparently represents a failed tectonic attempt to split the ancestral North American continent of Laurentia.

Past research of the rift found that volcanic rocks of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan are the same age as rocks barely peeking through the ice in Coats Land, a remote part of Antarctica south of the Atlantic Ocean basin. Moreover, they have similar chemical and geologic properties.

"There are only three little outcrops of rock on this block of Antarctica, and one is completely inaccessible if you value your life, because of the icefall there," Dalziel told OurAmazingPlanet. "It's very remote." The rapidly flowing ice there is prone to cracking into perilous crevasses.

Snowball Earth and complex life

The new findings help suggest the Coats Land block was linked with the part of Laurentia near West Texas 1.1 billion years ago. About 100 million years later, this block apparently crashed into the ancient southern African continent of Kalahari along Antarctica's Maud mountain belt, which represents a continuation of the Grenville mountain belt of eastern and southern North America.

At about the time Antarctica was linked with North America and colliding with Kalahari, Earth was experiencing a number of other monumental changes. The Pacific Ocean basin was just about to open, the planet may have been covered with glaciers ― a time now referred to as "Snowball Earth " ― and complex multicellular life was appearing for the first time.

"We're trying to get a firm hand on what was happening when all these exciting things like Snowball Earth and multicellular life were going on. This is gradually helping to build that picture," Dalziel said.

The scientists detailed their findings online Aug. 5 in the journal Geology.

Rock Reunites Antarctica and North America
http://www.livescience.com/7530-rock-re ... erica.html

A solitary chunk of granite, small enough to heft in one hand, is key evidence that Australia and parts of Antarctica were once attached to North America, a new study suggests.

The Earth's continents are thought to have collided to become supercontinents and broken apart again several times in Earth's 4.5 billion year history. The most recent supercontinent was Pangaea, which began to break apart about 200 million years ago; the landmasses that comprised Pangaea eventually wandered into the current configuration of continents.

Several supercontinents predating Pangaea have been proposed by geologists, including one dubbed Rodinia that existed about 1.1 billion years ago.

For several decades, researchers have theorized that part of the ancient supercontinent Rodinia broke away from what is now the southwestern United States around 800 million to 600 million years ago, eventually drifting southward to become eastern Antarctica and Australia. The idea is known as the southwestern United States to East Antarctica (SWEAT) hypothesis.

But there was little physical evidence that could tie the southernmost continent to the long-disappeared Rodinia. Until scientists stumbled upon this rock, that is.

Granite rock belt

John Goodge of the University of Minnesota-Duluth and his team were searching in Antarctica's Transantarctic Mountains for rocks carried along by ice rivers that could provide clues to the composition of the underlying crust of Antarctica, which in most places is buried under 2 miles of ice.

One rock, found atop the so-called Nimrod Glacier, was later determined to be a very specific form of granite with what Goodge describes as having "a particular type of coarse-grained texture."

Chemical tests run on the rock later revealed that it has a chemistry "very similar to a unique belt of igneous rocks in North America" that stretch from California through New Mexico to Kansas, Illinois and eventually New Brunswick and Newfoundland in Canada, Goodge said.

This belt of rock was a part of what is called Laurentia, thought by some geologists to be the core of Rodinia.

The belt stops suddenly at its western margin, leading geologists to suspect that some piece of crust had rifted away from what is now the West Coast of the United States.

"It just ends right where that ancient rift margin is," Goodge said. "And these rocks are basically not found in any other part of the world."

That a small chunk of this rock should turn up on a glacier high in the mountains of Antarctica is strong evidence in support of the SWEAT model, the researchers say.

"There's no other explanation for how it got where we found it," Goodge said.

Biological change

At the time that this rift occurred, a massive change in Earth's biota, the Cambrian explosion, was also happening.

"During the Cambrian explosion about 520 million years ago we started seeing this huge expansion in the diversity of life forms," Goodge said.

Piecing together Rodinia helps provide a geological context in which this diversification occurred. The shifting configuration of landmasses, collisions between them, as well as erosion and the influx of chemicals into the seas may have provided the nutrients for that expanding diversity of lifeforms.

"Something helped trigger that big radiation in life," Goodge said.

The study, detailed in the July 11 issue of the journal Science, was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Look at how Australia and Antarctica line up.

See how the mountain range on Australia's east coast matches the Transantarctic Mountains in Antarctica.

Those mountains match up with the west coast of America.

When the articles talk about the mountains ranges coming from the same hunk of rock as America, this is what they mean.

1.jpg (19.8 KiB) Viewed 12357 times

2.jpg (16.3 KiB) Viewed 12357 times

3.jpg (12.78 KiB) Viewed 12357 times

4.jpg (10.45 KiB) Viewed 12357 times

Now look at the classic Neal Adams video of the Growing Earth. Run the video back and forth a few times and see how Antarctica snuggles up to Australia, then they both come up between Asia and America.

http://www.continuitystudios.net/clip00.html

This can only happen on a Growing Earth. You cannot have the mountains match geologically by carving oceans out of a constant diameter Earth. HA!

[Lloyd]

Galaxies Expansion

Allyn said: You cannot have new galaxies being formed from a finite supply of atoms spread all around. New atoms must be transmuted from the aether on a regular basis, or none of this EU stuff works. HA!

* Brant thinks most celestial objects are iron inside, maybe hollow, and act as antennas that transmute aether into electrons, which automatically makes objects charged. So Earth is making electrons inside, which then find their way outward, and making electric currents on the way.
Earth Expansion Limited
* Continental Drift has rather definitely occurred and some remnant motions are still ongoing. Earth expansion hasn't been as great as you seem to think. It may have expanded mostly from the outside, rather than the inside. Saturn used to eject lots of detritus which rained down on Earth and other satellites, causing some expansion. The transmutation of aether into electrons may cause some expansion too. But the thread, Breakthrough on How Continents Divided, has abundant evidence of continental "drift", which was actually sliding of the crust over the Moho layer. See especially http://newgeology.us. As I pointed out before, uniform expansion would cause the Earth's surface to break up into very small islands, not leave huge continents.

[Aardwolf]

As I pointed out before, uniform expansion would cause the Earth's surface to break up into very small islands, not leave huge continents.

However, that requires that the continents were exactly the same thickess and consisted of exactly the same mix of material and therefore strength. But as we know that's not true it makes more sense that it splits where it is weakest, and once these splits are formed they always remain the weakest, thinnest points. Aka faults.

Consider when any material splits ot tears. Does it happen at multiple equally dispersed points or does it start at one weak point and then continue?

[allynh]

One other point to make. Look at America, and notice that the west coast is labeled an "accretion belt".

The Neal Adams video takes things only as far back as when the current oceans formed. If you look at where Australia/Antarctica join with America, then take things back further, you would find that the so called "accretion belt" is where the split between Australia/Antarctica/America occurred forming a shallow sea between them.

i.e., the material in that "accretion belt" is newer than the Australia/Antarctica/America plate.

Australia/Antarctica/America split apart, forming a shallow sea between Australia/Antarctica and America. This all stayed stable for long enough to thicken the crust under that shallow sea, so that when you run the Adams video forward, that shallow sea crust stays with America as Australia/Antarctica slides away opening up a deeper ocean.

I love this stuff. HA!

[allynh]

Sigh....

Read the TPOD:

Galactic Hexagon
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... exagon.htm

Both the EU guys and the BA guy are equally wrong when they use fluid dynamics to slam the other. Watch the videos, and realize that we don't know what is happening in the tanks of fluid.

Saturn's Strange Hexagon Simulated in Laboratory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eH8dJgJG-c

Saturn's Hexagon Replicated In Laboratory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQzLY17ncWM

Fluid mechanics/dynamics is a way to model electricity. You use fluid models, then look to see if something similar is happening in electricity. Watch the various videos and ask if you have seen something similar in the various TPODs and essays from the EU guys when they talk about the Electrical Universe.

Fluid Mechanics - Cool science experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KKFtgx2anY

Fluid Mechanics - flow around cylinder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6yB90vno1E

Fluid Mechanics - Cool Science Trick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ghBUcQG1lQ

Laminar flow vs turbulent flow (smooth vs corrugated tubes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG-YCpAGgQQ

Fluid Mechanics - turbulence - vortex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQHXIHpvcvU

Vortex shedding from a circular cylinder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AJgEa2dbJU

I'd say that the answer is, "Yes!"

It is important to use the fluid mechanics models as a way to illuminate electrical phenomenon. It is a tool. Use it, don't dismiss it.

BTW, If you can explain how the colors spread then are restored in this example, then claim your Nobel. HA!

Cool Science Trick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4zd4Qpsbs8

[starbiter]

Hello Allyn: The link below might explain the polygon from your last post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics

This concerns the work of Hannes Alfven. He received the Nobel prize in physics for this work.

It was suggested to me that the experiment creating the polygon in liquid might have a different outcome if it was performed in a Faraday cage.

michael