Major Findings in Physical Sciences

[Lloyd]

Hurricanes
(Cross-posting at http://janrain.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-476 ... 8362-13084)

Lightning Frequency Predicts Hurricane Intensity
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... icanes.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/07/a ... -lightning
we analyse the evolution of maximum winds and total lightning frequency every 6 h during the entire lifetime of 56 hurricanes around the globe. We find that in all of these hurricanes, lightning frequency and maximum sustained winds are significantly correlated (mean correlation coefficient of 0.82), where the maximum sustained winds and minimum pressures in hurricanes are preceded by increases in lightning activity approximately one day before the peak winds. We suggest that increases in lightning activity in hurricanes are related to enhanced convection that increases the rate of moistening of the lower troposphere, which in turn leads to the intensification of hurricanes

[Lloyd]

Ball Lightning
(Cross=posting at http://janrain.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-476 ... 8362-13086)

Some Ball Lightning Is Burning Soil (esp. Silicon)
http://www.gizmag.com/first-optical-spe ... ning/30545
First optical spectrum taken of ball lightning

Ball lightning appears at the impact point of a lightning strike, and its emission spectrum is recorded for the first time by researchers in China. [] The ball lightning, which was accompanied by a cloud to ground lightning strike, appears to have consisted at least partially of vaporized soil from the location of the strike. While ball lightning may result from a variety of sources, this observation provides considerable evidence that the vaporized silicon explanation is valid, although possibly not unique. []

[] The reported size is usually between 1 and 100 cm (0.4-40 in), with the most common size being 10-20 cm. They do not tend to be extremely bright, usually appearing rather like an incandescent lamp in surface brightness. Colors include red, orange, and yellow. The balls persist for times between about a second and a minute, and tend to move at a few meters per second, often, but not always, horizontally. They seem to be able to pass through closed doors and windows, and even penetrate areas which are usually proofed against lightning. Their final decay is usually rapid, and can range from benign to rather large explosions. []

The July 2012 observation of a spherical ball lightning being produced by a lightning strike in China has changed the situation considerably. Physicist Ping Yuan and his team from Northwest Normal University in Gansu Province, China, had positioned spectrographs to investigate lightning on northwest China's Tibetan Plateau. They recorded both a spectrum and a high-speed video of a ball lightning that appeared following a cloud-to-ground lightning strike which struck about 900 meters (3,000 ft) from their spectrographs.

While the apparent size of the glow on the spectrograph was about five meters (16 ft), the physicists report that the actual size of the ball was "much smaller," bringing the observation into accord with historic reports. The color of the ball changed from its initial white to a reddish glow during its persistence of just over a second. It was observed to drift horizontally about 10 meters and ascend perhaps 3 meters during its life. []

The spectrum contained emission lines corresponding to the presence of silicon, iron, and calcium in the light of the ball lightning. As these are elements common in the soil of the region, the evidence suggests that this ball lightning is an example of the vaporized silicon mechanism.

The idea is that the lightning strike vaporizes some of the soil it hits, freeing nanoparticles of silicon, and that vaporized silicon then burns in the atmosphere. Previously experiments in which silicon wafers were struck with an electric arc produced luminous balls about the size of golf balls that danced around while glowing for several seconds.

Combined with the new spectral information, it seems likely that this ball lightning, at least, is an example of a vaporized silicon ball lightning. As mentioned earlier, there may be several varieties of ball lightning, each having a different dominant mechanism. At least we now have a start on sorting out this ancient mystery.

The video below shows the ball lightning on the left, and the spectrum of its light on the right. It is slowed down by a factor of about seven.

[Lloyd]

Space is a Conductor, Not an Insulator
Both the mainstream and EU claim that space is an insulator, but Charles Chandler explains otherwise at http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 454#p95454. He's been saying that here for probably 2 years or more, but this is the first time I've seen a detailed explanation that seems to prove the case. Here's a quote.

"A vacuum is actually a conductor, and the reason that it won't produce a spark is that there isn't enough resistance to set up the instability of a breakdown voltage, because there is nothing to break down. Proving this is easy -- get set up to measure the Paschen curve, but instead of just measuring pressure and the gap distance at which sparks occur, also hook up an ammeter to measure the current. At too much of a gap, there is too much resistance. So there is no spark, and very little current. At just the right gap, you get a spark, and there will be a surge in current. At too small of a gap, you won't get a spark, but look at the ammeter -- it will show that all of the current available is flowing through the wires and across the gap -- it just doesn't encounter enough resistance to have to tunnel through it with a spark.
- "So perfect vacuums are perfect conductors, and electric currents in space don't need to find a nearby filament to act as a wire -- they would flow more easily through the less dense surroundings. But electric currents in space are rare, because it's tough to get a charge separation within a near-perfect conductor. Without any capacitance, the force that separates charges has to be dynamic and sustained.
- [] for current to flow through a copper wire, the hop through the inter-atomic space has to be through a conducting vacuum, and even inside a crystal lattice it's mostly empty space, so I don't see how any currents at all would be possible if a vacuum was a perfect insulator."

Question
How does dark mode electric discharge relate to space being an insulator?

[CharlesChandler]

How does dark mode electric discharge relate to space being an insulator?

Some of the people who believe that the Sun is externally powered also believe that space is an insulator, and this would be problematic for the external power source. So they believe that the current follows filaments through space, like wires connecting the stars. There is certainly no shortage of filaments in space, but their role as current-carrying devices needs to be reassessed.

[Solar]

Space is a Conductor, Not an Insulator
Both the mainstream and EU claim that space is an insulator, but Charles Chandler explains otherwise at http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 454#p95454. He's been saying that here for probably 2 years or more, but this is the first time I've seen a detailed explanation that seems to prove the case. Here's a quote.

"A vacuum is actually a conductor, and the reason that it won't produce a spark is that there isn't enough resistance to set up the instability of a breakdown voltage, because there is nothing to break down. Proving this is easy -- get set up to measure the Paschen curve, but instead of just measuring pressure and the gap distance at which sparks occur, also hook up an ammeter to measure the current. At too much of a gap, there is too much resistance. So there is no spark, and very little current. At just the right gap, you get a spark, and there will be a surge in current. At too small of a gap, you won't get a spark, but look at the ammeter -- it will show that all of the current available is flowing through the wires and across the gap -- it just doesn't encounter enough resistance to have to tunnel through it with a spark.
- "So perfect vacuums are perfect conductors, and electric currents in space don't need to find a nearby filament to act as a wire -- they would flow more easily through the less dense surroundings. But electric currents in space are rare, because it's tough to get a charge separation within a near-perfect conductor. Without any capacitance, the force that separates charges has to be dynamic and sustained.
- [] for current to flow through a copper wire, the hop through the inter-atomic space has to be through a conducting vacuum, and even inside a crystal lattice it's mostly empty space, so I don't see how any currents at all would be possible if a vacuum was a perfect insulator."

Question
How does dark mode electric discharge relate to space being an insulator?

The fundamentals above are principles of electrodynamic theory as put forth by Oliver Heaviside using today's terminology ("vacuum"). This is the reason Heaviside said: “We reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy transmitted through the medium around it.” (”Electrical Papers” Vol. 1, page 438, by Oliver Heaviside.)

It is also why Heaviside considered what are now called "conductors" (metals for example) to actually be "obstructors" to the actual "flow of energy" occurring in the "medium" (dielectric) surrounding the metal. Consider Heaviside's reasoning for another famous deduction wherein "a perfect conductor is a perfect obstructor". In other words; the presence of the metal actually obstructs the flow of energy spatially surrounding the wire. This is also why "Electrons have nothing to do with the flow of electricity. Electrons are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. Electrons are the resistance." - Eric Dollard:

Internal Obstruction and Superficial Conduction

"The properties of a perfect conductor are derived from those of common conductors by examining what would happen if the resistivity were continuously reduced, and ultimately became zero. In this way we find that a perfect conductor is a perfect obstructor, for one thing, which idea is singularly at variance with popular notions regarding conductors. But it is also a perfect conductor literally, though in a different sense to that commonly understood. Ohm's law has played so important a part in the development of electrical knowledge, especially on the practical side, that it is really not at all a matter of wonder that some practicians should have been so reluctant to take in the idea of a conduction as an obstructor.

Scientific men who can follow the reasoning by which the functions of conductors follow from known facts have no difficulty in pursuing the consequences far beyond experimental observation. Again, younger men, with fewer prejudices to surmount, do not find much trouble with superficial conduction and internal obstruction. But the old established practitioner with prejudices, who could not see the reason, was put into a position of some difficulty - resembling chancery. If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner - especially if he sat at the feet of Faraday. Beetles could do that. Besides, the old practitioner is apt to measure the value of science by the number of dollars he thinks it is likely to bring into his pocket, and if he does not see the dollars, he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy! - Electromagnetic Theory, Volume 1: Oliver Heaviside

Obviously very little to nothing has changed.

"Electricity" is a property resulting from the movement of "space" ("vacuum"). Superficial "electrification" is a property exhibited by objects that impede that movement ("resistance"). Yes, "space" is the actual "conductor", or 'transmitter' of the electrical forces.

[Lloyd]

I said previously: Question: How does dark mode electric discharge relate to space being an insulator?

I meant to ask: How does dark mode electric discharge relate to space being a conductor? Can things like the solar wind be regarded as dark mode discharge? Do ammeters on spacecraft register amps?

[CharlesChandler]

@Solar: nice quote from Heaviside!

How does dark mode electric discharge relate to space being a conductor? Can things like the solar wind be regarded as dark mode discharge? Do ammeters on spacecraft register amps?

I'd call the solar wind a dark discharge, though most EEs would probably say that the drift of a volume of charged particles isn't a current at all -- a "current" is electrons hopping along a valence band in a crystal lattice. Still, if a "current" is defined as moving electric charges, that includes mass migrations of plasma with a net charge, of which the solar wind is an example. As concerns spacecraft, I can't recall hearing of any ammeters, but there was the time that some fool decided to string out a wire some distance from the spacecraft just to see what happened, perhaps as a toe-dipping exercise related to the "space tether" lunacy. Anyway, the wire overheated due to the current flowing through it, so you could call that an ammeter of sorts.

[seasmith]

ø
There seem to be quite a few claims in this sub forum, of this or that 'belief' attributed to some generic "EU" entity.
I've never seen an EU creed, and it would be nice, when those attributions are made, to be provided some supporting and reasonable link. For example, a reasonable assertion of "space being an insulator" hasn't been seen by this long-time viewer (tho i stand to be corrected).
Re 'filaments', 'jets' and the like, there has to be reason for their relative confinement, and occasional visibility.
so, ønce again it seems we are back down to aetheric substrates (which Solar and Heaviside seem to be implying) and induced alignments/orientations.
[ergo Potentials~ primary to Fields~]

But it's all fun discourse

[CharlesChandler]

Re 'filaments', 'jets' and the like, there has to be reason for their relative confinement, and occasional visibility. so, ønce again it seems we are back down to aetheric substrates (which Solar and Heaviside seem to be implying) and induced alignments/orientations.

I don't follow -- how did you get from "has to be reason" to "back down to aetheric substrates"? Filaments are predicted and easily simulated with electrostatics, which is directly applicable because we know that the plasma is ionized.

As concerns the conductivity issue, this is from the Essential Guide, Chapter 6: Currents, Filaments and Pinches:

Evidence of filaments and electric currents in space is widespread. Filamentary structure is acknowledged by most astronomers to exist at all levels, from the solar system to galactic and intergalactic scales. The only area of disagreement between the Electric Model and the Gravity Model is whether these filaments are current-carrying structures, naturally following the laws of plasma electrodynamics, or somehow fluid ‘jets’ thousands of light-years long, gravitationally driven in accordance with computer simulations of the hypothesized gravity forces due to cold dark matter (CDM).

In order to be current-carrying structures, the filaments would have to be better conductors than the surrounding medium. Then, the existence of such filaments are taken as evidence of currents, as in your statement that there "has to be a reason". Well, are the filaments actually better conductors, or is the surrounding vacuum a better conductor? (It's the latter.) And it's a false dichotomy to say that either the filaments are fluid dynamic, or electrodynamic. There is a third possibility: electrostatics.

[Solar]

Re 'filaments', 'jets' and the like, there has to be reason for their relative confinement, and occasional visibility. so, ønce again it seems we are back down to aetheric substrates (which Solar and Heaviside seem to be implying) and induced alignments/orientations.

I don't follow -- how did you get from "has to be reason" to "back down to aetheric substrates"? Filaments are predicted and easily simulated with electrostatics, which is directly applicable because we know that the plasma is ionized.

As concerns the conductivity issue, this is from the Essential Guide, Chapter 6: Currents, Filaments and Pinches:

Evidence of filaments and electric currents in space is widespread. Filamentary structure is acknowledged by most astronomers to exist at all levels, from the solar system to galactic and intergalactic scales. The only area of disagreement between the Electric Model and the Gravity Model is whether these filaments are current-carrying structures, naturally following the laws of plasma electrodynamics, or somehow fluid ‘jets’ thousands of light-years long, gravitationally driven in accordance with computer simulations of the hypothesized gravity forces due to cold dark matter (CDM).

In order to be current-carrying structures, the filaments would have to be better conductors than the surrounding medium. Then, the existence of such filaments are taken as evidence of currents, as in your statement that there "has to be a reason". Well, are the filaments actually better conductors, or is the surrounding vacuum a better conductor? (It's the latter.) And it's a false dichotomy to say that either the filaments are fluid dynamic, or electrodynamic. There is a third possibility: electrostatics.

Seasmith is correct. How are you, one questing for “truth”, not understanding what Seasmith has said when you are readily using fundamental principles of electrodynamics (Heaviside’s reasoning of space as 'dielectric conduction') established long ago from reasoning about the very same Aether Substratum?? "Dia" means "through"... dia-electric then means "that which electricity moves through", which you've noted is the "vacuum" also known as 'energetic space'.

Aetheric substrate is present. On the coat tails of modern physics you’ve simply adopted Aether Properties under another name - “vacuum” – while uttering fundamentals inherent of Its nature as put forth by Heaviside, Faraday et al. By way of reasoning from O. Heaviside’s “Internal Obstruction and Superficial Conduction” previously referenced above, and as known in the physics, the electro-motive forces are ‘transmitted’ of the “space” surrounding the material. The material then ‘obstructs’ and/or ‘reflects’ the movement of the impinging “fields” - which is but another characterization of ‘localized vacuum’.

It may be concluded that the so-called conducting material does not so much conduct as it does repel or reflect magnetism, or electro-magnetic energy in general.

If an electric circuit is conveying electro-magnetic energy as previously discussed it is found that a force or pressure is exerted upon the circuit material. This pressure tends to repel opposing parts of the circuit material and cause the circuit to expand. The quantity of this pressure in the space bounded by the circuit is called the magneto-motive force of the circuit.

It can therefore be seen that the conducting materials serve as the walls of a container holding magnetic pressure. If the conducting material is in the so-called superconducting state and the ends of the circuit are shorted the electric circuit will hold this magneto-motive pressure indefinitely, in analogy with compressed air stored in a tank. In order for this to be the result of electron flow requires that this flow be in perpetual motion, an unlikely proposition.

It may be concluded that materials called electric conductors might best be called electric obstructors and serve not to conduct electro-magnetism but serve to reflect it back on itself. The flow of electro-magnetism is conducted by the aethereous space bound by the obstructing material.

The character of this aethereous space is represented by its inductance L and its capacitance C. Since pure space is considered a perfect insulator by atomic theory, is it not ironic that it offers the least resistance to the flow of electro-magnetism? It is then the insulators that are the true conductors of electricity. – Eric Dollard: The Falacy of Conductors

It is odd to witness continual attempts to ‘dodge’ saying what is readily apparent and what has been deduced by way of reasoning from the Aether; and implemented to power modern society. This was the relevance of including those aspects of Heaviside’s deductions with regard to what becomes “fashionably current” as he cites what still occurs as exemplified in those quarters of the physics with regard to the long standing principle that expounds on the existence of an ‘all pervasive’ form of tenuous “matter” - now usurped as “energetic vacuum”, “Higgs-ness” et al.

This only underscores assessments given by member Viscount Aero with regard to Tesla and EM Theory in general (here). Neglected in popularized astrophysics is the inclusion of those Aether deduced electrodynamic relations from the very minds that codified the EM theory. Modern astrophysics can’t even bother to assess such things despite thousands of existing documents noting electrodynamics in space that dot the literature. Thus it is right and proper to ask - ‘Where’ is the inclusion of this neglected knowledge and deductions stemming from it in any theory that proposes that the universe is electric?’ – including an electrostatic model.

You can continue to assert that 'EU ideas' have supposedly tainted any electrodynamic assessments of cosmic and terrestrial affairs but it is more true that such a thing is only the secondary effects of certain aspects of EM Theory being rejected along these lines since the days of Tesla. To me, it would be more correct to realize that your electrostatic ideas share in that heritage.

[CharlesChandler]

To me, it would be more correct to realize that your electrostatic ideas share in that heritage.

Perhaps. I was just saying that the ubiquitous filaments in nature, at all scales, from polymerized molecules to the sinuous structure of nebulae, are easily understood in terms of the ability of neutrally charged matter to become electrically polarized, which produces a linear electrostatic body force between particles. Aggregates of such polarized particles then naturally prefer filamentary geometries. So there might be a substrate best described as aether, but the observations trace first to measurable electrostatic principles, and then to the next lower level, if one cares to pursue it deeper.

[Lloyd]

Solar Ty, can you speak more abstractly? Charles' electrostatic model makes nearly complete sense, much more clearly than the "EU" model. I sought for years to understand the EU model, but it never answered questions clearly. Charles' model does. He himself answers many questions directly and clearly, unlike EU.

[seasmith]

Charles wrote:

There is a third possibility: electrostatics.

[ergo Potentials~ (are) primary to Fields~]
-s

Inductance and capacitance are, in essence, electrostatic.

Before a so-called "field" is generated, there must be some form of electrical 'tension' in the volume, or what Faraday called an "electrotonic state".
Given that condition, there would appear to be any number of means of charge 'conduction' possible,
a term which probably deserves a thread of its own...

§

there's an EU model ?

[Solar]

Solar Ty, can you speak more abstractly?
Charles' electrostatic model makes nearly complete sense, much more clearly than the "EU" model. I sought for years to understand the EU model, but it never answered questions clearly. Charles' model does. He himself answers many questions directly and clearly, unlike EU.

Oh, don’t get me wrong Lloyd. I like Charles’ work. It’s not only clear; its consistent, with (my favorite part) references - this allows the reader to follow the train of thought and it augments his explanations. It is one of a very few theories that I’ve read and keep near for my own references. I’m *EXTREMELY* selective when it comes to this so, in my little subjective world, that is HUGE!

That being said, I’m like Sparky. The whole of physics has yet to answer a very few basic questions. What is “electricity?” What is “magnetism”? What is an “Electric Field”? What is “Gravity”? It is obvious to me that we’re dealing with an across the board lack of recognition of other ‘states of matter’. Today's theorist don’t say what ‘the stuff’ of these “Forces” is. Since Charles utilized a well-known aspect of electrodynamics covered in spades by O. Heaviside who knowingly reasoned from the Aether (as did most who codified the very foundation of the EM Theory that we now take for granted) and never wavered I wondered if he’d put any thought into That Aspect; is all.

[Lloyd]

Oldest & Youngest Stars in Clusters & Filaments

Morphix said: Oops! Star formation model had it backwards at http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =3&t=15038. [] "New insight into star cluster formation: Stars on the outskirts actually are the oldest" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132946.htm.

Celeste said: That's what I was saying back here already http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=14585.
- Blue stars (younger to the mainstream), are nearer the center of filaments, like Gould's Belt or the Local Chimney.
- The mainstream is still one step behind, however. They have to go back and add in what they found here http://rqgravity.net/VelocityDistribution
- As I pointed out in that earlier thread, not only are the blue stars nearer the center of the filaments, but they have a more common motion along the filament axis (giving a tighter velocity distribution for blue stars, than when we add in the redder stars).

Ty's Questions; Mathis' Answers Etc

Ty said: The whole of physics has yet to answer a very few basic questions. What is “electricity?” What is “magnetism”? What is an “Electric Field”? What is “Gravity”? It is obvious to me that we’re dealing with an across the board lack of recognition of other ‘states of matter’. Today's theorist don’t say what ‘the stuff’ of these “Forces” is. Since Charles utilized a well-known aspect of electrodynamics covered in spades by O. Heaviside who knowingly reasoned from the Aether (as did most who codified the very foundation of the EM Theory that we now take for granted) and never wavered I wondered if he’d put any thought into That Aspect; is all.

Aether. Charles has indicated that he doesn't want to think much about Aether until he understands the macrocosm better. Mathis has the best answers to your questions that I know of, where Aether is photons.
Electricity. He says electricity and the electric field are streams of photons in or on conductors, where photons have real mass and radius.
Magnetism. Magnetism is a field of coherently spinning photons and or ions, where the coherent spins cause some objects to veer off at right angles.
Gravity. His first explanation of gravity is what I consider to be absurd, i.e. that it is an outward expansion of all matter at a constantly increasing rate, where things seem to fall to Earth, for example, but he claims the Earth is expanding toward the objects that seem to be falling. I consider that absurd, because space would have to expand at the same rate as matter expansion and especially because accelerating expansion would surely require accelerating creation of matter within all matter in order to propel the matter expansion. His second theory is much better, I believe, which is that the universe spins and that causes gravity, maybe similar to centrifugal force. He doesn't accept my theory that photons that are emitted (recycled) from matter leave behind a lower density of photons, a partial vacuum, which "attracts" photons from the outer higher density regions, and the returning photons could produce the force of gravity. However, his explanation of electric current is that a greater proton density on one side of a battery produces a greater photon density there, which is "attracted" to the other battery terminal of lower photon density. So I think he needs to be consistent and admit that returning photons from space should be able to produce gravity.