NPA Conference - Plasma Cosmology Questions

[Lloyd]

Kanarev Answers Questions about Electricity
Hello Prof. Kanarev.
* I've read several of your papers, especially about electrons, photons etc.
* I think you said photons are the exclusive carriers of energy. Is that correct?
Heat energy only. [I previously thought he meant photons carry all energy.]
* Is electricity a flow of electrons and photons?
Only electrons.
* And do the electrons emit and absorb photons from one to another all in the same direction of the electric current?
No.... Electric current is the electrons flow only.
* If there are 4 electrons in a row within a conductor, labeled e1, e2, e3 & e4, does electricity involve e1 emitting a photon, which is absorbed by e2, then e2 emits a second photon, absorbed by e3, then e3 emits a photon, absorbed by e4, and so on?
[Aproximately so.] [This answer seems to contradict his earlier answer that electricity is a flow of electrons only.]
* Does positive lightning involve the flow of protons, or positive ions, along with photons?
The positive electricity is protons only.
* Can protons emit and absorb only UV photons, or photons with shorter wavelengths than UV?
Much shorter. Roentgen [x-ray] or gamma photons.
* Does the solar wind, which is made mostly of protons, generate magnetic fields?
The solar wind is the flow of electrons, nuclear parts and protons.
* Does the solar wind carry electricity from the sun outward?
No, it is not electricity. The electricity is the flow of electrons in the cable and ions in water or in air.
[I guess I'll have to ask him how the auroras are powered, if not from the Sun.]

[mharratsc]

Does the solar wind carry electricity from the sun outward?
No, it is not electricity. The electricity is the flow of electrons in the cable and ions in water or in air.
[I guess I'll have to ask him how the auroras are powered, if not from the Sun.]

Wow... he's a professor?? o.O

[Lloyd]

* Can we avoid putdowns?

[orrery]

Question from me:

"Is there a theoretical size limit to a Star?"

When I look at galaxies like the Hoag's Object I find it difficult to separate the stars that make up the Nucleus. I have often wondered that those Galactic Nucleus may actually be gigantic Stars being fueled by extraordinary amounts of current from the galactic ring.

[Lloyd]

Plasma Redshift Cosmology
- Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the intrinsic redshifts of stars, quasars, the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background.

Upcoming video conference.
To participate, you only need a computer, and internet hookup, and sound.

Date: Saturday, April 30, 2011
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2011-04-30 10:00 AM
Rio: 2011-04-30 11:00 AM
Rome: 2011-04-30 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2011-04-30 07:30 PM
Sydney: 2011-05-01 12:00 AM

Length: 2 hours
Guest Speaker: Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson
Interests: Cosmology, Redshift

Nationality: Icelandic / USA
Abstracts: 6
Read details at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... ay&id=1204.

- A new interaction, plasma redshift, is derived, which is important only when photons penetrate a hot, sparse electron plasma. The derivation of plasma redshift is based entirely on conventional axioms of physics.
- When photons penetrate a cold and dense plasma, they lose energy through ionization and excitation, Compton scattering on the individual electrons, and Raman scattering on the plasma frequency.
- But in sparse hot plasma, such as in the solar corona, the photons lose energy also in plasma redshift. The energy loss per electron in the plasma redshift is about equal to the product of the photon's energy and one half of the Compton cross-section per electron.
- In quiescent solar corona, this heating starts in the transition zone to the corona and is a major fraction of the coronal heating.
- Plasma redshift contributes also to the heating of the interstellar plasma, the galactic corona, and the intergalactic plasma.
- Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the intrinsic redshifts of stars, quasars, the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background. The plasma redshift explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SNe Ia without the big bang, dark matter, or dark energy. It explains also the observed surface brightness of galaxies.
- There is no cosmic time dilation. The universe is not expanding.
- The plasma redshift, when compared with experiments, shows that the photons' classical gravitational redshifts are reversed as the photons move from the Sun to the Earth, provided they have adequate time to change their frequency. This is a quantum mechanical effect. As seen from the Earth, a repulsion force acts on the photons.
- This means that there is no need for Einstein's Lambda term. The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting. The universe can renew itself forever.

[PersianPaladin]

I take serious issue with any professor who claims that electricity is the flow of electrons only. Charge is manifested in protons as well as electrons, and they exert forces just as electrons do.

More on this elaborated here:-
http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html

[Lloyd]

Copernican Theory Is Unfounded
When in session, click here to join the video conference: http://live.worldsci.org
[Wow, this is really weird, the theory is that the Earth is motionless and the center of the Universe. Pawel has interesting articles at http://wiser.tv/physics. See end for list of weird articles etc.]

Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2011-05-14 10:00 AM
Rio: 2011-05-14 11:00 AM
Rome: 2011-05-14 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2011-05-14 07:30 PM
Sydney: 1969-12-31 07:00 PM
Length: 2 hours

Where: Online Video Conference
Contact: David Scott de Hilster
Info Tel: 310-991-5744
Email: david@dehilster.com

Pal Asija, David Scott de Hilster, Robert A. Kerr, Pawel Kolasa, Prof. Rati Ram Sharma, Greg Volk
Maybe (1): Paul V. Sheridan
Guest Speaker: Pawel Kolasa, Author
Interests: Relativity, Newtonian Physics, Motionless Earth

Nationality: Polish
Abstracts: 2
- The whole world believes Copernicus proved that the Earth goes around [the] Sun. This belief is so basic, so widespread that no one ever actually asks for evidence to prove Copernican Theory. In fact, there is no such evidence and Copernicus's book "Revolutionibus" doesn't contain it. "Revolutionibus" contains irrelevant data, some of which is incorrect, according to Prof. Stephen Hawking. Since Copernican theory was presumed true, astronomy was adjusted with the prejudice to support this belief.
- Indeed, the Copernican Theory was never proved, yet it is accepted because of fear of ridicule to ask for actual evidence. The threat of ridicule and ostracism, successfully blocked all inquiries. Until NOW.
- I'm alleging that the Copernican Theory was never proved and that his book doesn't contain a single piece [of] evidence to support his claim. Later scientists like Johannes Kepler, were already biased, being schooled as Copernicans. They didn't test Copernican Theory objectively, but adjusted their finding to a heliocentric view. That's why Johannes Kepler saw circular orbits as elliptical.
- If you attend my presentation, please download "Revolutionibus" first. Use search feature for "Sun" and "Earth" to find all sentences with those words, and see for yourself that, there is no evidence to support Copernican Theory. I asked many physicists and astronomers for such evidence and no one has any. Not only is Copernican Theory unfounded, but 3D astronomy programs like cybersky can be used to prove that the geocentric model works just like Copernican model would. When planning space missions, NASA presumes Earth to be motionless.

Abstract; Author
Copernican Theory is Unfounded; Pawel Kolasa

[List of Pawel's weird articles at http://wiser.tv/physics:]
Flaws in Theories of Investing in Stock Market
Perpetuum Mobile [perpetual motion?] and Closed System EXIST! It's the UNIVERSE!
Centrifugal Force Can't Create "Gravity" In Rotating Spaceship
Anthropic Principle
How Archimedes Burned Ships Using Mirrors
Big Bang
Max Planck's Quantum Hypothesis About Quantas of Light Waves
Sun's "Gravity" Can't Attract Light
"If The Tree Fell" Paradox
Entropy Principle
Transfer of Liquid
Atmospheric Pressure
Newton And Action - Reaction Law
Insights into Keppler's Law
Specific Heat Capacity
Black Holes or Blind Faith?
Magnetic And Electric Fields
Newton's Force And Work
Einstein's Relativity And Other Myths
Niels Bohr And His Model of Atom
Richard Feynman And Sum Over History Theory
Uncertainty Principle Revised
The Earth Is Motionless Center of The Universe http://www.wiser.tv/physics/motionless.html
"If for every action there was an equal an opposite reaction, no action would be possible" (Pawel Kolasa).
I can produce animated version of your physics theory. Contact me for current rates.
Comments e-mail to: pkolasa@hotmail.com]

[Lloyd]

Gravity Group
When in session, click here to join the video conference: http://live.worldsci.org
Date: Sunday, May 15, 2011

Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2011-05-15 10:00 AM
Rio: 2011-05-15 11:00 AM
Rome: 2011-05-15 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2011-05-15 07:30 PM
Sydney: 1969-12-31 07:00 PM
Length: 2 hours

Where: Online Video Conference
Tel: 562-985-3148

David Scott de Hilster, Mike de Hilster, Bob de Hilster, Dr. Jerry Hynecek, Robert A. Kerr, Prof. Rati Ram Sharma, Mark Spann
Group Leader: Bob de Hilster - Electrical Engineer (Retired)
Interests: Gravity
Nationality: USA
Abstracts: 7

There will be a special presentation by Dr. Rati Sharma on his theory of gravity.
I will spend a short time on Newton's third principle. Newton uses the word 'action' and it is not defined.
My dictionary has 9 different definitions of action.
I don't have a scientific definition for action.
If you have a scientific definition of action, please send it to me.

The agenda:
* Opening remarks
* Newton's third principle
* Introduction of Dr. Sharma.
* Questions and comments
* Next meeting.

Abstract; Author
Unified Theory's Gravitation as Interaction via Sharmon Medium; Prof. Rati Ram Sharma

Bob de Hilster
Assumptions:
An ideal continuum cannot apply force (2009-11-05 20:59:48)
The speed of gravity is finite (2009-12-08 14:13:29)
The star is the source of gravity just as it is the source of light (2009-12-07 13:56:25)
The universe consists of objects that move (2010-11-01 18:49:09)
There is no equation written by man that precisely describes nature (2009-12-02 13:31:16)
Use the math that fits the physics rather than forcing the physics to fit the math (2009-11-09 09:32:53)

Definitions:
Inertia: Inertia is an effect of gravity where gravity imposes an equal force in all directions on an object and causes that object to remain in its present state of rest or uniform motion (2010-11-20 09:07:20)
Gravity: Is a force that causes objects to move toward each other (2009-11-11 09:22:32)
Space: Is a man made idea for locating objects and is a volume in which an object can exist. (2010-11-01 18:48:28)
Time: Is a man made idea to measure motion (2010-11-01 18:47:06)
Constant: Is an independent variable with a precise value. (2009-11-14 10:01:31)
Mass: Is the measure of resistance that an object gives to a specific force. It is a value assigned to an object to help determine its motion (2010-11-20 09:09:36)
Centrifugal Force: There is no cause for centrifugal force, therefore it does not exist (2010-12-25 14:24:19)

Related Websites: Einstein Wrong - http://www.einsteinwrong.com/main

Abstracts & Media Online:
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... play&id=39

[jjohnson]

On the question of what constitutes electricity, or, more accurately, I side with Ian Sefton's definition of its a flow of charged particles. More here. I'd like to add a qualifier, in that it is a bulk or average movement of the same charged particles in a given direction, to avoid an electrostatic situation (like the dancing of partially charged dust particles, which is motion, to be sure, and at least partially charged, but Brownian or random motion, and not a net bulk motion of "a whole lot" — STOD, or Scientific Term of the Day — of charged particles along, say, the axis of a conductor.

You can have positive charges moving in the electric field (voltage differential) inside the conductor, and negative charges, typically electrons, moving the other direction, and you still have a current - they don't cancel!
You can have an alternating current as everyone knows, with an exceedingly small drift velocity of electrons, with the bulk of their motion being sinusoidal or back and forth as the voltage (electric field) inside the conductor increases from zero to a maximum and back to zero (giving an acceleration to the electrons in one direction, and then the voltage drops from zero to its maximum negative value and then increases back up to zero again, during which the electrons reverse their direction.

What is important is that the charged particles keep moving. When they move, they create a magnetic field. Whether they move or they don't, all they create is an electric field, like all good electrically-charged particles. But when you have both an electric field and a magnetic field surrounding the space around current conductors, you have an electromagnetic field which appears to be what both transmits and stores electrical energy. The only function assigned to the moving charges is the creation of the electromagnetic field, where the interesting function of energy transmission actually occurs, outside the conductors.

I'd guess that the solar 'wind' is indeed a current, in that there is a bulk flow of charged particles in (at least) the heliospheric current sheet, and quite likely, according to Don Scott, at the solar poles as well. Good measurements of the total flows and the flow rate by positive and by negatively charged particles are hard to come by, (the ACES satellite does well, but only where it happens to be located at the time) with which we might better characterize the flow rate or "flux" of moving particles and map the energy flows among the Sun, planets and other bodies and the heliopause. Evidence of Earth's being fed a current of electricity is provided by the lighting up of our big fluorescing polar displays, along with the possibility that weather and telluric currents and seismic disturbances and a host of other phenomena are also evidence supporting the idea that our planet is intimately and electrically connected to the Sun's electrical output.

[mharratsc]

Hey Jim- wouldn't it be correct to say that electrostatic means 'charge in isolation', and electromagnetic means 'charges in the process of equalization and generating a magnetic field'?

[Lloyd]

Gravity Group [mentioned above] Is Moved to June
Robert de Hilster had surgery on Wednesday and everything went well. He is recovering but said he will not be able to conduct the gravity video conference this Sunday. It has been moved to Sunday morning, June 5th.

[Lloyd]

Online Video Conference: Saturday, May 21, 2011
Exploding Wires and the Possibility of Solid State Ion Colliders for Low Energy Lattice Assisted Nuclear Transmutations

When in session, click here to join the video conference: http://live.worldsci.org.

Date: Saturday, May 21, 2011
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2011-05-21 10:00 AM
Rio: 2011-05-21 11:00 AM
Rome: 2011-05-21 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2011-05-21 07:30 PM
Sydney: 1969-12-31 07:00 PM
Length: 2 hours

Where: Online Video Conference
Contact: David Scott de Hilster

Pal Asija, Ivor Catt, David Scott de Hilster, Lou Ellen LaFollette, Don Mitchell, Theophanes E. Raptis, Prof. Rati Ram Sharma, Greg Volk

Guest Speaker: Theophanes E. Raptis
"rtheo" Physicist, Software Developer
Interests: Applied Math, Discrete Systems, Automata Theory, Fredkin-zuse Thesis, Beltrami Fields, Propulsion
Nationality: Greek

The phenomenon of wire explosions under severe current surges of several kA (peak current) under several kV of applied voltage was known from the 60s from the first experiments of Nasilowski. A complete description in terms of Maxwell electrodynamics was thought lacking until recently, while Pappas, Graneau, Rambaut and Vigier were arguing about longitudinal current forces in the old Weber’s electrodynamics.

We showed that a perfectly rational explanation even below the fragmentation limit is possible in terms of Maxwellian theory and provided a formula that was later used to exploit this effect in experiments with metallic wires and strips. Metallurgical microscopy showed the violent extraction of metal pieces during the first current pulses while signs of periodic “burning” and zigzag like fatigue showed the role of stationary waves of low frequency around the main harmonic in the fast transient regime.

Molokov (2000) gave similar formulas including thermoplastic effects in very high voltage explosive experiments. Neutron emission was earlier reported in Vigier’s heavy water drill patent and experiments as well as in some other laboratories with Z-Pinch, X-Pinch devices that show the possibility of transmutations.

We currently examine the possibility of fine tuning of similar devices below the fragmentation threshold for energy production with an intermediate thermal stage. Appropriate “fuel” is currently based on properly prepared alloys and compounds with a combination of light and heavy isotopes. It is hoped that careful simulations based on new techniques combining MD/FEM to include the electron cloud in the lattice may allow us to obtain a good approximation of the collision statistics from which any increase in the reaction rates of naturally active isotopes can be computed.

Pending patent application No. 446, "METHOD FOR IONIC COLLISIONS UNDER HIGH POWER ELECTRICAL PULSES IN METALLIC LATTICES"

Biography:
Theophanes Raptis is currently employed as a research associate in EU research projects at the R&D Unit of the Division of Applied Technologies, in the National Centre for Science & Research Demokritos institute of Athens. He is also a research associate at the Dept. of Physical Chemistry in the University of Athens (Prof J. Samios). He has a Bsc in Physics from the University of Crete (1995) and he has followed a post graduate training in theoretical and solid state physics from the physics sector of the National Technical University of Athens during a Phd studentship from the Material Science Institute of the NCSR Demokritos (1997-1999). He has also worked as a research assistant in Protein Folding and Molecular Dynamics problems in the Queen Mary University of London (2000-2001). He was employed as a scientific consultant for the company “Applied Endophysics Ltd” in London, UK, (2001-2003). His research interests are focused on computational physics applications as well as computational modeling and simulation of physical and abstract dynamical systems, cellular automata and complex systems. He has experience in FORTRAN, C/C++, MATLAB and basic knowledge of MAPLE, REDUCE and Maxima programming environments. He has developed a special suite of programs for Molecular Mechanics and Monte-Carlo Optimization of polymeric structures with Dr V. Raptis at the Physical Chemistry Dept in the University of Ioannina. He is the main developer of LexTools, a forthcoming MATLAB package for the analysis of abstract symbolic sequences in any alphabet based on the properties of polynomial representations of integer powersets.

[Lloyd]

Does Faraday Allow Superposition?
[Mr. Catt says: "two fields of opposite polarity travel together, one with current in one direction down each wire, superposed with the other with current in the opposite direction down the same wire." And I think what that means is electricity in wires moves as a double layer, just as in plasma. See his whole statement below, which also relates to contradictions to General Relativity.]

When in session, click here to join the video conference: http://live.worldsci.org

Date: Saturday, June 4, 2011
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
New York: 2011-06-04 10:00 AM
Rio: 2011-06-04 11:00 AM
Rome: 2011-06-04 04:00 PM
Delhi: 2011-06-04 07:30 PM
Sydney: 1969-12-31 07:00 PM
Length: 2 hours

Where: Online Video Conference

Contact: David Scott de Hilster
Info Tel: 310-991-5744
Email: david@dehilster.com

Yes (9): Kadir Akkaya, Pal Asija, Ivor Catt, David Scott de Hilster, Thomas Findlay, Lou Ellen LaFollette, Don Mitchell, Prof. Rati Ram Sharma, Greg Volk
Guest Speaker:

Ivor Catt
Electronics Engineer (Retired)
Interests: Electromagnetism

Nationality: English
Books: 11
Abstracts: 17
[See much more at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?t ... lay&id=446 including books to read online.]

The speed of an electric current has always been a matter for discussion. This went nowhere while it was not realized that the energy delivered from a battery to a lamp traveled at the speed of light. Traditionally, it involved both electricity and traveling field. Linking this with the idea that electrons traveling at the speed of light would have infinite mass, a crisis for electricity which became clearer with the advent the pulses in digital electronics was evaded for the next half century. Ever more glaring flaws in this misalliance in classical electromagnetism were pointed out during the last thirty years and ignored, culminating in the present very clear, simple exegesis, where two fields of opposite polarity travel together, one with current in one direction down each wire, superposed with the other with current in the opposite direction down the same wire.

[jjohnson]

This should be a very interesting discussion. I wasn't aware that fields "travel", other than a wavefront moving at the speed of light (in the local medium) when a charge is neutralized or a neutral atom ionized, and the like.

In a conventional electric circuit, I think it's widely known that the electrons do not and cannot move at the speed of light. Electron (or more generally, charged particle motion, or current) is required in order for energy ("electricity") to be distributed to all parts of a circuit. The source of power, be it a battery or an alternator or a generator, etc., creates a separation of charge, or voltage differential at one point (or many if the circuit is not "simple"). This is the definition of electric "field"; as soon as it arises, it spreads out at the speed of light, initiating a net movement of the available charged particles within the conductors of the circuit.

The slightest movement of the charged particles, be they negatively charged or polarized such as electrons and moved in one direction, or positively charged, such as ions or protons, and moved by the electric field in the opposite direction, such motion creates another field - a magnetic field, which also arises at the speed of light. Once there is this electro-magnetic field about the circuit, energy flow from the power source to the entire circuit commences. Electrical energization thus occurs at the speed of light.

In the direct current (DC) case, the charges "drift" slowly along the conductors. In the AC case, the electric field varies (usually sinusoidally if it is excited by a circular motion of a generator or alternator) in time and "direction" or polarity, so charged particles only move back and forth, with little net motion along the conductor. The flow of energy is described by Poynting vectors, as Australian teacher Ian Sefton explains in his paper on "What the textbooks don't tell you". Poynting wrote his two papers on the EM vectors and the resultant energy flow vector, aka the Poynting vector, in 1884 and 1885.

I gave Miles Mathis a link to Sefton's paper recently. Of course, being Miles as he is, he wrote a paper on the physical causes of the transmission of energy, claiming that both the "energy travels via charged particles" interpretation and the Poynting vector interpretation are wrong, and showing that his charge field interpretation using collisions of photons is the right way to look at this effect. While I see the Universe as a pretty mechanical place, I am not proficient enough in Miles's math manipulations to assess whether or not his methodology produces consistently right results - that is, that they would always accord with a real observation in a variety of cases. His logic is pretty good, and I am drawn to a mechanical interpretation, but he deals with stuff on such a small scale, where "real things" (whatever those are) have not being able to be resolved on any individual basis.

However, here would be one interesting experiment to try.

Have a generator that has a reasonably powerful output at its two terminals. Connect a 2000 km length of wire to the two terminals, resulting in a circuit, if the wires were stretched out full length, that is 1000 km long (each way).

Install a simple on-off switch in one wire about a meter from the generator, leaving it open, or "OFF". Install a light bulb at the 1000 km point. Bring the light bulb and its connecting wires back to a point 1 m from the (running) generator.

Throw the switch, starting a timing circuit that signals when the light bulb lights up.
According to Poynting's Theory, as soon as the electric field of the generator starts electrons in motion, they produce a magnetic field, which expands at the speed of light. Since the light bulb in the now-closed circuit is but a meter away, would it not light up A) at time (1 m divided by c, m/s) second later? Or would it require energization of the entire length of wire to the light bulb, 1,000,000 m, in which case it wouldn't light up until B) (1,000,000m divided by c, m/s)? My guess is A). Needed: a very fast and precise timing mechanism.

Why A)? If you think of the generator's electrical field as "pushing the electrons in one direction "into the conductor", than, to balance that, the last meter of wire between the light bulb and the generator would simultaneously have its electrons feel an acceleration toward the generator and start moving. This creates the magnetic field and the electric field there close to the generator, so the energy of the generator has an EM field right there in which to transmit power into the light bulb.

Miles, of course, would just laugh at all this field business (which I find mathematically convenient, but not very mechanical or "real") and say that the charge field photons cross the meter to the light bulb and apply the energy that induces the Ohmic (or Joule) heating that heats up the filament and causes it to emit light.

Would anyone like to discuss the difference between transmission of "electricity" via an EM field, and the transmission of "light" via an EM field? Are they the same thing, in principle, with outcomes which differ depending on the receptor of the energy transmitted?

Jim

[Jarvamundo]

I've only had a breif review, but i am excited by this work...
It seems very much so, like Catt is continuing the work from Oliver Heaviside, who describes the electric-current as a side-wave to the energy-current. Charge then becomes the 'edge' artifact of this side wave. It's a totally different way of looking at electricity.

This is along the lines of the paper your previously mentioned Jim "What the books don't tell you". Some of the experiments, and work he mentions are along the lines of the questions you pose. Although he's not working with miles of wire, he's working with fast logic signals (pulses) on a tiny scale, but hey... i've no problems with testing hypothesis on that scale.

We need to be very careful with nomenclature and pre-conceived notions of 'particles down a wire', as Catt seems to be guiding us towards Heaviside's "most famous" contribution that conductors do not conduct electricity. Conductors are reflectors of electricity. They are train tracks, which guide the energy-current.

Catt has a number of interesting papers including "copper as an insulator", in which you can see how these energy currents are visualized.

I've the feeling that this is very much along the same lines of investigation of Dollard, as the artifacts of this decaying side-wave when the energy-current hits the insulator-then-reflector are what we call 'electrons'.

The paths of investigation seem to be well aligned between Heaviside, Catt & Dollard.

Refs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbWWrR4dgtw

This will fundamentally change how we view electricity. If we take the "reflector" model, then all these intergalactic webs of plasma become 'reflectors' of the energy currents flowing through the insulator (dielectric) "empty space".

Looking forward to the talk, must admit this dingo got up late a week early. Darnit.