Possible electrical scars on Planet Earth...

[MGmirkin]

27. Why the poles cannot discharge the “Big Lightning”, like the Aurora does? The aurora discharge the “electricity” that comes from the sun, which is much more intense then any “fly-by planet”. So why the “Big Lightning” go to the Grand Canyon and not to the aurora?

A couple points to ponder. Several state of discharge in plasma: dark mode (no visible light is generated; other wavelengths may be), glow mode (a "step up" from dark mode; more energetic; visible light is emitted) and arc mode (ostensibly the highest "level" of discharge; akin to lightning, electric sparks, etc.).

Auroras, sprites, neon and fluorescent lights are example of "glow mode" discharges.

( Sprites, Elves, and Glow Discharge Tubes)
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/P ... 41_1.shtml

They're "excited" enough to fluoresce, but not "so excited" they can't take it and "pop" (transitioning to "arc mode" and discharging lots of electricity at once in a big, axially confined spark). The "magnetic flux ropes" connecting the sun/Earth in an electrical circuit would be in "dark mode." We generally can't see those, because they're not emitting light (though I wouldn't be surprised if they might emit a bit in other parts of the spectrum...).

The auroras get enough electrical input to enter "glow mode," but not to enter "arc mode," so no big lightning at the poles, currently. As to why Earth and Mars might have chosen what is currently the equator of each as discharge points, I don't know. You'd probably have to ask them (geologically and electrically speaking). An interesting point to note is Earth's EEJ [Equatorial Electrojet] and radiation belts centered around the equator. Might it be that these were part of an interacting circuit? Unknown, but interesting to note nonetheless...

Also, proximity may play a factor. If two charged objects are brought into proximity, their behavior may differ based upon relative charges and distance. IE, as you bring objects closer together or increase their charge at the SAME distance, they may be more likely to discharge, one to the other. So, in that case, if a planet were a charged body, and were to pass increasingly close to another charged body, the closer they get, the more likely they may be to engage in a mutual discharge. In other words, changing the length of the "spark gap" may directly influence ability or proclivity to discharge. Same principle as static electricity on your hand versus a door knob. If you're standing 5 feet away from the door knob, your hand and the door knob could hardly care less about each other. As you walk toward the door and stretch out your hand toward the knob, you decrease the relative spark gap. Once your hand passes a critical point, the difference in charges becomes strong enough to initiate a "discharge." IE, you get within a few inches or centimeters of the knob and suddenly you get an unpleasant shock.

If two bodies came into proximity, the discharge may simply go on wherever is more convenient (where the bodies are closest and the electric field / voltage drop is the greatest)...

It's a good question though, and may help to constrain certain theories based on the stuff being discussed on the Mythology forum. IE, does the fact that EDM gouging may have taken place at the equators constrain where the involved bodies were with respect to each other when the discharge(s) took place? IE, which sides were facing at the time, how close / far they were with respect to each other, relative charge, etc?

Hope that helps a little. Again, I've only skimmed the thread and have to get going, but may check back at some point to see if I've managed to clarify anything (hope so) or simply added confusion (hope I've not made things worse?)...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

With regards to the missing mass of the grand canyon.
If mass is merely coalesced space , held together in a condition of dualistic binding of opposites, then if a huge flow of space of one flow of that dual nature strikes along an area of formed mass, surely the formed mass may merely revert to its origonal state?
Therefore there will be no-thing to find, as it will simply expand back out into space?
There may be no such thing as millions of years, merely cycles of time with sudden alterations in condition resulting in a vast alteration of mass.
Kevin

*Blank look*

Mmm, did you mean matter or mass? Mass is a property of matter that determines how it accelerates. It is not, as far as anyone knows, synonymous with matter itself. I don't think on can destroy matter (at the most basic level), merely change its energy state. I don't think anyone has a really great idea yet of exactly what the material (if it's not immaterial) stuff that makes up "matter" is, currently. So, I don't think the notion of it simply "vanishing without a trace" holds up.

My opinion. If it was removed, it had to "go" somewhere. The question is where. The answer is not immediately apparent. Though, in the electrical interpretation (which is speculative, but rather interesting), the materials was either finely divided and redeposited as boulders, rocks, pebbles, spherules or finely divided dust / sediment, or they were ejected into space and make up some portion of the interplanetary dust, rocks, asteroids, comets, etc.

Whether that interpretation is accurate remains to be seen. However, the finding of many meteorites consistent with the composition of Mars argues for the materials "somehow" being lofted into space in quantity. The question then becomes "how?" I seem to recall an article that intimated that impact lofting was not sufficient to get large chunks of Mars off the surface and into space, especially not in quantity. Though, I can't find a reliable cite, at the moment... Perhaps someone can step in?

Seem to recall there may have also been some evidence of "Earth" meteorites. Again, can't find a cite on that either...

~Michael Gmirkin

[bboyer]

A couple of other EU links to mention of the Grand Canyon and possibly related EDM effects that have not been mentioned in this thread:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rnde0zza 18 August 2003 Spiral Galaxies & Grand Canyons

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... matter.htm Dec 05, 2005 “No Discernable Debris”

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... 04eu-1.htm May 04, 2005 The Electric Universe: Part II Discharges and Scars

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... -venus.htm Oct 20, 2004 The Scarring of Venus

[rangerover777]

Thanks Michael for your efforts, you do a great service for EU.
Thanks Arc-us for the links, it’s very helpful.

Since a few of the questions were answered I will refer to those. Hoping that
The others will be answered as well.

Just to clarify one point. I view the Grand Canyon and similar formation on earth
and other planets as “Unsolved Mystery”, even though I have a theory and I’m
getting a better understanding of the EU model, there are too missing parts, very little
TESTS were done and Hard evidence are insufficient. So, I keep my mind open
to any direction and explanation. I believe that asking the right questions could
benefit everyone involved. There is no competition here, just common quest and interests.

Thanks for the great pictures of lightning strikes, though I have some questions
and comments about them (Concrete imprints) :

1. If you look closely, there are trenches that are similar to Ground Formations on
Earth and Mars - but there are no RIDGES, for some reason…

2. The molten “Glass” in the concrete imprint - seems to be the “missing concrete”
that shrunk and coalesanced due to the high temperature. In other words at least
50% (or more) of the of the matter was not vaporized (just changed form) and maybe
could be found in the Grand Canyon as molten rock.
Did anyone found such evidence, so far ?

3. In all the concrete and the grass pictures you can point exactly where the point
of impact occurred. On Mars and Earth, it’s a bit different.

Now about the catastrophic rather than uniformitarian’s issue :
I have no objection or approval to any of these, on the other hand why do you measure
this phenomena by these tools ? This suppose to be part of the conclusion not the
exploration…
It seems to me that the sharp angles, cliffs, sinouses and ridges are a bit misleading, since
in our mind SHARP (in nature) is a result of instantaneous occurrences and
ROUNDED / DULL - takes long time to happen in nature (which of course can be both).

One last thing. This is a test I suggest, to determine how much matter is missing
in the Grand Canyon :

1. If you could press down the whole Grand Canyon (like a cracked half dry clay ball).
In your opinion the cracks will fit and 80% of the Grand Canyon would be an almost
complete flat plateau ? And if you think it will not happen, please explain.

2. If you will encountered with data that shows how the Grand Canyon is still uplifting on
both rims and high spots in the middle (say 2 Cm / 5 years, for instance). Could you
build a computerized model that reverse this process and bring you to “Point - A” ?

3. Since we are lucky to have the layers, each layer could brought to the same level of layer on
the other rim (and the middle formations as well) and then just stitch them back together (while
“pressing down”). Same with all the splitting sub-valleys.
At least in my mind it seems a doable test, since it’s about taking measurements and
do the right math, geometry. And then see how much matter is missing.

Let me know if in your opinion these are valid tests, and if they can provide any missing
information.

Since you mentioned many important points, I will refer to them later (hope you will do
the same with my questions). Thanks again

Cheers

[MGmirkin]

Thanks Michael for your efforts, you do a great service for EU.
Thanks Arc-us for the links, it’s very helpful.

Just to clarify one point. I view the Grand Canyon and similar formation[s] on earth and other planets as [an] “Unsolved Mystery” ... very [few] TESTS [have been] done and hard evidence are insufficient.

I'd agree with that assessment as accurate. Far more research and hard data are needed in order to support any particular hypothesis. Currently there are strong "suggestions" based upon morphology and inconsistencies between what exists and current standard explanations of some bits and pieces. So, it is definitely best to keep an open mind until/as more data comes in.

As it stands I have a "strong inkling" and some anecdotal evidence, but I wouldn't consider the issue fully "resolved" (both in terms of "being settled conceptually" or "at a sufficient level of detail") to make any absolute statements.

I tend to view my stance as one of "open inquiry with tentative acceptance for the sake of argument," which I think is the proper stance to take with regard to things. IE, don't call a thing "resolved" until it's nailed down to a high degree of certainty / accuracy. Until then, any proposition should be recognized as both tentative and unresolved, with "acceptance" clearly qualified in one's own mind as "for the sake of argument." It's quite possible to put oneself in the shoes / eyes of one who may theoretically hold a specific position and look at the situation from their point of view, without necessarily considering it to be an "absolute truth" or even something you personally put stock in (it's not necessary to overwrite one's own suppositions, in order to evaluate those of someone else). The point is to accept the proposition "in a sandbox or testbed," such that the idea can be evaluated from the perspective of one who holds that position, while still keeping the tentative proposal separate from one's own core belief system (unless one feels the proposed notion is of sufficiently high quality to override and cause oneself to discard discard any extant prior notions on the subject).

I suppose that's getting into the philosophy of science, a bit. But, c'est la vie! Sometimes it's necessary to understand the process of scientific inquiry so there are no misunderstandings. Guess I'll leave off there.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

2. The molten “Glass” in the concrete imprint - seems to be the “missing concrete” that shrunk and coalesanced due to the high temperature. In other words at least 50% (or more) of the of the matter was not vaporized (just changed form) and maybe could be found in the Grand Canyon as molten rock. Did anyone found such evidence, so far ?

Concrete is made up of a number of things. One constituent is sand, as I recall. Likely, the black glassy concretions were melted and fused sand (probably with some other mineral or chemical inclusions from other constituents). In fact, the black glassy nature reminds me lightly of exogenic fulgurites where lightning strikes rock and splatters black glassy material.

(Not Just Rocks Gallery - Ground Zero)
http://notjustrocks.com/wst_page6.html

(Exogenic Fulgurite; Seven Springs, AZ)
http://notjustrocks.com/uploads/112506-4L.jpg

(Black glassy concretions; Minneapolis, MN)
http://notjustrocks.com/uploads/sidewalk2-4L.jpg
http://www.celestialmonochord.org/2006/ ... ulgar.html (original article)

(Spherules; Huntsville AL)
http://notjustrocks.com/uploads/ALsoilfulg-10L.jpg

It may well be that the sand and some other bits were turned into the black glassy bits, and th rest was vaporized or finely divided into dust and other constituent bits and redistributed either locally or into the atmosphere, coming to rest somewhere else... Without further info (The Minneapolis Lightning tracks were simply stumbled across by a hapless observer one day while walking down the street; he decided to photograph it), it would be hard to say what exactly happened to what bits.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

3. In all the concrete and the grass pictures you can point exactly where the point of impact occurred. On Mars and Earth, it’s a bit different.

Actually, on the Pico Rivers concrete pics, it's not entirely clear where the strikes were located strictly by looking at the concrete. As it looks like the dense tendrils seen there may have been on the fringe of the main strike off in the dirt / grass somewhere. But I get your meaning. Yes, in many cases it's possible to tell where something started and ended. Though therre are a few cases where nothing but a trench was evident. Those might be a bit harder to discern where a starting / ending point may have been.





Though there do seem to be two terminii (terminuses? Termination points? IE, it forms a line segment, if one wanted to get all math-y about it)...

Valles Marineris does also generally have "ends"

(Valles Marineris)
http://www.google.com/mars/#lat=-10.141 ... ap=visible

Granted, they do seem to connect up with or flow into other features. So, it's slightly ambiguous. But the feature known as Valles Marineris is pretty clearly defined in and of itself by the dual trenches and the peripheral stubby "fingers" with blunt terminations.

One can see, more clearly, that Candor Chasma and Ophir Chasma and Tithonium Chasma are considerably more "well-defined" with beginnings and endings (Tithonium slightly less so as it connects Candor with other features to the west; so not a beginning and end, per se, except insofar as it's clearly differentiated by size and structure from Candor and the feature(s) to the west).

http://www.google.com/mars/#lat=-6.0531 ... d&q=chasma

We can also see where Candor Chasma terminates abruptly at the east, but a far inferior (in terms of size) series of gouges continue to the east, in a few cases, over undisturbed terrain, but still in parallel direction to Candor Chasma and the main twin troughs of Valles Marineris proper...

http://www.google.com/mars/#lat=-8.3745 ... d&q=candor

To the west of Candor Chasma, we see that Tithonium Chasma is ostensibly an overlapping crater chain with scalloped walls, and that a parallel tiny set of craters form a chain just south of it, much as Candor Chasma itself appear to be two-lobed (with norther and souther lobe). What's more, the crater chain south of Tithonium Chasma is discontinuous over unmolested terrain.

http://www.google.com/mars/#lat=-5.0362 ... d&q=candor

Notice also the parallel discontinuous scarring east of Ophir Chasma:

http://www.google.com/mars/#lat=-4.5654 ... p=infrared

Likewise that east of the unlabeled or differently labeled (other than Chasma) feature to the north of Ophir:

http://www.google.com/mars/#lat=-0.6042 ... p=infrared

Is the crater chain south of Tithonium Chasma more consistent with impacts (all in a row, all overlapping, all of more or less equal size), subsidence (sink-holes?), a second arc running in parallel with the one that may have carved Tithonium Chasma (both of which would have been much more powerful or long lasting to have carved Candor Chasma; likewise the two proposed bolts that may have carved the main double trench of Valles Marineris would have had to be of considerably higher power than those which would be proposed to have carved Candor Chasma, Tithonium Chasma and the crater chain(s) thereunder), or something else entirely (surface tension fractures / recession, megafloods of limited duration / stamina and over limited distances)?

Open questions, all. Nothing settled, just some uncomfortable facts and associations...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[nick c]

Hello rangerover777,

Now about the catastrophic rather than uniformitarian’s issue :
I have no objection or approval to any of these, on the other hand why do you measure
this phenomena by these tools ? This suppose to be part of the conclusion not the
exploration…

Not quite sure what your saying, but it seems that you feel the catastrophics/uniformitarian debate is irrelevant, or at least that you personally are not bound by any philosophy in particular(?) with regards to the Grand Canyon's formation. The reason for that reference, is that the topic is always approached in mainstream literature from the uniformitarian premise that the forces presently seen in operation must have created the formation in the past. If you are not constrained by that assumption, then good for you

As far as the appearance of the formation, keep in mind that variations in conditions, such as differences in electric potential, atmospheric density, relative movement between the 'combatants,' surface composition, high points, telluric currents, etc, etc, etc, will determine what form is created...example, sinuous rille, crater chain, crater with central peak, walled plain, mountain, uplift, etc.

Before you move on, try this short article in Thoth, by Amy Acheson, "Grand Canyon Revisited" which gives a good blow by blow account including the role of vulcanism:

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVII06.txt
When lightning carves a channel on Earth, it creates a broad outer channel with a narrow more sinuous inner channel. Celestial lightning does the same thing on a much grander scale. After celestial lightning uplifted the plateau and carved the basic skeleton of the Grand Canyon, the Colorado River spilled into the inner channel. This reversed the previously northern drainage of the Southwestern States, allowing them to drain, for the first time, across Nevada and California to the Gulf of Mexico. The Colorado River quickly altered the inner channel from its lightning scar profile to a water-carved canyon in equilibrium. And every time that profile was blocked by a lava dam, the river demonstrated how quickly it can return the Canyon to equilibrium

rangerover777 wrote:

2. If you will encountered with data that shows how the Grand Canyon is still uplifting on
both rims and high spots in the middle (say 2 Cm / 5 years, for instance). Could you
build a computerized model that reverse this process and bring you to “Point - A” ?

It would be interesting to see what age that calculation yields. Such a retrocalculation would, I predict, be inadequate in that too much time (even from the uniformitarian perspective) would be required to get back to "Point - A." Even the uniformitarian geologists, as pointed out in the Amy Acheson article, think the Canyon is geologically young (not to be confused with 'catastrophic young.')

According to this article, conventional geologists are divided
into two warring camps. They both agree that the Grand Canyon is
young, geologically speaking.

rangerover777 wrote:

Just to clarify one point. I view the Grand Canyon and similar formation on earth
and other planets as “Unsolved Mystery”, even though I have a theory [....]

What is your theory as to how the GC and other sinuous rilles are/were formed?

Nick

[rangerover777]

Thanks Michael.

It would be interesting to scientifically determine the consequences of a bolt hitting
different objects / surfaces (composition of matter, compositions of remains, the
amount of energy of the bolt, the chemistry change, etc.) and like you say what went up,
what went down.

In regard to the impact point, since we are looking at pictures it’s hard to tell., though
I’m pretty sure that if you or I would examine it at “ground zero” we could determined
with 90% accuracy where the impact happened. Even though it travel horizontally, the
impact point should be the point where the energy split or channeled further.
Again, more study is required here.

Thanks for the thorough observation on Mars’s formations. These are fascinated and
perplex features indeed.

You said “Open questions, all. Nothing settled, just some uncomfortable facts
and associations... “

I can definitely relate as to why the EU came up with the idea that such formations
are made from above and not below or surface level (Colorado river). The more I take
Google-Earth tours over the Grand Canyon, the more mesmerized I get, how is it possible ?

I think, if the land (earth) can grow a tree, so why trees look like they do ? If you don’t
take it for granted that you’ve seen millions of trees in your life and that you know what
a tree is - it’s quit a mysterious structure indeed. Can you see any reason why such a formation
will emerged of the land ? I’m not searching for the common botanic explanation, nor the
fact that it’s organic matter either. It’s more about how surprising and “non-logical”
nature could be…

Cheers

[rangerover777]

Thanks Nick for your thoughts.

You said “If you are not constrained by that assumption (of uniformitarian),
then good for you”.
I’m not married to any geological text-book explanations. On the other hand
there is always something to learn… What I meant to say, is that if you take
the course of exploring the Grand Canyon formation and you start from the
“bottom - up”, then the time this phenomena occurred and how long it took, is
a conclusion that in “orderly manner” should appear towards the end of your
exploration, for sure not in the beginning.


You brought up this article (Grand Canyon Revisited) :

“When lightning carves a channel on Earth, it creates a broad outer channel with a narrow more sinuous inner channel. Celestial lightning does the same thing on a much grander scale. After celestial lightning uplifted the plateau and carved the basic skeleton of the Grand Canyon, the Colorado River spilled into the inner channel. This reversed the previously northern drainage of the Southwestern States, allowing them to drain, for the first time, across Nevada and California to the Gulf of Mexico. The Colorado River quickly altered the inner channel from its lightning scar profile to a water-carved canyon in equilibrium. And every time that profile was blocked by a lava dam, the river demonstrated how quickly it can return the Canyon to equilibrium”

- Why did the author ignored the matter that used to fill the sinuousness and it’s evidence ?
- How did the author know there are celestial lightning on a grand scale ?
- Where did the author saw a celestial lightning lift up a plateau ?
- What if all the Uplifting / Sinking happen like everywhere else on
the planet (which is not very clear yet) ?
I wish the author could answer my other 30 questions (in former posts).

You asked “What is your theory as to how the GC and other sinuous rilles are/were formed?”
Well, my theory start far before Geology, Electricity, Cosmology, Biology or any other.
It start with three building blocks called “ Two Individual North and South pole Magnets
and the Neutral Particle of Matter”, that build the atom, light, all waves and matter in the universe.
I could not connect yet my “Base Understanding” to the formation of the Grand Canyon, only glimpse.
But that’s why I’m here - to find out. Though, I prefer to focus on the formation and not on
the magnets, right now.

Currently, my theory about the formation of the GC is a set of related questions and
tests (I suggested). I believe that the quality of the questions will affect the purity of the conclusions.


Cheers

[rangerover777]

Just a small remark,

If you Google-Earth over the GC, pay attention to the crossing ridges along the
Colorado river. You can see them coming down from both side and then cut by
the river V-shape carvation over the years. Now stretched an imaginary line between
the two cut-off edges - that’s how much the river shaped the GC + some soil and rain erosion.

Now, when these crossing ridges were brand new, if a lightning bolt would impact
the GC region and then splits and propagate to all directions - how did it “jumped”
over these ridges ? How can it carved a ridge across it’s propagating motion ?

Any thoughts ?


By the way, I could not find on Mars any canyon with crossing ridges (but maybe I’m wrong).

This idea belong to the Mad Section, so forgive me for that (view it as a joke…). Sometimes
I play with the thought that if the lightning bolt would strike from underneath the earth - out, it
would make more sense of today’s vista… or maybe that's how earthquakes occur...who knows

Cheers

[Osmosis]

Perhaps Rangerover hit on the GC formation correctly-current from below. Billions of amperes. The bolt erupting from the earth and traveling upwards, carrying
rocks and soil, with it.

[rangerover777]

If I was an EU entrepreneur that wants to validate or re-visit the “Big Bolt” theory,
I would ask the following questions and comments :

1. When a bolt hit earth, why it spread / branches in such a way ?
2. What kind of “opposite” charge is going on within the earth, and how it works ?
3. If a lightning in a lab could hit 4 flat platforms made of different matters, but
divided to four groups : 1. Grounded. 2. Insulated from the ground. 4. Attached
to antenna (make sure the bolt will not hit the antenna). 5. Partially grounded (a metal
cable just lay on the soil). And see if the imprint’s formations are different.
Also it’s possible to test it in different combinations.
4. Since the “earth currents” must be a partner in the EDM, what kind of wedding
going on there ?
5. If EU do not want to relay on text-book geology (which I can relate to), then they have
to come up with their own explanation to the mechanism that form earth surface. Which
should include the earth interior mechanism as well (and help from above).
6. Maybe there is a greater chances to introduce electric or magnetic currents to Geology,
then to the “Big Bolt” mechanism, that comes from above (and for that you need to bring
a fly-by planets in proximity….. which is quite a labor intensive project by itself…).
7. Current scientific Geology needs an overhaul and a lot could be done by EU for that to happen,
using electric / magnetic currents. The surface formations of planets and moons are too
fragile, detailed and composed of some other forces then the robust Plate Tectonic and
other “crude theories” that cannot explain properly the Grand Canyon (for instance).
Also, it seems that the GC is only the Edge of the Iceberg here.
8. I would pay much attention to how ANY matter is built of Layers (not only in Geology)
and then apply this new knowledge towards Geology and earth.

I think a lot can be done here, and it’s only the beginning….

Cheers

[Steve Smith]

As they say, a picture speaks a thousand words...

This is how the Grand Canyon was formed.

[rangerover777]

Glad to have you on board, Steve.

And thanks for the picture (illustration ?). I wish this picture could talk as well…
Maybe you can help us resolve some questions that circulating here recently.

Cheers