Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

Wow, are you going to answer my questions too? (nah don't think so)

1. Currents do not "accelerate" particles, currents are flowing net-charge. This is just stupidity on top of dumbness and ignorance. wrapped in a blanket of trolling and ingloriousness
   
2. Oh they do absolutely nothing, watch TV now and then when they get bored, otherwise they either just sit or flow. They might follow the Tour de France starting this weekend.

1 Currents form instabilities such a YOUR beloved double layers, which as you most prolly know DO accelerate charged particles very efficiently (way more than gravity)

2


lets look at some more pretty mainstream pictures

Messier 87 Shows Off for Hundreds of Earth-bound Astronomers

The results give first experimental evidence that particles are accelerated to extremely high energies in the immediate vicinity of a supermassive black hole and then emit the observed gamma rays. The gamma rays have energies a trillion times higher than the energy of visible light.

How does a black hole do that again?

Relativistic jets

Relativistic jets are extremely powerful jets of plasma which emerge from the centers of some active galaxies, notably radio galaxies and quasars. Their lengths can reach several thousand[1] or even hundreds of thousands of light years.[2] It is believed that the twisting of magnetic fields in the accretion disk collimates the outflow along the rotation axis of the central object, so that when conditions are suitable, a jet will emerge from each face of the accretion disk. If the jet is oriented along the line of sight to earth, relativistic beaming will change its apparent brightness. Popular mechanisms for the creation of jets[3][4] and the composition of jets[5] are still a matter of much debate in the scientific community. It is believed that the jets are composed of an electrically neutral mixture of electrons, positrons and protons in some proportion.

Oh I see mainstream still have much debate over it.

Now what does accelerate charged particles?

Double layers and magnetic and electric fields!

By Gamma-Rays Alone: Fermi Raises the Curtain on 16 New Pulsars

The very intense magnetic and electric fields of a pulsar accelerate charged particles to nearly the speed of light, and these particles are ultimately responsible for the gamma-ray emissions.

No!!!!! Did they just say The very intense magnetic and electric fields of a pulsar accelerate charged particles to nearly the speed of light No magnetic reconnection?? Tangled maganetic field lines snapping and breaking????

Very strange!

Maybe some should tell NASA that they mentioned electric fields!

 

[tusenfem]

1 Currents form instabilities such a YOUR beloved double layers, which as you most prolly know DO accelerate charged particles very efficiently (way more than gravity)

And double layers are not currents, they are electric fields which may occur in a current carrying plasma. If you want to call a spade a spade, Sol88 you might at least get your facts right.

2

lets look at some more pretty mainstream pictures

[qimg]http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/M87_zoom.jpg[/qimg]

Messier 87 Shows Off for Hundreds of Earth-bound Astronomers

How does a black hole do that again?

I am sure it is explained on that page somewhere

Relativistic jets
Oh I see mainstream still have much debate over it.
Now what does accelerate charged particles?
Double layers and magnetic and electric fields!

Is there something you want to say here? You guys cannot even make out whether the Sun is an anode or a cathode, talking about basics! And then complain about the fact that mainstream has a number of qualified methods to create the jets, whah!

But that is all you can, isn't it, Sol88, complain complain complain. Must have been bad for you, when you dropped out of college, when you wanted so desperately to study physics and astronomy, but were not good enough.

Up to now, nothing solid has come from you, on any topic, did you get the electric field at the polar cap of the pulsar?

By Gamma-Rays Alone: Fermi Raises the Curtain on 16 New Pulsars

No!!!!! Did they just say The very intense magnetic and electric fields of a pulsar accelerate charged particles to nearly the speed of light No magnetic reconnection?? Tangled maganetic field lines snapping and breaking????

Very strange!

Maybe some should tell NASA that they mentioned electric fields!

Ahhhhh the old "mainstream does not have electric fields and currents" dogma of the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC community. No matter how many mainstream papers are cited showing the importance of electric fields and currents, the crackpots keep on claiming that "mainstream does not have electric fields and currents".

For your information, I wrote a chapter in my thesis in which I had a double layer at the polar cap of a pulsar. A variation of the rather standard model by Don Melrose, 1978 with a time varying electric field. And look, it has all your favourites, Sollieboy!:

The reported investigation has the objective to develop the theory of amplified linear acceleration emission (ALAE) by relativistic electrons propagating along curved magnetic field lines, and to explore it as a mechanism for pulsar radio emission. Existing pulsar radio emission mechanisms are examined, taking into account a critique of 'coherent' emission and an alternative emission mechanism considered by Hardee and Rose (1976) and Hinata (1976). Attention is given to a qualitative discussion of ALAE, the assumptions and emission formulas in the case of linear acceleration emission, the transfer equation for linear acceleration emission, aspects of amplified linear acceleration emission, and the effect of curved field lines. In applying ALAE to pulsars, the essential features which must be explained are the observed frequency range of emission, the inferred brightness temperatures, and the estimated power radiated.

What do you want more?

 

[Sol88]

But that is all you can, isn't it, Sol88, complain complain complain. Must have been bad for you, when you dropped out of college, when you wanted so desperately to study physics and astronomy, but were not good enough.

Yep!

Because you are pissing my money up against the wall!

The BB, String, steady state et cetara our leading us down a dead end.

Where as the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE opens up some pretty awesome possibilities, such as long range high speed space travel and UNLIMITED FREE energy, which is why I think that the "mainstream" cover up is complete!!!

Could you imagine what military and economic advantages to having an unlimited access to unlimited free power (electrical energy)??

All wars have been over resources and the loosing faction usually loose because of the finite nature of said resources (oil, gold, land et cetera)!

That Tesla fella knew what was what! The electric universe even has strong ties with the most brilliant inventor and visionary of our time!!

I mean have you ever read up on the STS-75 mission?

Google it!

So why are we still piss'n about with reaction motors that have to carry their fuel with them?

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION
POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years,
are incorrect and must be rewritten. This assessment follows
analysis by a joint U.S.-Italian Tethered Satellite
investigating team of the information gathered during the mission.

During STS-75, a tether system was being unreeled to
nearly 13 miles above Columbia's payload bay. Just short of
the full distance, its tether broke. Nevertheless, the
science instruments on the satellite and Shuttle, which had
been operating during the five hours of deployment
operations, sent a flood of readings that were received and
recorded by scientists on the ground. "Even the quick-look
made to date reveals that this data harvest is rich in
content," said Dr. Nobie Stone, NASA TSS-1R mission scientist
at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL.

"Perhaps the most significant finding," Stone said, "is
that tether currents proved to be up to three times greater
than existing theoretical models predicted prior to the
mission. With the amount of power generated being directly
proportional to the current, this bodes well for
technological applications."

"Reversing the direction of current flow puts the system
into an electric-motor mode," Stone explained. This harnessed
energy could furnish thrust for reboosting a space station,
satellite or Shuttle in a decaying orbit.

So I wonder why those NASA "dust bunnies" are so interested in our little experiment, we nearly found the keys!

 

[tusenfem]

Ah, now we are at Tesla, Birkelands older brother.
Well, everything by Tesla can be found on the web at loads of conspiracy sites. I have even downloaded lots of stuff. Wanna have it, so you can build your own free energy machine? Bezillions of peeps in the world, and nobody builds a working Tesla free energy machine, must be The Man who stops them, together with the Jews, the gays, the freemasons, the Bavarian illuminati, the Scientologists, the communists, the the the

And yes, I know about the STS-75, I was even invited to join that project, thank you very much. Wanna explain how it works, Sol88 or are you, as usual, just throwing around stuff to sound important, like "Look what I can say!" Oh, and something went wrong in that experiment, but basically that was sabotage by the anti-electricity science gang.

 

[edd]

Where as the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE opens up some pretty awesome possibilities, such as long range high speed space travel and UNLIMITED FREE energy, which is why I think that the "mainstream" cover up is complete!!!

Yeah, shame it's wrong.

Seriously, you have it utterly backwards if you say something like

The BB, String, steady state et cetara our leading us down a dead end.

The theories are lead by evidence, not the other way round.

Could you imagine what military and economic advantages to having an unlimited access to unlimited free power (electrical energy)??

I'm frankly terrified that you think that us agreeing with you will suddenly make energy free. I'm beyond terrified by the fact the first thing you want to do with free energy is give it to the military to go blow stuff up. I thought you were merely harmlessly crazy until this point.

 

[tusenfem]

Just for fun I looked up the publication of the tether experiment. It was Agüero et al., JGR, 1999.

So what were the results of the current in the tether? You might be surprised, let me give you part of the conclusions on the experiment:

4.1. Current Consistency and Continuity
Before attempting to understand current collection by the orbiter it is useful to assume ourselves that the simultaneous SPREE and SA measurements are consistent with our guiding equatins (1) and (2) under reasonable ionospheric conditions. Figure 4 shows that as φorb and φarc varied from ~-600 V and ~-90 V to ~-25 V and ~-30 V, the tether current rose from 0.97 to 1.1 A. Assuming that Rt1 = 1650 Ω, Ohm's law indicates that the satellite-charging level φsat should increase from 1165 to 1583 V. While a magnetic field strength of 28,000 nT and a satellite radius rsat of 0.8 m, φ0 in eqation (2) equals 11 V. Substituting these values into (2) and using the average values of α and β, gives I0 = 0.034 A in both instances. This agrees with the values of I0 determined independently for a plasma with ne = 10¹² m^-3 and Te = 1100 - 1200 K detected at the satellite near the time of the break event [Gilchrist et al., 1998]

[snip paragraph about Gilchrist and]

With the orbiter charged to ~-600 V and the assumed density and temperature of O+ ions near the orbiter of ~80 x 10¹¹ and ~1160 K, respectively, A-96 predicts an orbiter collected ion current of 0.081 A. this is a factor of 12 less that the 0.97 A recorded by the SA during phase 1. Aguero et al [1998] suggested that ions impacting orbiter surfaces with kinetic energies of ~600 eV ejected secondary electrons whose emisson has two effects. First, they contribute directly to the current collected by the orbiter. Second, in crossing the sheath they are accelerated to energies at whicht the cross section for ionizatin collistions with neutrals, σi, is large. Secondary ions created in the sheat are then attracted tothe negatively charged conducting surfaces and also contribute to current collection. Observational evidence for the existence of suchsecondary electrons and ions appears in the particle spectra in Figure 5, in which the secondary ions aare those with energies below the charging peaks.

Naturally there is lots more in the paper, this is just a small thing that shows some important stuff. For one, that they needed a long tether of ~20 km and a magnetic field of 28000 nT to get 1 A of current. Now go into interplanetary space with a magnetic field of say 5 nT, then the current generated will be 5/28000 = 1/5000 (to be nice) A.

Now, this was current collection, and as in the press release, "Reversing the direction of current flow puts the system into an electric-motor mode", so you first have collect energy, and then turn it around, drive the current from the satellite to get "thrust."

This would be a nice electricity source for low orbiting spacecraft (high B field) apart from the special attidude necessary of the shuttle.

For those interested, there is a pdf.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What I'm pointing out is that this is not the same as saying space is nearly all plasma.

Yeah if your being pedantic then the universe is nearly entirely empty. That is, if we're considering Bohms basic model of the atom and the amount of space between atoms.

But still, the % of the matter in the universe is ~99.999% matter in the plasma state. Not the volume of space.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The same thing that heats all of them. I do not have an opinion.

You have an opinion that it definitely is not due to an electrical discharge. Why?

Currently there is only the observation that coronal loops heat plasma from ~6000 K to millions of K.

Well, come on. You said you could "explain" these images, but you can't even explain the light source of a single original image in terms of the 'cause' of the heating. Bruce demonstrated that electrical discharge theory could and would explain such events. What's wrong with his solution and Birkeland's solution?

The exact mechanisms causing it are unknown.

It was not "unknown" to Birkeland or to Bruce or to Alfven. It's only "unknown" to you because you've somehow made up your mind that you already know that electrical discharges are not the culprit even though that would be and is the most logical and likely conclusion since electrical discharges heat plasma in our own atmosphere.

That is why there is so much research being done on coronal loops and why you have so many pretty pictures to be wrong about.

If you don't "know" the cause of what heats the plasma from thousands to millions of degrees yet, how do you know I "wrong" again?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong about seeing 4000 kilometers into the photosphere

Demonstrate your claim.

and wrong about running difference images showing some kind of solid features.

Of course you're still cowering in the corner, not addressing any specific frame, no quadrant, no specific observation in the image. You've already blown it twice: "What flying stuff?" and your comment about the RD technique itself being responsible for persistence were totally and completely and utterly wrong. You missed even the basics when you claimed that there is no light source too, because the light source, namely the corona loops and corona emit the light that lights up the pixels that are then subtracted from one another. You've missed everything. RC is fairing only modestly better after that last round. His comment about there being "zero" light sources started with you, and evidently pure ignorance is contagious. He also seems to have no clue about the fact that there's a time lag between frames, thus the shadows, and thus the "differences" we can see. So far your side is doing a completely horrible job of even explaining the mechanics of the basics of what's going on. I'm starting to wonder if either of you have actually sat down and created your own running difference image.

Wrong about everything about running difference images that you claim supports your delusion. You know, those things you're wrong about.

You have no ethics. Each and every post is full of personal attacks, devoid of any specifics related to the image details, and devoid of honest debate.

The only "delusion" going on here is your the delusion in your mind that you "explained every pixel of every frame". That's a first class delusion since you've never mentioned a single specific frame of the whole movie, a single specific detail in that frame, or any cause/effect relationships. Your whole show is pure dishonest fallacy oriented debate, all aimed at smearing the individual and hoping nobody notices what a coward you really are. What *SPECIFIC* frame, detail and cause effect relationship did you EVER explain in ANY of our conversations?

 

[edd]

Yeah if your being pedantic then the universe is nearly entirely empty. That is, if we're considering Bohms basic model of the atom and the amount of space between atoms.

But still, the % of the matter in the universe is ~99.999% matter in the plasma state. Not the volume of space.

a) That's not what sol said.
b) No, most matter in the universe is not in the plasma state as most is not even baryonic.
c) I've already agreed that of the baryonic matter, most is in the plasma state.

Call me pedantic about that if you want though.

 

[GeeMack]

Demonstrate your claim.

Quantitative, scientific, and fairly simple explanations have been given for why you can't see any light through the photosphere, of any wavelength, through any filter, with any equipment. But even if that weren't the case, the simple lack of any evidence that it's ever been done and the lack of any corroboration of your insane claim puts the burden on you. You prove you can see a surface below the photosphere. Do it quantitatively, and do it using a method that other people can apply objectively and come to the same conclusion you've reached. And remember, even if it were possible, it won't do it by itself. You need to stop bawling and get off your lazy ass and actually do the work or it'll never happen, Michael.

Of course you're still cowering in the corner, not addressing any specific frame, no quadrant, no specific observation in the image. You've already blown it twice: "What flying stuff?" and your comment about the RD technique itself being responsible for persistence were totally and completely and utterly wrong. You missed even the basics when you claimed that there is no light source too, because the light source, namely the corona loops and corona emit the light that lights up the pixels that are then subtracted from one another. You've missed everything. RC is fairing only modestly better after that last round. His comment about there being "zero" light sources started with you, and evidently pure ignorance is contagious. He also seems to have no clue about the fact that there's a time lag between frames, thus the shadows, and thus the "differences" we can see. So far your side is doing a completely horrible job of even explaining the mechanics of the basics of what's going on. I'm starting to wonder if either of you have actually sat down and created your own running difference image.

Michael, you are not seeing a surface in the running difference image. It's not there. No features, no solid structure, nothing. The good folks at LMSAL have already clearly stated their position on that. When it comes to legitimate scientific evidence for your crazy claim, running difference images are useless. They don't provide any evidence that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Not a single intelligent sane person on Earth agrees with you. You're wrong. You're not capable of demonstrating otherwise, and you're too ignorant to listen to the explanations that have proven you're wrong. This one was over a long time ago.

You have no ethics. Each and every post is full of personal attacks, devoid of any specifics related to the image details, and devoid of honest debate.

Well, you haven't stopped lying and you haven't stopped being ignorant, so it seems natural that people will notice you're being an ignorant liar. And regarding the specifics of the image, you didn't understand my explanation some dozen or more times I've spoon fed it to you in the past. I have no reason to believe you'll be any more honest, less ignorant, or less stupid if I go through it all again. I've already been doing your homework for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself. Everyone else understands me. You don't. Too bad. You're not a little girl anymore. Grow up and do your own work. Nobody has any sympathy for your tantrums.

The only "delusion" going on here is your the delusion in your mind that you "explained every pixel of every frame". That's a first class delusion since you've never mentioned a single specific frame of the whole movie, a single specific detail in that frame, or any cause/effect relationships. Your whole show is pure dishonest fallacy oriented debate, all aimed at smearing the individual and hoping nobody notices what a coward you really are. What *SPECIFIC* frame, detail and cause effect relationship did you EVER explain in ANY of our conversations?

The folks at LMSAL, the very people who operate the TRACE program say you're wrong. Back to you, Michael. Got that quantitative, detailed explanation, yet?

And how about this one you continue to ignore... Why do you suppose not one single professional in any field related to solar physics thinks your crackpot delusion has any basis in reality?

 

[Michael Mozina]

a) That's not what sol said.
b) No, most matter in the universe is not in the plasma state as most is not even baryonic.

That is rather wild speculation from the point of view of a skeptic. Got even a single gram of non baryonic matter that we can actually inspect in controlled conditions?

c) I've already agreed that of the baryonic matter, most is in the plasma state.

So now all you have to do is demonstrate that non-baryonic matter isn't a figment of your collective imagination.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Quantitative, scientific, and fairly simple explanations have been given for why you can't see any light through the photosphere, of any wavelength, through any filter, with any equipment.

No, several wild and highly unsupported statements have been made, and not a shred of empirical support has been provided. Which controlled laboratory experiment demonstrates this statement?

But even if that weren't the case, the simple lack of any evidence that it's ever been done

That RD image and the rigid feature under the photosphere in a Doppler image demonstrates that your statement is entirely false. You also simply ignored the Hinode and the other composite image I posted earlier.

You need to stop bawling and get off your lazy ass and actually do the work or it'll never happen, Michael.

This coming from the guy that says "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" and who claims there is no light source for an RD image. Please. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Michael, you are not seeing a surface in the running difference image. It's not there. No features,

There is nothing really to discuss with you as long as pure denial is the only thing you're going to embrace. There are MANY features in that image, and you've never picked a single one to actually "explain" in terms of cause/effect relationships, the specific details, etc. You are ignorant of what's going on in the image because you willfully choose ignorance. That's not impressive.

You can't "prove me wrong" by running like a coward from the specifics of the image. Get real.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, you are not seeing a surface in the running difference image. It's not there.

Just like the flying plasma isn't there?

 

[GeeMack]

Michael, is Dr. Neal Hurlburt of LMSAL stupider than you? And if he is, who is smarter than you? Whose word would you take if they were to say, "Michael, you're wrong. Running difference images do not show any kind of surface features at all. They can't. That's not what running difference images do?"

And why is it that after several years of your bitching and moaning, not a single solitary physics professional on the face of the Earth agrees with your insane fantasy?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux III

So, once again we cover old ground: Magnetic Reconnection. Been there, done that, but lets do it again. Magnetic reconnection is a fundamental physical process that is extremely well developed and described both in theory & practice. Anyone who actually wants to learn about it need not look too far. I suggest the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Any textbook on magnetohydrodynamics and most textbooks on plasma physics will cover the topic, but this one will do. There are also numerous laboratory experiments studying the phenomenology of magnetic reconnection in detail, such as the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment in the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory at Princeton University. One might as well deny the validity of physics altogether as to deny the validity of magnetic reconnection, they are quite the same thing to do.

... I don't "dismiss" anything. ... I don't see how you (or anyone else) can determine in any of these "experiments" if the magnetic fields are themselves doing anything, ...

But you do dismiss the experiments without any consideration and I simply don't believe you when you say otherwise. Look, you even put the word "experiment" in quotes because you don't even accept that they are experiments at all. You think maybe the folks over at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory don't even know how to do an experiment? The simple truth is constantly obvious. You cannot & will not consider anything that contradicts your preconception, despite the fact that you actually know nothing at all about the topic at hand. You are simply intolerant to anything that contradicts your preconceptions. The second sentence makes that plain. You "don't see how", and yet you don't even know what is being measured.

... I don't see how you (or anyone else) can determine in any of these "experiments" if the magnetic fields are themselves doing anything, ...

How can you say that seriously when you don't even know what the experiments are or how they are done or what is measured?

Birn's paper on MR theory (discussed on space.com) convinced me that the math related to the theory was fine, the approach is "ok" from the standpoint of physical descriptions, ...

I don't do space.com, so which of Birn's many papers on magnetic reconnection are you talking about?

... but there is no way to physically determine if the this is a "unique" form of energy exchange. How is it physically different (at the point of energy release) than say "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", or induction or an ordinary discharge process in plasma? ... How exactly would that be a unique energy release process and not "induction"?

I have no idea what "particle reconnection" is supposed to be, so I will skip it until & unless you want to tell us what it is. "Circuit reconnection", if it's what I think you mean (i.e, merging electric currents), is simply impossible because it violates the law of conservation of energy. If two currents merge and the total energy after the merger is greater than the total energy before the merger, then where did the energy come from? As for induction, that too is out of the question because that is a transfer of energy from the current to an induced magnetic field, whereas magnetic reconnection is a transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the plasma. Neither does magnetic dissipation work, because the time scale is too large. It would take magnetic dissipation about 1,000,000 years to accelerate a plasma over a typical solar distance scale of about 100,000 km, but magnetic reconnection is impulsive and will do the very same job in about 1 minute.

In the laboratory experiments we can see this happen right in front of us. Magnetic field changes first, followed by plasma acceleration. The magnetic field reconfigures spontaneously to a lower energy state, as one would expect of any physical system, and the energy is transferred to the plasma. If it were currents dong the work, the order of events would be reversed. Furthermore, magnetic reconnection will accelerate a plasma, which means it will accelerate both charge signs in the same direction, while any normal electric field or induction process will accelerate opposite charges in opposite directions.

I'm not blaming Tim for claiming that *ONLY* MR can release energy in plasma, I'm blaming him for choosing something that *DOES NOT* occur in nature under natural circumstances when *NATURAL* explanations can and do release these forms of energy in plasma.

Magnetic reconnection is a natural explanation that occurs in nature. It is observed in Earth's magnetosphere on a regular basis.

A coronal loop is not a "frozen" magnetic line, but rather it is a moving column of flowing plasma full of kinetic energy, much like any discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. The magnetic fields are not there all by themselves doing all the work by themselves, and they are not driving the parade. The magnetic fields exist *BECAUSE OF* the current flow inside the loop and they are generated by the current flow inside that loop that is heating the plasma inside the loop.

As already pointed out by the redoubtable tusenfem, this is extremely impossible and violates just about every law of electromagnetism you can come up with. The magnetic field of the loop cannot be generated by the current in the loop, and need not be generated by any current at all, for appropriate definitions of "current". It is not at all necessary to have a classical current, as in a stream or flow of particles all of the same sign electric charge, to get a magnetic field. The motions of a charge neutral plasma will efficiently generate magnetic fields. Furthermore, if the plasma is dense enough, the magnetic field once generated will not simply fade away & dissipate, but will remain "frozen" into the plasma.

Let me recap:
1) Magnetic reconnection is a valid and well accepted physical process, well described in theory, and well observed in controlled laboratory experiments. It's validity is beyond question.
2) The magnetic field of a coronal loop cannot possibly be generated by the current(s) flowing in the loop.

 

[Sol88]

Yeah, shame it's wrong.

Seriously, you have it utterly backwards if you say something like

The theories are lead by evidence, not the other way round.


I'm frankly terrified that you think that us agreeing with you will suddenly make energy free. I'm beyond terrified by the fact the first thing you want to do with free energy is give it to the military to go blow stuff up. I thought you were merely harmlessly crazy until this point.

Not me my friend, not me! The holy trinity of evil, Religion, Money and War so F$*"k'm!!!

That's what stops them (TPTB) from sharing information like this, if it gives you a military/economic advantage then

Take Tesla's statement that wireless AC power should be FREE for every human on this planet, to give us all an equal standard of living, advancing knowledge as well as making us more aware of the true state of the universe that we live in. But his main financial backer J.P.Morgan, of JPMorgan chase fame, said how can we charge people for the power they use, Tesla said you can not and the rest is history!

I'm mean tesla banged on about electric flying machines

Another of Tesla's theorized inventions is commonly referred to as Tesla's Flying Machine, which appears to resemble an ion-propelled aircraft.[91] Tesla claimed that one of his life goals was to create a flying machine that would run without the use of an airplane engine, wings, ailerons, propellers, or an onboard fuel source. Initially, Tesla pondered about the idea of a flying craft that would fly using an electric motor powered by grounded base stations. As time progressed, Tesla suggested that perhaps such an aircraft could be run entirely electro-mechanically. The theorized appearance would typically take the form of a cigar or saucer.[92]

and now in the space age we have

Tether current flow

The amount of current (I) flowing through a tether depends on various factors. One of these is the circuit's total resistance (R). The circuit's resistance consist of three components:

1. the effective resistance of the plasma,
2. the resistance of the tether, and
3. a control variable resistor.

In addition, a parasitic load is needed. The load on the current may take the form of a charging device which, in turn, charges reserve power sources such as batteries. The batteries in return will be used to control power and communication circuits, as well as drive the electron emitting devices at the negative end of the tether. As such the tether can be completely self-powered, besides the initial charge in the batteries to provide electrical power for the deployment and startup procedure.

The charging battery load can be viewed as a resistor which absorbs power, but stores this for later use (instead of immediately dissipating heat). It is included as part of the "control resistor". The charging battery load is not treated as a "base resistance" though, as the charging circuit can be turned off at anytime. When off, the operations can be continued without interruption using the power stored in the batteries

Why batteries? why not capacitors?

Tether propulsion
Main article: Tether propulsion

As part of a tether propulsion system, crafts can use long, strong conductors (though not all tethers are conductive) to change the orbits of spacecraft. It has the potential to make space travel significantly cheaper. It is a simplified, very low-budget magnetic sail. It can be used either to accelerate or brake an orbiting spacecraft. When direct current is pumped through the tether, it exerts a force against the magnetic field, and the tether accelerates the spacecraft.

An electrodynamic tether is attached to an object, the tether being oriented at an angle to the local vertical between the object and a planet with a magnetic field. When the tether cuts the planet's magnetic field, it generates a current, and thereby converts some of the orbiting body's kinetic energy to electrical energy. As a result of this process, an electrodynamic force acts on the tether and attached object, slowing their orbital motion. The tether's far end can be left bare, making electrical contact with the ionosphere via the phantom loop. Functionally, electrons flow from the space plasma into the conductive tether, are passed through a resistive load in a control unit and are emitted into the space plasma by an electron emitter as free electrons. In principle, compact high-current tether power generators are possible and, with basic hardware, 10 to 25 kilowatts appears to be attainable.

Charge them in our magnetosphere, push of to say Jupiter magnetosphere use the kinetis energy to recharge the capacitors while slowing the craft down ready to "pushed" of again!

Simple, brilliant and easy, so why not???

 

[Reality Check]

Yeah if your being pedantic then the universe is nearly entirely empty. That is, if we're considering Bohms basic model of the atom and the amount of space between atoms.

But still, the % of the matter in the universe is ~99.999% matter in the plasma state. Not the volume of space.

The % of visible matter in the universe is ~99.999% matter in the plasma state.
The % of all matter in the universe is ~20% matter in the plasma state.

 

[Reality Check]

You have an opinion that it definitely is not due to an electrical discharge. Why?

You have an opinion that it definitely is due to an electrical discharge. Why?

Well, come on. You said you could "explain" these images, but you can't even explain the light source of a single original image in terms of the 'cause' of the heating. Bruce demonstrated that electrical discharge theory could and would explain such events. What's wrong with his solution and Birkeland's solution?

I (and others) have explained the RD animation many times. The fact that your delustional state does not allow you to accpt the explanation is your problem not ours.

A child for example can see that the various directions of the "shadows" (actually records of temperature change) means that the objects "casting" them do not actually exist.

 

[Reality Check]

Almost forgot this !

Also Zeuzzz and Sol88:
You also seem to share MM's delusion that there is no empirical evidence for dark matter so maybe you can answer this simple question.

Michael Mozina:
First asked on 23rd June. 2009.
No real response yet (4th July 2009 and counting).

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

• galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
• the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
• the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
  • NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
  • another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
    (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)
• A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

So far we have seen

• Michael Mozina's usual inability to understand what empirical means with his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" nonsense.
• His personal opinion that somehow astronomers have underestimated the visible mass of galaxies. That would have to by a factor of 50 or more.

The last point demands more questions:
First asked 25 June 2009:
No real response yet (4th July 2009 and counting).


Would you like to explain how the astronomers got the mass so wrong, e.g.

• What visible matter are they not accounting for?
• How is the mass of the visible matter they are accounting for measured incorrectly?
• Is the Sun two times heavier than orbital mechanics say that it is? 10 times? 50 times? 100 times? Or greater?