If the evidence points to such a mechanism (and I think it does, and I accept that you don't), then regardless of whether such a causal mechanism exists today is irrelevant.

Dark matter has not been shown to exist, and yet it is hypothisized because it fits the data. Likewise backholes, dark engergy, and the Big Bang.

My fault, reading papers too fast. Blue jets have been measured at 20 Gigawatt (one order of magnitude out) (ref).

I meant to refer to the auroral bursts which have been measured at 156.9 gigawatt ref, which is indeed three orders of magnitude greater than a 150 megawatt superbolt, four orders of magntitude great than a very large 15 megawatt thunderbolt.

What's more, apparently the "The electrical current connecting the Earth to the Sun varies in strength from one to ten million amps, generating up to tens of terawatts of power" (ref). That's 1-10 million times more power than the lightning bolt that carved out the 40-foot trench. Assuming the power is proportional to the cube of material blasted out from the trench (it's a very loose estimate), then we could produce a 40x(10E6^1/3) = 8600 foot trench, 70 feet wide and 70 feet deep (assuming the original was 4-inches wide and deep).

Yes, I know, it's all hypothetical, but meant only as a back of an envelope calculation.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

quoting from your reference:
This is from a PR website aimed at school children. I don't think it is accurate to talk about an 'electrical current connecting the Earth to the Sun' as though there's a net charge coming our way, or as though this flow of solar wind was aimed just at the Earth, instead of ubiquitously into the space around the sun.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

One of your axioms seems to be that the primary mechanism for charging the upper atmosphere is these monster particle streams central to your hypothesis. There are particle streams, certainly; but the tail does not wag the dog. The primary mechanism is photodissociation by UV and more powerful radiations.
The atmosphere is a leaky dielectric, primarily due to its moisture content. The usual mechanism of charge equalization is threefold:1) Auroral discharge, caused by particle migration and local segregation at the magnetic poles. Typically, very diffuse discharges, having light as a minor side effect. Damage potential--nil. 2) Lightning discharges-- locally catastrophic, but having an upper limit in power, due to the leaky dielectric. A subset of these is atypical lightnings like sprites, elves, gnomes, blue jets, etc Here there is no universally acknowleged cause-- my pet theory is that an incoming cosmic causes top-to bottom path ionization, creating the conductive path for the bottom-to-top return stroke. This is by comfortable analogy with cloud-to-ground feelers that precede ground-to-cloud discharges. 3) Gradual processes-- brush discharges, precipitation, and so forth-- destructive potential--nil.

My point is, given the leaky dielectric, these processes are very nearly homeostatic. There is no opportunity for charges to build up to Armageddon proportions, unless your hypothesis requires matter to be something other than what it is. On planets without atmospheres, there is no charge buildup, no escalating potential difference, and no possibility of cataclysmic strikes.
You have not demonstrated the possibility yet, much less the likelihood. :huh: S

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

Ian--one of the concerns I have with the whole EU model is this idea that somehow lightning strikes can be ramped up by orders of magnitude without any clear mechanism of how such a ramp up could occur.

For a "planetary sized lightning stroke" to occur, there would have to be some evidence of this charge somewhere in the solar system. There isn't evidence of anything like that. Even if the argument is that it occurs suddenly and releases suddenly, there must be something, somewhere where even a mid-sized charge buildup is seen. Yet, as far as I know, nothing like like exists.

Regarding the damage at LSU, this is a very misleading point of evidence. The EU people say that the lightning strike in question caused a concrete sidewalk imbedded with iron rods and mesh to "explode". While tecnically true, it is also misleading because the explosion is not the result of the force of the lightning Ian, it is the direct result of the lightning stroke entering the concrete in order to follow the path of least resistance--the iron in the rebar and mesh. The explosion resulted because of the sudden superheating of the iron, which flash-evaporated moisture in the concrete, which then expanded and exploded outwards. If this is used as an example of an explosive lightning event, it is a very poor example.

The forty-foot trench is another example that smacks of sensationalism. 40 feet is about 13 meters. According to the article, the ground exploded because of it's resistance. There is no talk of the type of soil, the reason for its (apparently) high resistance, or any discussion of mineral or manmade objects in the ground near this strike. My past comments apply--that is, how can you compare a 13 meter long trench to a 1000 kilometer long one?

Even accepting this was caused by a 150 megawatt bolt (a proposition without evidence), what is to prevent a 150 gigawatt bolt from simply dissipating into the ground it strikes?

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

If such a bolt was occurring, the violence with which it would be ripping electrons from the soil guarantees that it will carve the surface in proportion to it's magnitude. No soil can handle these energies when it happens as a short burst.

I'd like to point to 2 different processes that etched the surface electrically:
1. the moment of ejection of a planet from it's parent star.
2. sudden movement of planets, moons or comets from places with higher charge density to lower charge density.

In comets and on Io the second process is still active today. The first process is mostly a one-off event which is as hypothetical as the formation of planets from little dust grains, the second process can be verified to be true. Close-up views of comet jets and of the "volcanoes" on Io should clearly reveal the electrical nature of these phenomena.

Under mainstream assumptions these two processes are very different and we should be able to think of ways to test the validity of the explanations. So there is a way to provide evidence, and there are places in the solar system to look at these processes. If the evidence favours the EU model, we should be able to extrapolate the etching effects on both Io and the comets to other parts of the solar system.

As a point of high interest, the bright spots that were imaged on comet Wild2 by the Stardust team are still unexplained and could be evidence of electric arcs. The "volcanoes" on Io are extremely hot, and have moved more than 50 miles in 20 years. Eventually we should be able to answer the question if these "volcanoes" are in reality electric discharges. In the meantime there is evidence from many places that are consistent with an EU model.

Apart from these more pragmatic ways of investigating the basics of the EU model, there is a lot of theoretical work done in Plasma Cosmology. These ideas combined are the reason of the EU model.


Cheers.

In the more accepted theories of planet formation, said planets are not 'ejected from' their parent star. They form at the same time, and as the result of the same process-- the buildup of infalling material into local knots of density. The star gets the lion's share, but other knots form in the accretion disc to become planets. The blow-by-blow description of this process varies in its details from author to author.

False premise yields false consequenece.

BTW, it is during the lifetime of the accretion disc that discharges such as EU describes are possible-- problem is, the planetary surfaces are still molten, and retain no record. By the time the surfaces solidify, there is no longer a mechanism available to cause 'electrical scarring.' Best regards--Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

Hi Steve,


Yep, the "more accepted theories of planet formation" are very different from the EU idea on how planets form. Your remark that "false premise yields false consequence" hits the nail on the head, that's exactly what we should always keep in mind, whatever model or theory we're working with.
Not accounting for electrical activity could be one false premise, I think the fact that no planet (or moon) in the solar system resembles any other planet (or moon) should make us wary of using a simple model that assumes a relatively short period of unstable conditions, and very long periods of stable conditions. If anything, our solar system shows evidence of violent interactions (ever tried to imagine how Uranus and it's moons orbit the Sun?), and also seems an oddball when compared to other planetary systems, even corrected for the detection methods.
So, we shouldn't be surprised that planet formation is different from what we have imagined to date.

Cheers.

• 1. Jupiter's satellite "Io acts as an electrical generator as it moves through Jupiter's magnetic field, developing 400,000 volts across its diameter and generating an electric current of 3 million amperes that flows along the magnetic field to the planet's ionosphere." (ref). The "... powerful electric current flows from Io to the poles of Jupiter" (ref). It is also estimate that ... "this current may carry more than 1,000 gigawatts with a potential of 400 kilovolts. It also strips ionized atoms from Io at the rate of a thousand kilograms per second." (ref)
  
  
• 2. "...the Sun's magnetic field extends beyond the planets.." (ref).
  
  
• 3. The Earth moves through the Sun's magnetic field.

Hence an electric current flows between the Sun and the Earth. Note also that the Io-Jupiter current is able to remove a tonne per second from the satellite.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

That's a generalization. You seem to be comparing high conducting material with relatively inert material. In most cases, even the strongest lightning strike simply dissipate.

I very much doubt it is active on comets, and it most assuredly is not active on Io.

There have been close up views of both, and nothing even closely resembling "electrical phenomena" has been identified. This is another example of looking at something odd and, instead of suggesting a mundane, known cause, intead extrapolating some other-worldly, fantastic event. It's not happening VanderL.

There are no such effects seen on either Io or any close-up view of a comet.

That is a pretty wild extrapolation. The bright spots are very likely the "jets", whose material has been washed out because of the camera's focus on trying to picture the comet nucleous. While that may be incorrect, it is one hellofva lot more likely than this unseen, unknown electrical force you seem so attached to.

Extremely hot, yes. Io is the most gravitationally tortured body in the solar system, with surface features rising and falling as much as 300 feet in an orbit or so. That creates a massive amount of heat. The heat has to escape, which it does by pushing through the lithosphere to erupt in volcanoes. What is so hard to understand about that VanderL? The evidence is clear, and certainly a far far better explanation that some sort of unseen, unmeasured, unexplainable electric phenomina of any sort.

The volcanoes haven't moved VanderL, the lava flows and lakes have moved. If anything, there are new volcanoes that appeared in the 20 year interval you are talking about.

We can answer that now. They aren't.

Only if you ignore the more plausible, well understood, observed causes already proposed for them. Even then, there is no "evidence" they are electrical in nature. There is more "evidence" they were caused by aliens in ufos.

You know, this really frosts me. There are very clear pictures of planetary discs in all manner of evolution, from barely born to almost gone. What does it take for you to accept the reality of what we see VanderL? We have imaged the material flying away from the crab nebula, and absolutely pinpointed that as the source of the "noveau star" 400 years ago. Where's your proposed spit out star there? Or anywhere?

There are images of accretion discs circling black holes, of stars being shedded by getting too close to an event horizon, of other stars whipping around a point the size of out solar sytem, of fantastic magnetic fields generated by neutron stars, and the list goes on and on. Yet your only responce to that is that "it doesn't feel right".

Give us a break! There is so much that is amazing and mysterious in our cosmos, using the very theories and premises that you so disdain, why ever would you find it necessary to raise your nose at all of it in support of a theory that has been so totally and thoroughly discredited?

You won't stop, I know that. But stop saying that you are ambivalent about the theories, or open-minded to the evidence that is right before your eyes. You are not a searcher of truth as you try to portray yourself in these forums, you are a champion of a theory that you will cling to no matter what evidence you are shown to show it is wrong, or what evidence is given to show current theory is right.

Sorry if I seem a bit ****y, I'm just getting tired of pointing out the obvious.

Cheers!

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Um , must respectfully disagree. Io is second most-tortured. Amalthea may soon turn into ring material before our very eyes. Other than that, substantial agreement thruout. Felicitations, Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

Well, ok, I give you that one Steve. Amalthea doesn't have volcanoes though....

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

It may not be as tortured as Amalthea, but I think the surface of Io is fascinating. It is like a big sphere of slowly boiling lentil soup with new volcanos popping up, and flattening out all the time.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Not quite. My recent discussions on atmosphere lightning were merely to show that quite large currents could build up here on Earth, and, that these "particle streams" are electric currents, and consquently the sun is coupled to the Earth. The Sun flares, and entire cities can be blacked-out.

I thought it important to at least try and establish that these points are possibilities, because since the plasma/electric universes relies on them, it would be pointless going on to the more speculative stuff (and you aint heard nothing yet).

As for the possibility of planetary electric scarring, I've not mentioned any mechanisms yet; as you correctly point out, atmospheric charging/discharging will not do it.

Regarding the damage at LSU, and the 40-foot trench, regardless of the mechanism, the lightning instigated the damage somehow. That is all that matters. Yes, soil types might help us understand how the lightning caused the damage, but the lightning still caused the damage.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Surely any satellite close to a planet's Roche limit is 'gravitationally tortured', and planetary rings are supposedly evidence of satellites that didn't make it.

Isn't it more accurate to say that Io is magnetically/electrically tortured?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Indeed, there are MANY aspects to the whole plasma/electric universe model that are misunderstood, and I have to say, that even proponents of the theories don't understand yet.

But hopefully my recent ramblings on the interplanetary medium being a (partially) ionized gas, and hence having characterstics of a plasma, and, my evidence that there could be electric currents flowing through it, have at least suggested that the power required could be out there.

I'm not going to put forward a mechanism for interplanetary lighting just yet, as I think it is important to try and establish that some planetary features, such as craters and scars, have the characteristics of electrical discharges.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

This is beginning to resemble one of those dreams where you know what must be done, but mysterious forces prevent it.

If your surface-modifying electromagnetic discharges have a mechanism, please elucidate. If the mechanism has a cause, please drag it out into the light where it may be examined. If the cause still exists, where in the universe must we look in order to see it? If it no longer exists, what fossil evidence is there which is uniquely and only explained by it? Please do not ask my acquiescence in a faith based initiative, as this is not the appropriate venue. Enough with the hand-waving, already. Where are the specifics? :huh: Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

I have no indications of the magnitude of the lightning bolt that caused the 40-foot trench, and it's not important. What is important is that a lightning bolt did it.

Yes, a million other lightning strikes, of whatever magnitude could dissipate into the ground.

Yes, it's a completely unfounded and unscientific report that claims that a lightning strike caused the trench, but with three baseball players dead, 50 people injured, and at least one witness, it's good enough evidence for me.

Note that I believe the article suggests that lightning strike happened in 1919, but I think this is a typo, as another reference suggest it happened in on 31 July 1949. And another report suggests that the trench was only 20-feet long, but I don't think that's demolishes my original argument.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Well sure Ian, except that Io is not that close to Jupiter's Roche limit. Io's gravitational tug-of-war is the result of being close to Jupiter and its 1:2 and 1:4 rotational resonances with Europa and Ganymede. This resonance, especially with Europa, raises features on Io by a whopping 100 meters (300 feet). Imagine our moon raising 100 meter tides on Earth.

It is definately not more accurate to say that Io is electrically tortured. While it is accurate to say that Io acts as a crude electrical generator inside of Jupiter's magnetosphere, this effect is negligable considering the huge magnetosphere generated by Jupiter itself. It is also true that this electrical generation can be responsible for generating heat, however the affect pales beside the heat generated by the tidal bulging and would not generate enough heat to account for the partially melted interior of Io in any event.

Certainly, there is nothing on Io to suggest any sort of "electrical scarring" etched or otherwise. Further Io has been under nearly constant scutiny since Voyager, and while there have been many episodes of volcanism noted, there has been nothing at all that could be considered electrical in nature.

I say to you Ian, if you are trying to use Io as an example of an electrically affected body, you have chosen a very poor example.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

In fact, entire regions. The question is why.

Earth's power grid acts as a huge antennae, attracting electrical current induced by solar flares. These flares, or more accurately, CME's (Coronal Mass Ejections) send out a pulse of ionized particles which, if the CME happens to be pointed in the right direction, can be caught up by Earth's magnetic field.

These particles cause the Earth's magnetic field to fluctuate. The fluctuation produces electric fields in Earth's atmosphere, which then seek to dissipate by the shortest route possible. Often, that route is through the "antennae" which is our power grid.

The GIC (geomagnetically induced current) only needs to produce a few amps to disrupt transformers. It is the failure opf the transformer that causes the blackout.

Cetainly, this is not a terravolt occurence, nor is there any mystery to it.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

I only wanted to imply, that you can't rule out electrical effects complete. Whether Io's surface shows such effects, we can't tell. But I did note the following paper:

Electrical origin of the outbursts on Io, Gold, T.
Abstract

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

I'm sorry Ian, but I am not swayed by a 1979 article written well before the multiple visits to Io were performed by the Galileo spacecraft.

We can tell whether Io's surface shows such affects. There are hundreds of close up shots, down to about 3 meters resolution. It doesn't.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Hi Duane
What I read in your comments is not very convincing argumentation against an EU model. The scarring of planets is not, I repeat not, caused by simple lightning. Scaling up of the process is needed, and only specific circumstances create these huge bolts.

And the Io "volcanoes" need to be examined again. The article by Gold et al. was a serious attempt to explain the "volcano" features as discharge phenomena. You may not be swayed, but the EU model predicted hotter than lava temperatures and one feature of the "volcanoes" is that they emit strongly in UV frequencies, something no lava can produce and fully expected in a discharge (arc welders wear welding masks for exactly that purpose).
The movement of the jets is also expected from discharges, just as the scalloped edges of the "lava lakes" and the chain of bright spots, the origin of crater chains, and when a longer period of discharging occurs, they form into channels and finally into huge depressions with scalloped edges, just like they can be found on Mars.

The remark that Amalthea is the most "tortured" moon gravitationally, and shows no volcanoes is interesting, it would be nice to compare the electrical environment of Amalthea and Io.

We see bright spots on both Io and comets, if the arc discharge explanation is correct, both should have similar features, and create similar effects on the surface, and that's what they do, albeit on different scales. These bright spots in the electric explanation are very small but extremely hot, on Io they are actually hotter than is currently thought, because in calculations they are assumed to be larger.

Wrong, it does, but you do have to look and see the similarities and not blindly trust what is told.


Hey, lighten up, whatever we think or say, the Universe won't care at all, it is the way it is, and while I see evidence pointing to an EU model I'll continue trying to argue the points.
And don't forget, we're in an alternative theories section, it should be about exploring new ideas, and I happen to like this idea a lot, and I think it has much more merit than you give it.

Cheers.

Well maybe this is part of the problem. What specific circumstances exactly? Where can we see these "huge bolts" that are so powerful as to cause planetary scarring extending a thousand kilometers?

And it was written in 1979, after the first blurry photographs from Voyager. The moon has been studied in great detail since VanderL. There is nothing that would suggest electrical scarring, arcing, eminations, or anything else. I mean there just isn't VanderL--I don't "blindly trust" anything.

Not really interesting. Amalthea is an irregular moon that's about 270 miles x 720 miles in size. It's more like an asteroid than a moon, and orbits inside the orbit of Io. Io is larger than our moon and has enough self-gravity to be spherical. No comparison there.

The frustration is that you are blindly trusting in the EU explanation in the face of very strong evidence that it is complete bunkum while at the same time telling everyone else to not blindly trust what they are told. Doesn't that sound a tad hypocritical to you?

Ian is also a proponant, but he seasons his idealism with some degree of common sense. He can aknowledge that portions of the theory just can't be true, or at least stretch credibility, whereas it seems that you can't.

I also take issue with your common theme that everything we know is wrong. I mean everything, from BB theory to black holes, to stellar formation, to, well, everything. Blind refutation is no better than blind trust VanderL.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Hail Zeus! Hail Thor! Hail Iupeter!

Again, the silent treatment. The mortals say you find minutiae less threatening than substantive issues. WTH, one more invocation couldn't hurt.

Your servant, Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.

Have you noticed that the Solar System bares some similarities to a glow discharge tube (with the Sun as a point-like anode), and the heliosphere as a spherical (hence virtual) cathode?

I'm tempted to answer 'no' on behalf of everyone who is somewhat cynical of the possiblity of an electric universe, but that would be putting words in your mouth, and not giving you a chance to make some obvious comparisons.

Indulge me.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

No. I do not see the Sun as an anode. Show me something that demonstrates that the Sun has a significant electric charge. Show me that something with a strong negative charge is drawn to the Sun.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I've not suggested that Io's surface shows any sign of electrical effects (including scarring), but I would mention that the volcanoes on Io appear to show ejecta falling in a semi-circular (circumferential) ring around the volcano. You'll instantly recognise this as a characteristic of a plasma gun.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

No, you will instantly recognize that this relates to the low gravity on Io as compared to similar eruptions on Earth.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

This discussio lacks the correct explanations and visuals needed to support the EU model.
Here are several links to EU sites, the first two on Io's electrical arcs, the last one is for Steve, how the Sun can be viewed.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arc...o-mountains.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arc...electric-io.htm



http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg

Cheers.

P.S. The links on the above pages is where the images/explanations are.

The websites are the same now as they have been for months, with the same underlying alchemy: Convert nescience into electricity. And Ian is still a contributing editor. With respect, VanderL, I am very tired of "explanations" that don't clarify, and "hypotheses" that neither simplify nor predict. As I have no mission in life to bait or ridicule, I will not appear in this string again. It is yours, and welcome to it. Your friend-- Steve

__________________
Ignoramus et ignorabamus.-- Reymond

Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen.--Hilbert

Pick one.