As I suspected.

It is time to present the evidence that supports the electric model and disproves the "mainstream" theory.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I'm not sure if that hybridization works as well as Ligers .

Well, he spells it that "way" every time.

That was my 1st thought also...though it doesn't make a "lick" of sense.

I did read the bits you quoted, and I have to say they don't support the impact hypothesis of crater formation on any known planetary body. Neither does dropping wet blobs of cement onto more wet cement, and neither does dropping rocks into flour.

See my post: Faulty Wet Cement Model Doesn't Hold Water

The study cited in this post concludes that hard impactors create craters consistent only with some craters. Unless somebody wants to hypothesize a Sacrete cloud somewhere pummeling the planetoids with wet cement, we need a better model, and we have one.

Are you serious? An iron ball dropped into a bucket of tiny glass beads does not approximate the impact of an arbitrary meteorite on the moon. While it may mimic a tiny fraction of events that have scarred the surface of the moon (or any other body), impacts clearly can not explain most of the features we see on all planetoids. Electrical erosion, however, can explain nearly every gross terrain feature we see.

Feel free to again read my post, Electrical Cratering in the Lab, for a summary answer to that question. After you do that, you might want to browse through the archives at the Thunderbolts web site for an extensive list of easily-digested, illustrated articles dealing with subjects like this. If you are still having issues with this material I can try to break it down for you more simply.

Looks like a typo to me.

Ok, well now I've learned some British slang . I wondered where he was getting codsmology from.

You know, if you don't take the intended insult too seriously, that's actually pretty funny.

He used it repeatedly and consistently throughout his posts.
It is not a typo, so either he is doing it on purpose, or he does not know how to spell it (or maybe some kind of dyslexia?).

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Well, I'm going to forgo the usual "electric banter", unless/until Landedeagle can answer papageno's question.

So go ahead, Landedeagle...present your evidence...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Holy hell, look at all the traffic about that single word. Has anyone ever heard of picking their battles? Why waste time on and spam the board with this nonsense?

I agree...present your evidence...

I did not. Did you miss the words "prospects" and "for the coming ten years"?

Here's an exhaustive list of all the evidence I've presented so far. Go read up and get back to me when you're finished and have some specific criticisms other than "I don't believe you!" and nitpicking over my choice of a single word over another when they have identical meanings.

There is a points system in operation?

A perspective shift is required before the paradigm can shift.

Plasma, the fourth state of matter, rarely gets a mention in standard scientific texts, let alone in conventional cosmology. And when it does, little importance is assigned.

This is no small irony given that 99% of the universe is matter in its Plasma state. Who needs Dark Matter, except failing theorists? Not only should Plasma be added to the list of solids, liquids, and gases, but it should be put in first place!

Because Plasma reacts more strongly with EM than gravity, it has a tendency to form into more complex cellular and filamentary structures. Plasma in space consists entirely of ions and electrons, and is thus very energetic or 'hot'. Only when cooled does it form the matter to which we are familiar here on Earth: solids, liquids, and gases.

Space is not empty. In reality it is a vast sea of Plasma reacting with EM forces which are 10^36 stronger than g.

Plasma cosmology has gone beyond hypothesis and analysis. Plasma behaviours can be modelled on galactic scales ... utilising only a few simple formulae.

These models are consistent with reality. Big Bang cosmology, by contrast, fails to adequately account for the 'clumpiness' and the filamentary structures that we see.

Plasma cosmology does NOT rely on an increasing array of exotic hypotheticals like Dark Matter and Dark Energy!

Is this some novel language theory that goes against mainstream ideas concerning the psychology of linguistics? I applaud your skepticism of the status quo! Let's have a look at some of your other (almost 1000!) contributions to the sum of human knowlege! All gems, I have no doubt, just like this pearl here. Pearls are made of grit and oyster secretions. Or are they! What do you think about that?

Just so I make sure that I understand you correctly, which 2 words have identical meanings??

So, you have not actually read the paper, before dismissing its results.

Why aren't cement or flour a good approximation for lunar regolith?

So, you are ignoring the other paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003)), which shows that impact experiments can produce craters like the ones on the Moon.

Again, you said that there is evidence that disproves impact cratering models.
So, where is this evidence?

I am serious: iron-nickel meteorites impacting on regolith approximated by a steel ball (1 inch diameter) impacting on glass beads (diameter 50-500 micron).
Please provide some proper explanation of why it should not be a good approximation.


Except that meteors have been observed, but interplanetary electric arcs have not.

By the way, "While it may mimic a tiny fraction of events that have scarred the surface of the moon..." seems to contradict your claim that the evidence has disproven impact cratering models.


Where are the interplanetray electric arcs?


Why don't you read this, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 104301 (2003), first?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

cyrek comment

There is some important credibility to electric enhancement of the gravitational effects.

Dark Matter is the major enhancement of gravity.
Star eruptions caused by impacting bodies reach very high temperatures to strip atoms of their electrons. Electrons and some positive ions are blasted out of the galaxy inti space or surroundind the galaxies. The slow moving ions are more easily trapped within the galaxy. This seperated matter (electrons and positive ions) is positioned in such a way as to greatly enforce the gravity like the outer gas perimeter and inner positive matter enhancement to do this. This is true of our galaxy.

In the clusters, the central regions are supplied electrons to create a cloud that is electron plasme and detected by xrays. This central electron cloud acts as a powerful attractor to enhance the cluster gravity. The galaxies are all positive in relation to this cloud because they are continuously blasting electrons in all directions. The central regions with its negative charge just traps more of these electrons while, of course, it is also kosing some.

The solar neutrino problem can be resolved by gravitational enhancement of the Suns mass. Consider the central region of matter that is electron defficient to its outer layer composition. This electric attraction would than enhance the Suns calculated gravity to create more gravitational heat and this would reduce the neutrino count.

careval
Arp's redshift anamoly is real. There are two excellent examples of this.
They are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210. These two examples cannot be brushed aside as chance alignments.
This evidence gives support to the 'expansion of the light waves' as the cause of the cosmological redshift.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Do you have a good reason for not addressing my points?

EDIT to fix typo.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Sorry landedeagle, but this made me burst out laughing with the bounty of wise guy answers that could be provided such as:

"Oh, sorry we thought the EU theory was the spam."

(Just in one of those moods today - sorry!)

Seriously though, I've got a few questions because I haven't read that much about EU. I have no predisposition in favor of or against the theory. So here goes for starters:

1. On what time scale (how frequently) should the electric discharges that EU theorizes forms craters be observed?

2. Earlier you said this:

Is the Moon part of the same circuit in the EU model or does each solar system object have its own circuit?

3. Would there be specific mineralogical differences in rocks effected by EU crater formation vs. impact crater formation? For example, my understanding is that the tektites have a simple impact explanation. Could samples from the moon be utilized to clearly differentiate the two hypotheses?

I guess I'll stop there for now.

Really IMO that topic is best saved for another thread.

Pick your battles, dude. Are you really this confused or are you trying to score some kind of point? If you're trying to make a point instead of scoring points, be careful somebody doesn't deduct ten points from you for your trouble.

Answer the question, please.

So much wrong, tough to know where to begin... Really? How can you even mention the word "star" without plasma being relevant? No, soup, plasma is thoroughly discussed in scientific texts and conventional cosmology. Now, you probably won't ever hear a geologist discuss plasma, but then, you won't have a tour guide in Philly tell you about the Arc de Triumph, either. :roll: Most of the normal matter in the universe is plasma, of course - its in stars. So what? Nonsensical babbling. One word, soup: distance. Figure out why that word is relevant and you'll realize the basic flaw in EC theory. More nonsensical babbling. Again: distance, but another word for you: density. EC has not yet even reached the point of hypothesis: its still just nonsensical babbling, idle speculation, and knee-jerk anti-mainstream ranting. Models? what models? Show me the EC calculations for earth's orbit (hint: they don't exist. There are no models). Utterly false. Quite right - it doesn't rely on anything, data, observation, reality, etc. Its all just an idle daydream.
Couldn't agree more: Soup, you really need to learn to pick your battles. You consistently knee-jerk, bandwagon-jump on anything posted here that's ATM. I sometimes wonder if you even bother to read the posts before agreeing with them! #-o

I did no such thing, and this attitude you are copping is starting to offend me. What I told you, and what I repeat here, is that I read the bits you quoted, and concluded rightly that they do not support your claims. I can not stop you from flying off on a tangent.

Is this a joke? Are you forgetting about the flags "on the moon"? As I recall they had to pound pretty hard to get those poles in, right? Do you think you'd have a hard time pushing a flagpole into a pile of flour? Of course not. And as for wet cement, do you recall any evidence of wet cement or anything remotely like it being on the moon? This is getting quite ridiculous, the lengths to which you are willing to defend your fanatical devotion to this idea that most craters are caused by impacts.

How many times do I have to cite it for you? Are you being deliberately obstinant or are you really unable to find the sources I cited and the evidence they present?

Glass beads in a bucket do not approximate conditions of lunar regolith. You can stretch this as far as you like, but what we have here is another case of trying to prop up impact models. This was not an attempt to simulate conditions of lunar impacts, it was an attempt to recreate crater morphologies by impacts through whatever means necessary, just like the wet cement models forty years ago. Please do go over my posts and examine the evidence I've presented before you continue with these emotionall-motivated attacks on me.

I don't understand this insistence that Birkeland currents connecting planetoids with each other and with the sun don't exist. We can observe these currents impinging on the Earth, the moon, the sun, Jupiter, its moons, Saturn and its moons, comets, everywhere in the solar system we see evidence that these currents do exist, and in the lab we can recreate them without ad hoc jiggering of the model to produce purely cosmetic "results".

Please do go back and re-read my posts, or if you missed some, read them for the first time. You are trying to pick nits here that don't exist. Note my use of the phrase "may mimic". Get a dictionary, look up the word "mimic", then look up "may". And don't forget, probes smashed into the moon's polar regions failed to produce a single noticable speck of ejecta, though it was predicted it would throw up a cloud of vaporized heavy water or some other such nonsense. Incidentally, the craters that do "mimic" the clearly specious "wet cement" models are commonly referred to as "explosion" craters. Explosions are also possible from electrical discharge events, so we're back to vanilla (without stringent ad hoc conditions unlikely to be met) electrical erosion.

The term "interplanetary" suggests they lie between planets, or perhaps planetoids, which is, not coincidentally I think, where we observe them.

Why don't you summarize the key points for us, instead, you've read it and understand it fully, right? Please share.

Once again...and I'm asking nicely...answer the question, please.

There is merit in independently researching instead of asking the same question ad nauseum. Perhaps you should re-read the posts that are causing you so much trouble. I'm quite sure I kept it fairly free of ambiguity. Can you answer my question? What is the point of nitpicking over the choice of one out of two words with identical meanings? Is there a point to that kind of petty bickering? Honestly, do you really think this is a fruitful pursuit, bickering over a choice between two words with identical meanings? I don't think it is. I've said all I have to say about this, if you are still confused, try not to let your confusion turn to spam in this thread.

Who's bickering...I'm asking politely...and I'll ask until you answer...What are the 2 words with identical meanings?

Your points about the word "astronoger"? I really don't think you made anything remotely resembling a point, but you did engage in a lot of bombastic backhanded insults directed at me. But I let it slide, don't sweat it. Are you confused because I added that non sequitur at the end about oysters? Well now you know how I feel reading your posts!

I don't think it's polite of you to spam this thread with essentially the same post again and again. I doubt many users of the thread find your posts constructive, and personally I find them combative and irritating. I wish there was an ignore button on here.

. o O ( Guess I'll have to use mental ignore on this one. )

Good luck in your studies.

No need for an ignore button...I promise to "go away" if you'll answer that one simple question...which 2 words have identical meanings?...it really shouldn't be that hard for you to answer, so why don't you?