It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
No problem. This here is a discussion forum. I'm here to present the other side of the story - the truth in my opinion, though clearly not in yours. As an ATS membe, I get to do that. I'm not here to belittle you, to tell you that you're an idiot or a lunatic; simply to point out that perfectly good and testable explanations for most meteorological phenomena already exist and that, since you're the guy making the unorthodox claims, you're the guy who bears the burden of proof.
To make your proposition fly, you have to:
1. Show why the ordinary explanations of meteorological phenomena are wrong.
2. Produce explanations based on an electric-weather model that better fit the facts.
You haven't done that yet. You've posted a set of resemblences, coincidences and correspondences. That's not scientific, I'm afraid; it's magic. 'Like breeds like,' 'as above, so below,' that kind of thing.
If you don't want to take it down to electric-universe fundamentals, that's fine by me. But just for fun, can you propose electric-weather explanations for
- clouds?
- rain?
- wind?
- hail?
- snow?
- hurricanes?
- mirages?
- inversion layers?
- fog?
I'd be very interested in reading whatever you post.
According to a study in Geographical Research published by Wiley-Blackwell, the droughts in eastern Australia are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect....
...“The interaction between the directionality in the Sun’s and Earth’s magnetic fields, the incidence of ultraviolet radiation over the tropical Pacific, and changes in sea surface temperatures with cloud cover, could contribute to an explanation of substantial changes in the SOI from solar cycle fluctuations.
Climate records stretching back 5000 years seem to show a strong link between rainfall in the tropics and changes in the Earth's magnetic field, according to new research.
Electricity is fundamental in all things, from the atom through to life itself and into cosmos.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Well... let's say that electricity has a lot to do with matter and energy. I wouldn't say it's fundamental. What about the strong force? Or the one electric-universe theorists despise so much, gravity? Not so fundamental? Why not?
Next level down, charge is fundamental to some particles, but neutrons, photons and neutrinos have no charge. More particles have mass than have charge, and all particles have spin (angular momentum). So how is electricity more fundamental than spin?
In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.
As to your links - of course the sun affects Earth weather. Any idiot knows that; where do you think the energy comes from to power the planetary meteorological engine? Nothing in those two articles points to an electric-universe explanation of anything. Ordinary science explains these phenomena without any trouble.
Anyway, this is all embroidery. Where are your fundamentals? Where is the electric-weather theory? Fact: you don't have one.
OP, if you put forward an idea, you'd better put some proof forward along with it. How else do you expect to make people believe you?
Originally posted by squiz
Someone who pays attention may see the relationship between charge and mass
EU theorists don't despise gravity but understand it as a part of the electric force.
It's theorised that all the forces are ultimately derived from the electric force at the sub atomic level(s).
Neutrons are actually a combination of smaller positive and negative charges. So your simply wrong there.
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic "unit" of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.
Wall Thornhill has some great articles in this area, easy to find.
If your really interested in what EU theorizes about gravity and the atom, get informed.
And it seems you could brush up on the mainstream stuff as well.
Magnetism is generated by electric currents and electric currents only I'm told. Note the phrase "Earth's magnetic field". Recent discoveries have confirmed that the magnetosphere is charged from electric currents traveling along what they call magnetic flux ropes from the Sun, aka Birkeland currents. The articles are not talking about thermal heat. Please try to keep up Asty.
Using data from 1876 to the present, the exploratory analysis suggests that when the Sun's South Pole is positive in the Hale Cycle, the likelihood of strongly positive and negative Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) values increase after certain phases in the cyclic ~22 yr solar magnetic field. The SOI is also shown to track the pairing of sunspot cycles in ~88 yr periods. This coupling of odd cycles, 23–15, 21–13 and 19–11, produces an apparently close charting in positive and negative SOI fluctuations for each grouping. This Gleissberg effect is also apparent for the southern hemisphere rainfall anomaly. Over the last decade, the SOI and rainfall fluctuations have been tracking similar values to that recorded in Cycle 15 (1914–1924).
Where are your fundamentals? Where is the electric-weather theory? Fact: you don't have one.
there is no electric weather theory
Originally posted by Astyanax
Of course I'm not interested; why should I be? I'm interested in physics, not fringe theories. The day you show me how EU theories rigorously explain something mainstream physics doesn't, preferably with experimental evidence to support the theory.
It the same with the other link you posted. Nothing incredible in the idea that rainfall and terrestrial magnetic field fluctuations may be linked in some way. But how? That's where your theory should come in; that's where you should be offering us an explanation. Instead of which, you draw attention to the magical correspondence ('as above, so below') and say you've proved your case.
Prove it? You haven't even laid it out. Which brings me back to what I posted earlier:
As you yourself at finally admit - and kudos to you for having the honesty, in the end, to edit your post to inform us that in fact
there is no electric weather theory
It's good to hear it the horse's mouth.
And - be truthful, now - there isn't any electric-universe theory either, is there?
Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
I have shown they have discovered tornadoes on the sun, now with the EU theory, this isn't a problem, could you explain how tornadoes that big can form on the Sun?
Can you explain why there is a 'tether' linking the Sun to the Earth, pumping in 650,000 Amps every couple of minutes?
Can you explain where that energy goes?
Because we show links, 'coincidences' or outright patterns, but can't connect them, our theory is invalid? Bad logic there.
Lol, if the standard model can be considred a theory on the flimsy evidence it shows and the tenuous links it 'tries' to make, then I think EU is pretty sound.
Originally posted by Astyanax
We do not need to speculate about the causes of Earth's weather. They are quite well understood. Weather is caused by things like the rotation and gravitational pull of the planet, its varying topography, the varying degrees to which it and its atmosphere are heated by the sun and the normal behaviour of fluids under differentials of temperature and pressure. These causes are as plain as the nose on your face.
Of course, there is an electrical side to the weather: lightning and associated phenomena. These are mostly discharges of static electricity.
However, no links have ever been shown between what we call 'space weather' - which is mainly driven by the electromagnetic activity of the sun and includes phenomena like auroras and your Ethiopian ion plume - and terrestrial weather, the sort that makes us buy umbrellas.
We find that the neutron-parton charge density is negative at the center, so that the square of the transverse charge radius is positive, in contrast with many expectations. Additionally, the proton's central d quark charge density is larger than that of the u quark by about 30%. The proton (neutron) charge density has a long range positively (negatively) charged component.
With your apparent grasp of basic physics, it surprises me that you would so quickly dismiss an expanded model of meteorology which takes electromagnetism into account. You acknowledge that gravity, fluid dynamics, the sun, the rotation of the earth, and surface topology all have a role to play in properly modeling the weather. Why not, then, include electromagnetic forces as well?
Originally posted by squiz
I was referring to models to obviously are unfamiliar with, not the standard model.
'We find that the neutron-parton charge density is negative at the center, so that the square of the transverse charge radius is positive...'
Charged particle precipitation on the macro scale (as opposed to cloud chambers, an obsolete technology, btw) has not been shown to have any effect on weather or climate. A cloud chamber is a supersaturated environment, in a situation of less than 100% humidity the passage of charged or uncharged particles has no significant effect. If clouds are existent, a very high influx of solar particles (somehow not deflected by the magnetosphere) may have some sort of effect but there is no indication that they would ever contribute to the formation of clouds or any other sort of weather.
There is no current in a thunderhead until the potential builds to the point of discharge. The static charge is an effect of the turbulence within a cumulonimbus cloud, not a cause.
HAARP affects an extremely limited volume of the ionosphere. The effects of the ionosphere on weather, if any, are little understood and it is doubtful that HAARP has any capability of affecting it.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Getting a bit desperate, are we? I won't pretend to understand what that paper is about from the abstract (perhaps, if you're an PRL subscriber, you could post the .pdf for us?) but whatever the arrangement of charges within a neutron and the mathematical calisthenics one can do with them, the neutron is a particle with no charge.
A neutron is a particle with a NET zero charge.
They have no solid explanation for spites and elves, likewise no real answer for lightning.
Originally posted by Astyanax
A neutron is a particle with a NET zero charge.
Another admission! Gosh, squiz, we'll make a reasonable fellow of you yet.
They have no solid explanation for spites and elves, likewise no real answer for lightning.
Neither has EU 'theory'. If I'm wrong, show it to us.
The Electric Universe model suggests that the Earth plays a cathode role in the Sun's discharge and therefore is in the business of supplying negative electrons to space and receiving positive ions from the solar wind. It is interesting therefore that the presence of solar wind ions inside the earth's magnetosphere has puzzled scientists. Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud "condenser" is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud "condenser" gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa. By creating a short-circuit to high altitudes in the storm the lightning effectively "throws the switch" connected to the glow discharge "tube" in the upper atmosphere. It then makes perfect sense that the much taller positive cloud-to-ground discharge will be more effective at providing power to the glow discharge than will low-level negative cloud-to-ground lightning because the circuit resistance is lower. Ultimately, lightning on Earth is driven by electric power focused on the Sun but minutely intercepted by the Earth. So lightning on Earth is a pale imitation of what is happening on the Sun.
It is not surprising, therefore, that it took a man who was an electrical researcher, astronomer, and expert on the effects of lightning, Dr. Charles E. R. Bruce of the Electrical Research Association in England, to recognize the fact. That was in 1941! Such is the inertia of science.
I'm not talking about the usual speculative like-begets-like explanations, of which EU believers have a plenitude; I'm talking about something real and scientifically rigorous.
This is getting a bit tedious, I fear. You won't be hearing more from me on this thread unless you post something meaningful. 'Bye for now.