If you want promotion in the thunderbolts church, here is a few tips:

* Do not be afraid of claims that are widely agreed on to be false.
* Do not avoid statements that are clearly vacuous, as this is the reader's problem.
* Do not avoid claims that are logically inconsistent, as the reader might not have enough self-confidence to contradict you.
* Stick to your claims even if they have been carefully proven wrong by the enemy.
* Use thought experiments that contradict the results of widely accepted real experiments.
* Use word in capital letters or use nice pictures to hide your shortcoming behing the talent of others.
* Do not care writing "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann" as these people are worth nothing.
* Claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (no evidence needed).
* Point out that you have gone to school or studied physics, even for two weeks, as if this were evidence of sanity.
* Stress how long you have been working on the nuts and bolts theory.
* Post about nuts and bolts every where favorable people are ready to read you.
* Challenge the funding of the big labs who are obviously wasting public money.
* Create new terms without proper defintion, like "thunderbolt" or "light latency".
* Stress that hard math do not make good science and that good science should be understandable by the idiot next door.
* Repeat that current well-established theories are "only theories", as if this were somehow a point against these.
* Argue that mainstream science can't even explain the simplest phenomena like gravitation.
* Claim frequently that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided. Even Newton's gravitation should be ridiculed.
* Claim that the nuts and bolts thunderbolts are a "paradigm shift".
* Complain about the Baez's crackpot index even though it does not mention you explicitely.
* Claim the Nobel price is a planet-wide swindle.
* Claim that Newton was wrong and that it was about time for humanity to know the truth.
* Use science fiction works or myths as if they were fact: the thunderbolts true nut and bolts.
* Blame the establisment for personal past scientific failures and look good on the pictures.
* Build a club of people promoting each other.
* Talk about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it, instead ridicule other theories.
* Picture mainstream science as conservative and dishonest.
* Defend common sense against the nonsense of mathematical physics.
* Pretend, like Sarah Pencho Palin Valev, that some knew Einstein was wrong but preffered to stay silent.
* Claim Einstein in his old days recognized secretely the failure of his theories.
* Claim that the brightest brains on earth support the thunderbolts.
* Compare mainstream scientist to phychiatric cases you are familiar with.
* Compare those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, or communist in case you have sympathy for the Nazis.
* Claim that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
* Compare yourself to Copernic suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
* Claim that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.
* Claim you have a revolutionary theory but give no concrete testable predictions.


In other words, get the maximum score on the Baez's crackpot index.

Will your Master John Baez get the maximum score for this:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

I assumed, PV, that you definitively stopped working in physics
once you realized that that no physicist could explain why an apple falls.
This is when you got your first scores on the Baez scale.
Since then, each of your posts have settle you as the world recordman.

The above post by the cement process engineer that can't tell French from Latin is a typical crybaby rant by one who feels his silly religion is threatened. His cut and paste display of his supposed knowledge base is too transparent.

He supposedly knows all about Bierkland currents, but cannot imagine their scalability.

I just realize one tip is missing:

* Try to sell your stuff in books and CDs. Those suckers who will buy will support you even more.
You will even be more persuasive by asking for donations.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/donate.htm

You still haven't explained why an apple falls. Describing the ether as elastic latex doesn't do it.

http://www.amazon.com/Electric-Universe-Wallace-Thornhill-Talbott/product-reviews/0977285138/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

An interresting review of this book on Amazon:

Perhaps uniquely unqualified, the two authors of this travesty are essentially Velikovskian adherents who have gone off the deep end. That's saying a lot. While Velikovsky was an outright charlatan who was taken to task rather forcefully and effectively by Carl Sagan, he also had enough humility to acknowledge that he was not trained nor educated in the physical sciences. His attempts to outline a "new theory" of celestial mechanics were famously absurd, but he also acknowledged that they were the most strained and outlandish ideas he had concocted. Of course, Velikovsky essentially never came up with any ideas that were shown to be correct for the right reasons. Other than making vague proposals that later turned out to be true for other reasons than the ones Velikovsky cited, the man essentially was just a good communicator who adopted the facade of science while ignoring or being outright ignorant of the substance.

So these people got there start reading and believing in Velikovsky. However, as the movement imploded in the 1970s and 1980s, they decided that "catastrophism" needed a new tactic. This is where their canard "The Electric Universe" was born. Taking Velikovsky's fantasies to the next level, these "researchers" rewrite reality to fit their view of planets violating celestial mechanics by means of fantastical electrical mechanisms. Despite the overwhelming confirmation of Kepler's laws, these people believe that there were instances when these laws were nearly maximally violated due to "electricity", a concept itself they seem to barely grasp.

Where these authors differ stylistically from Velikovsky is that they have enough hubris to conclude that not only is everybody else wrong, it is impossible that they themselves are wrong. From fantastic reinterpretations of history to absurd claims about nature that are essentially 100% false, these provocateurs have only been able to continue their charade of "knowledge" by being funded by some seriously duped and deranged conspiracy theorists who hang on their every word as if it were gospel. You need only read the "positive reviews" here and take a look at their love-in sessions at thunderbolts.info to see what I mean. The essential narrative is one of oppression by and hatred for the mainstream. Failing to understand basic ideas in physics, astronomy, archeology, and comparative mythology and never taking any classes or reading anything beyond snippets of books on those vast subjects, the authors instead are content to declare themselves content experts by fiat and will heartily try to defame, harass, and bully those who point out that their playing of "emperor" not only has no clothes... he's not even an emperor!

Their unique innovation to Velikovsky's fantasies is to tie in "electrical" discussions into astronomy. Where does this come from? Well, a few electrical engineers including Tesla made bold claims about the "nature" of the universe in the late 19th century and in the early 20th century electromagnetism was worked into astronomy in fits and starts -- there is still a lot left to be done. What is undeniable is that even the most third-rate undergraduate major in physics and astronomy knows more electromagnetism than do these two authors: but that doesn't stop them from pontificating that nobody understands the connection and synergy between ancient history, electricity, and astronomy as much as they do. Lest you think these confidence men are just wistlin' dixie, realize that they have been successful enough to get a pretty glossy book published and in circulation.

So, should you read this book? Sure! Why not? Just don't pay for it. It's pretty comedic as far as books go, but it essentially says nothing truthful in detail.
_____________________________

From simply reading the nuts of the Thunderbolts, I had also observed their incompetence and their bad faith.
But I was not aware of the Velikovsky story.
Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
The US were a symbol of freedom for this guy, but also the freedom for stupidity, the door to nonsense.
The nuts from thunderbolds are building on this.

If you want to have real fun just read this: "Cosmos without Gravitation" by the psychiatrist Velikovsky.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
It is free and just as fun as the "Electric Universe" (30$) !

Yet another interresting Amazon review of the "Electric Universe":

Excuse me, not quite right..., November 30, 2007
By Fred (US)

Despite trying to get through this book, I found no evidence or reasonable explanations to support their theories in this book. As one reviewer wrote: "They explain how & why current astrophysics is wrong with dozens of dazzling astro photos, discoverers & charts of plasma patterns from Kristian Birkeland c. 1900 to now." Well, I'm sorry, but pretty pictures, names of people, and home-made charts do not disprove modern cosmology and astrophysics. Further, the author has a degree and a background in Mythology, not Physics or Astronomy or, in fact, no science at all. And so, that's exactly what this book is... a home spun mythology.

This is on par with books on UFO abductions, cattle mutilations, and alien conspiracies. They have no crednetials and no published scientific papers and no proof other than to continue repeating "It's ELECTRIC". This is a perfect book for the uneducated. Sorry folks, P. T. Barnum was right.

Despite my severe criticism, it's a pretty book, nice pictures, and would make a great Sci-Fi story. I skimmed through the rest and gagged at the enormity of their claims that all of the scientific world was wrong, and they were right. Amazing claims from a mythology enthusiast. I was going to drop the book off at the local church book drive but threw it out for fear someone might actually BELIEVE this nonsense. OK, I can hear it now - I must be part of the conspiracy. HAHAHAHA, right!

"You still haven't explained why an apple falls."

You got 20 points on the Baez test.
I am sure you have already many points in your pocket.

Anonymous, the one that cannot distinguish between French and Latin, said: "Well, I'm sorry, but pretty pictures, names of people, and home-made charts do not disprove modern cosmology and astrophysics."

Jose says: Ha,ha,ha,ha on you fool. What do you think modern cosmology has to work with? Only pictures, and charts from telescopes and radio dishes. So it is only the silly propaganda produced by the Big Bangers vs the common sense of Halton Arp and the IEEE.

And the US Navy

For the navy you may be right.
For the IEEE, I know enough of these guy to be sure you are wrong.
(by the way, I am an IEEE member)

Anonymous, the cement process engineer that can't tell French from Latin said: "For the navy you may be right.
For the IEEE, I know enough of these guy to be sure you are wrong.
(by the way, I am an IEEE member)"

Jose says: Get used to it, I am always right. Ya better ask around. Your buddies at IEEE are way ahead of you. Don't let them know that you post such silly stuff here.

So you are a desk cleaner in the Navy!

What the hell is botls?

That's indeed an easy reading on elementary plasma physics:

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

There is only one problem with this paper: there is nothing to be learned.
This is not a theory that is exposed in the paper, not results, even not a hypothesis.
Nothing more than a gentle introduction to plasma physics, a smooth encouragement to read a book about it, and a vague suggestion that it might be useful.

Gravitation is mentioned only four times in the paper.
Three times in the introduction and once in the curriculum of the author.
This simple fact shows that nowhere in the paper a proof or even an allusion that electric forces in the universe could replace some current gravitational explanations.
Yet, for sure, this is the subliminal message!
It is really appalling that so many people, here and in this paper and on boldsnust site, talk about it and are just unable to do anything relevant about it.

Let's wait till this author or another comes with something subtantial?
Or let's work out something subtantial instead of the empty words of JR and the like?
Would that be too difficult for the mytholigist physicists, Sarah Valev or Joss Rodriguez?
Personally I think that any undergraduate student could do a better job on this topic that all these guys, professor Arp included.

Is it so difficult to figure out a mechanics for charge separation and to quantify that?
(not more difficult than modeling an old triode and its charge distribution, for sure)
Would it be difficult to evaluate the resulting forces?
Would it be so difficult to predict some consequences and imagine how these could be checked experimentally and quantitatively?

Probably these morons don't like to think.
They preffer to claim and argue with a lot of badfaith.
Their culture is not scientific.

I stop here, I lost too much time, and I have some useful things to do.

For those who are really interrested by the topic, they can go far beyond this Scott IEEE paper by reading, for example, this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yKfQLYAyOn0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

For those who are new to the topics, it will become clear that the Scott IEEE paper is not more than a secondary school overview of the most elemetnary topics in this field.

You have such a hard time acknowledging the electrical nature of the Universe because it will mean abandoning your silly religion of the Big Bang and Black Holes.

And Yeh, We are sooo impressed with your supposed advanced knowledge of the subject. Your criticism of Dr. Scott's paper is that it is not cryptic enough for you? People are not allowed to be easy to understand? What you don't understand, is that the subject is easy to understand.

What you don't understand is that you are much closer to the size of the atom than the size of the universe. You are insignificant. By staying with the easily seen through "modern science" you are assured of remaining so.

Cement Brain states in his soo condescending manner: "For those who are new to the topics, it will become clear that the Scott IEEE paper is not more than a secondary school overview of the most elemetnaryn(sic) topics in this field."

What Cement Brain fails to point out is that once you study his recommended book, you will realize that Dr. Scott knows far more about the subject than our dear Cement Brain.

"Your criticism of Dr. Scott's paper is that it is not cryptic enough for you?"
_______________________________________________________________________________

Not at all.

My first criticism is that I know many textbooks developping all these plasma physics topics in much more details.
Why then repeating that in a paper?
Specially if the added value is nothing more than a bit of pepper.

My second criticism is about the pepper added to this topic by Dr. Spock.
Just pepper, no proof, even no well formed hypothesis.

Third citicism is about the criticism by the author himself.
Looks like he lectures the world for ignoring what the whole world knows actually very well.

Example 1:
A big lesson by Dr Spock: "Magnetic lines are not frozen"
My god!
My first hours in plasma physics were about the Liouville equation from which we derived the Boltzmann equation which led us both to the MHD approximation as well as the to the expression for the resistivity and the Debye length, diffusion coefficient, collision frequancy and cross section, ...
But this fool (Dr Spock) would pretend I -and generations of collegues- have never learned about resistive MHD and would believe in frozen magnetic field lines!
I tell you: this is completely crazy.
This question is not worth more than 1 point in an exam, too elementary.

Example 2:
He also pretended that magnetic field line have no real existence and are simply artefact used for explanations!
Wow! This guy is a genius!
I will try to imitate him: Physics has no real existence it is an artefact.
In addition, I find it very funny that when the energy of particle is small enough (small Larmor radius), they follow nearly exactly the magnetic field lines.
Particles have a didactic talent apparently!
Next time I might read him saying that banana trajectories (1) are not bananas.

May I say that Dr Spock has a skin but no meat?


(1) www.ipp.mpg.de/~Simon.Pinches/thesis/node41.html

Cement head: You certainly are full of yourself aren't you? If you ever get hungry, you can just chop a piece of yourself off and have it for lunch.

You can't seem to understand that Dr. Scott is really not addressing his fellow engineers. Of Course they know this stuff. He is addressing "Astro Physicists," who continually speak of "broken magnetic lines," "reconnection," and other nonsense, that Plasma Physicists most assuredly Do understand. You are clueless as to what "main stream" astronomers think, and you are clueless as to what telescopes reveal. You just like to post bandwidth, since it gives you a thrill.

Now, all knowing you come along and try to convince everybody that even though you understand plasma, the gravity only description of the universe is just fine with you.

Well, I understand why. If you consider the evidence for the electric universe, you will have to give up your creationist Big Bang.

Why are you so afraid that some one will actually look at my posts and think for themselves? Do you think that your opinion is so valuable, that everyone is just dying to hear your useless ad hominem remarks? I ain't going away, so get used to my doing the biblical thing and turning the other cheek. Here is another big vertical smile for you.

Don't piss off Dr. Spock with your silly disrespect, you may need him to help you deliver the overdue puppy you are about to bear.

Here is a piece from your chief Dr Spock:

"Proposing that magnetic field lines move around, break,
merge, reconnect, or recombine is an error based on the false
assumption that the lines are real entities in the first place.
This is an example of reifying an abstract theoretical concept.
Field lines are not real-world 3-D entities and thus cannot do
anything. Like mathematical singularities, field lines are pure
abstractions and cannot be reified into being real 3-D material
objects."

This is utter stupidity.

I explained you already that charged particles with a small enough energy perpendicular to the magnetic field simply do follow the magnetic field lines.
For more details read about the motion of particles in magnetized plasmas.
Now, if you displace the spource of the magnetic fields, these trajectories will move accordingly, and therefore it is reasonnable to say that magnetic field lines have moved.

Magnetic surfaces are even easier to visualize as these are similar to equipotentials in electrostatics. Simply use a fluxmeter and you can label each point in 3D space with flux values.
Therefore, a simple flux-meter makes magnetic surfaces visible.

Now, consider that reconnection is not really about field lines.
Reconnection is really about magnetic surfaces.
This point illustrates very well the incompetence of Dr Spock.
Remember: magnetic surfaces can be measured with a fluxmeter.
These magnetic surfaces can change their topology simply because of the resistivity of the plasma.
Isn't that obvious?
The currents decay by collision and the magnetic flux is gone!
Buy a coil, a battery, a fluxmeter and try.

Actually the attack of Dr Spock against reconnection is even more stupid!
He criticised the use of magnetic field lines to challenge the concept of reconnection.
That was stupid because it is actually magnetic surfaces that really matter there.
But if you think twice you will realize that in the end reconnection is simply the merging and the dissipation of electric currents!
Would Dr Spock pretend that electric currents could not merge or dissipate?

You were quite right to react on my last post, JR.
I now realize that I was much too polite and respectful with the paper of Dr Spock.
I said it was textbook material with some pepper.
I was wrong.
Spock paper is texbook material with BS on top.

Cement Head: "But if you think twice you will realize that in the end reconnection is simply the merging and the dissipation of electric currents!"

That's right, you got his point. Very good. Here have another doggie bone. Want to go outside?

I got his no-point more precisely.

Dr Spock makes a point telling that reconection is an error based on misconceptions.
I proved that those misconception are actually valid concepts that Spock doesn't understand.
In addition, you now say that Dr Spock recognizes "currents reconnection", so to speak.

Looks like a guy recognizing Taiwan but not Formoza!
That doesn't change natural geography, but just political geography.

Sorry for Dr Spock, but there is no political physics.
He must be one of the few trying to push politics into physics.

It wasn't "current reconnection," It was "magnetic reconnection. The point is that there are tremendous currents flowing through out the universe. That is what You finally admitted. You know, the filaments that you can,t see, that are obvious to anyone who looks. You really twist things, Cement Head, to make a non-point.

The Science Cartel vs. Immanuel Velikovsky:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder-joshua/snyder-joshua21.1.html

Velikovsky's predictions fullfilled.

Big news. According to D Spock:

- magnetic reconnection is nonsense and BS
- current can merge and can decay

Just as if these two things were different!
By renaming words and plagiarizing textbook, one could spend a life long on wasting paper.
Obviously the IEEE paper by Dr Spock is even worse that third grade plagiarized informaion.

Its the chicken or the egg, Cement head. The magnetism only exists because of the electric current. If one uses common knowledge, it is not plagiarism. You really try to make mountains out of nothing.

Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

By
C. E. R. Bruce

M.A., D.Sc. (Edin.) F.I.E.E., F.Inst.P. F.R.A.S.
(Research Physicist in The Electrical Research Association from 1924 to 1967)

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html#SpecialIssues

IEEE-3D-LOGO ASSOCIATED WITH THE IEEE NUCLEAR AND PLASMA SCIENCES SOCIETY

LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, 27 April, 200

"You really try to make mountains out of nothing."

Sorry, it is Dr Spock who is making mountains of nothing.
And that just what I said repeatedly: he has no new information on phycics.
His paper is just common place with bad pepper.

Don't go swimming in deep water, Cement Head, You will go straight to the bottom, head first.

Long ago I was rather good at swimming.
I did 16'30" on 1500m, which in that time was pretty good.
Today I would be ridiculous compared to women.
A bit like Pentcho Valev Palin compared to any undergraduate today.

Your petty antagonisms against Pencho are pretty boring, Cement Head.

I try to be as antagonist and boring as him, the Palin valev.
But of course, I won't succeed, if only simply because I would not have the time for so much copy:paste.

Don't worry your little Cement Head. You exceed everyone else on this forum in your ability to bore.

Cluster Collisions

When high temperatures showed up between two clusters, out came the only tool in the toolbox to explain it--another collision in an expanding universe.

In the Big Bang universe, where everything has been exploding apart for 13 billion years, its amazing how many things are bumping into each other. Astronomers have only one force to work withgravitywhich works by attraction. So whenever an energetic event is found, like the high temperature in the above galaxy clusters, it must have been caused by a gravity-driven collision.

The researcher quoted in the BBC report of this finding was puzzled. This was the first time the clusters were studied in x-ray wavelengths. Previous studies in visible light seemed to show two serene, undisturbed galaxy clusters. Yet the x-ray study shows a very hot temperature (70 million degrees) at the interface between the two clusters. Why should that be?

Astronomers consider plasma to be an ionized gas that behaves according to the same laws that a neutral gas follows, with some modification for magnetic effects. Because they cannot directly measure the properties of extragalactic space, they have developed mathematical models based on the behavior of neutral gases.

Hannes Alfvén, the father of plasma cosmology, took a different approach. In the opening to his monograph, Cosmic Plasma, he describes how the pure theory approach lost touch with reality. Rather than theorize about how plasma is supposed to act, he studied how it actually behaves in the laboratory. Among the many differences between plasmas actual behavior and the theoretical model are temperature anomalies like the one in the galaxy clusters above: temperatures of ions and electrons are 10 to 100 times higher than expected in neutral gases. So, from an Electric Universe point of view, the anomalous temperature seen in the above galaxy clusters are a normal property of the plasma interaction between clusters.

The BBC article goes on to mention that our own Milky Way, along with our Local Cluster, is headed for a collision with the enormous Virgo Cluster a few billion years down the road. If Halton Arps observations are correct, this simply isnt true. The apparent collision course is another distortion caused by astronomers failure to account for an age-related component to redshift. The Virgo cluster is simply older than the Milky Way: It may be the Milky Ways parent.

From:http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050428cluster.htm

In the quote above, there is nothing new to be learned.
Except maybe for this:

"Astronomers consider plasma to be an ionized gas that behaves according to the same laws that a neutral gas follows, with some modification for magnetic effects."

Problem is:

- this is not physics
- this is simply an accusation of astronomers being stupid
- this is wrong

The reality is:

- most astromers have a physics backgroud, some an engineering background

- most astronomers know very well what a plasma is: a collection of charged particles

- plasma dynamics is conceptually simple:
+ each charge moves according to the laws of motion and electrodynamics (relativistic when needed)
+ considering the large number of particles in practical problems, the methods of statistical physics must be used

- "Ideal MHD" is a useful approximation in a limited domain of application

- the breakdown of the "Ideal MHD" approximation is very well known and understood

- many other plasma dynamic approximations are known and used, for example:
+ the Vlasov equation, the Landau equation, the Boltzmann equation
+ the gyrokinetic model, the BBGKY equations, ...

These nuts from thunderbolts are wasting their time on accusations and simply don't deliver anything new.
They don't have the courage for the hard work, they are satisfied by just talking about it.

So, Cement Brain, with all this knowledge the "conventional astronomers supposedly have, why do all their explanations consist of "gravity only stories," "wind," and especially "collisions" when their theme is that the Universe is supposedly expanding?

You blather on and on about the stuff you say you know, implying that the plasma cosmos physicists don't understand it. The reality is that they understand it better than you do.
Furthermore you do not acknowledge the obvious evidence in the photographs that both sides of the argument have to use.

You are just the steaming brown brick. They haven't spent much time on accusations. Most is spent on simple explanations where conventional astronomy is "surprised," and then concocts unknown new conjectures to keep their tired old religion afloat.

The Electric Universe doesn't require anything "new," especially something made up, since regular old laboratory plasma physics works just fine in the universe, too.

You are just a crybaby.

Electric Clouds

Cloud formations often exhibit structure that could be the result of something other than blowing winds. Does ionized plasma actually shape the clouds?

"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." --- Wal Thornhill, 2004

In a recent press release, scientists from the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds.

Ilan Koren of the Weizmann Institute wrote: The effects of this zone are not included in most computer models that estimate the impact of aerosols on climate. This could be one of the reasons why current measurements of this effect dont match our model estimates.

In 1999 and then in 2002 NASA launched the Aqua and Terra satellites as part of an ongoing project to study aerosol distribution around the world. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) packages onboard each of the satellites are designed to operate like eyes in the sky, analyzing the various frequencies of visible light reflected by objects below.

Because different targets like lakes, mountains or clouds return different spectral signatures, those reflections can be categorized and the source of the signal identified. In particular, MODIS looks for the spectra of particulates and gasses that are thought to influence the climate changes known as global warming.

What appears to be clear blue sky around clouds, such as in the image above, is actually a region of particles that do not correspond to water vapor or the pollution-induced gasses that investigators expected to see. Since clouds have a high albedo and scatter polarized light from their outer margins, it is challenging for the MODIS research team to detect anything near them. So that glare from specular distortion does not obscure their results they avoid scanning an area about one kilometer distant from cloud boundaries.

Scientists know of the hazy halo of particles that is sometimes visible around individual clouds, but the discovery of elevated aerosol levels encompassing the entire expanse was unexpected. Whole sections of sky are filled with particles. However, after analyzing data from thousands of observations the researchers found that the concentration of aerosols systematically increased closer to the clouds. In order to determine if their measurements were accurate the investigators sought the assistance of another NASA-sponsored research group to confirm their observations.

The Aerosol Robotic Network is a collection of automated platforms installed around the world. The devices reduce glare effects as they measure the volume and size of aerosols between the instruments and the sun. When a cloud blocks the sun, the instruments take no scheduled readings, which provides an indirect measure of the clouds presence.

Ilan Koren noted:

"We found that the region affected by this cloud field 'twilight zone' extends to tens of kilometers beyond the identified cloud edge. This suggests that 30 to 60 percent of the atmosphere previously labeled as 'cloud-free' is actually affected by cloud-aerosol processes that reflect solar energy back into space."

Ions attract water in the atmosphere instead of through the commonly described process of neutral dust motes building up raindrops through a process of condensation. They may also charge the dust hanging in the air making it more attractive to water vapor.

The Earth is an electrically charged body within the stream of ions permeating space and holds an electric field at its surface of 50 200 volts per meter. The electricity from space is carried by the barrage of ionic particles emitted by the sun as the solar wind and speeds along massive Birkeland currents through the circuit. Because water molecules are electric dipoles and are attracted to an opposite polar charge, such as that on another water molecule, they will clump together and align themselves within the Earths fair weather field. No seeds are necessary for water vapor to form clouds.

The electromagnetic field beneath a thunderstorm increases (up to 10,000 volts per meter) because it acts like a capacitor, storing energy from the surrounding environment. Observations have shown that a "wind" of charged particles blows toward the developing storm, which could be interpreted as a current flowing into the base of the clouds. The surrounding air is pulled along with the current flow and creates the powerful updrafts that sometimes rise into the stratosphere.

It might be the flood of ions into and out of clouds that is forming the twilight zone of unidentified particles that so mystifies the scientific community.

By Stephen Smith

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071217electricclouds.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1879&p=26302#p26302

The mistakes in Don Scott IEEE paper


I was quite surprised when reading this quote from Don Scott in IEEE (1):

=================================================
Don Scott wrote:
Astrophysicists often assume that plasmas are perfect conductors, and as such, any magnetic field in any plasma must be ¡°frozen¡± inside it ... It was based on the observation that, since plasmas were thought to be perfect conductors, they cannot sustain electric fields.

Alfven's original motivation for proposing ¡°frozen-in¡± fields stemmed from another one of Maxwell¡¯s equations, i.e.,

D x E = - dB/dt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)

This implies that if the electric field in a region of plasma is identically zero valued (as it would have to be if the medium had zero resistance¡ªperfect conductivity), then any magnetic field within that region must be time invariant (must be frozen). Thus, if all plasmas are ideal conductors (and thus cannot support electric fields), then any magnetic fields inside such plasmas must be frozen in, i.e., cannot move or change in any way with time.
=================================================
(D above stands for the nabla operator)


First, I have searched the paper for comments about the use of the total derivative dB/dt instead of partial derivatives in eq 12.
There is no comment at all in Don Scott paper although this might be essential!
Also, nowhere he mentions an eventually special meaning for the E and B fields.
Therefore, I can only assume that E and B are the usual electric and magnetic fields in an inertial frame.
And therefore also, I can only assume the derivatives he writes are the partial derivatives d'B/d't from the standard way of writing Maxwell's equation.
I will write partial derivatives as d'B/d't, since the needed character is not available here.
I am obliged to make these assumptions, in the absence of any comment by Don Scott.

Don Scott is then wrong to assume that the "frozen-in" fields cannot move or change with time.
From my many readings in physics, I have absolutely never read such a statement.
Not one astrophysics would ever make such a claim either, as this contradicts elementary physics! (see ref 2 for example)
This is not at all the meaning a of the "frozen-in" theorem of the MHD approximation.
The meaning rather is that the magnetic fields move together with the plasma, in this approximation.
And there are no reasons why the plasma could not move!

It seems this is more than a descriptive mistake by Don Scott.
Indeed, starting the argument with the Faraday equation and assuming E=0 everywhere is the mathematical translation of this misunderstanding.
This leads him to the conclusion that B in this case should be stationary, which is also wrong.
In the MHD approximation, there can be an electric field in a plasma, and moreover the magnetic field can change with time.
The (MHD) assumption of an infinite conductivity translates rather as follows: E+vxB = J/s = 0 .
The "motional electric field" defined by Em = E + vxB, is zero in the MHD approximation.
It is wrong to assume that the electric field itself would be zero.

It is this simple fact that allows us to understand the meaning of "frozen-in" field lines in the MHD approximation.
Instead of being zero, the electric field is actually given by: E = -vxB.
Plugging this expression in Faraday's law we get:

D x (-v x B) = - d'B/d't

From elementary calculus (3), this implies that the resulting magnetic flux through any contour co-moving with the plasma is constant.
Therefore, this can be called the "frozen-in equation".

It should be kept in mind that this is only one of the many approximations in plasma physics.
The closest approximation is of course "resistive MHD".
Resistive MHD is simply obtained by including the term J/s in the "frozen-in equation" above:

D x ( J/s - v x B) = - d'B/d't

This simply leads to an additional diffusion term.
More detailled models consider electrons and ions separately with collisional and electromagnetic interactions.
Much more detailed models consider the full velocity distribution of each charged species.

For example, the electron distribution might contain a fast component superposed to a bulk thermal component.
In this case, the MHD does not apply at all and the full particle details have to be accounted for.
This occurs for example for run-away electrons in tokamaks, or for neutral beams injected and ionized in a tokamak plasma.
The physics involved is very far from simple MHD, although some MHD aspects can surface sometimes.

It is actually easy to answer the initial question "Are Electric Currents "Frozen In" to Plasma? ".
The answer is simply: generally they are not frozen-in.
This is mainstream understanding.
However, the frozen-in conditions are often met in practice, at least approximatively.
Therefore, the question is more about the appropriate use of an approximation.
That's day-to-day business in physics!

Sceptically yours,

Lal

(1)http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf
(2) The physics of fluids and plasmas: an introduction for astrophysicists By Arnab Rai Choudhuri, Cambridge University Press
(3) Advanced engineering mathematics By Alan Jeffrey, 2002, Academic Press

Lal,

You have mistakenly attributed to me something that I was attempting to falsify. It is not I who believes that magnetic fields are frozen into plasma - it is modern astrophysicists who make this error. That was my entire point. Hannes Alfvén first proposed this idea and later, realizing his error, strongly attacked its validity (actually in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech and then in many other of his writings).

I know some people argue intensely about whether that derivative with respect to time in the Maxwell equation ought to be written as a full or partial derivative. For the purpose of discussing whether B-fields (magnetic fields) have to be frozen inside of plasmas, it really makes no difference - take your choice. You state, "There is no comment at all [about this derivative question] in Don Scott paper although this might be essential!" No it is completely unimportant (not essential) to my argument. It would have been a red herring for me to introduce it into my discussion.
So the left side of the equation (the curl of E) is not necessarily equal to zero as it would have to be if E is identically equal to zero. Therefore, the derivative (either total or partial) does NOT have to be zero valued - the point being that the magnetic field does NOT have to be invariant with time.

So it is THEY (astrophysicists) who use the erroneous logical procedure of saying:
1. E = 0 in a plasma (WRONG)
2. Therefore the curl of zero is zero. (True)
3. Therefore the derivative (change) wrt time of the magnetic field is zero - it cannot change (move or grow or shrink). (Wrong)

So because the very first assumption they make (#1) is incorrect, the conclusion (#3) is incorrect.

You go on to state, "Don Scott is then wrong to assume that the 'frozen-in' fields cannot move or change with
time."

I should like to point out that a more careful reading of MY words will reveal that I do not ASSUME that at all. In fact that is the very thing I am attempting to demonstrate is completely false.
I was happy to see you state, "In the MHD approximation, there can be an electric field in a plasma, and moreover the magnetic field can change with time."

This is absolutely correct - but I would like you to know that, although it may be an ASSUMPTION in MHD that there can be an electric field in a plasma, it is MUCH more significant that laboratory experiments have SHOWN that there can be a non-zero valued electric field within a plasma. It is not just an assumption - IT IS AN OBSERVED, DEMONSTRATED FACT.

So, with all due respect, I urge you to re-read my words more carefully with an eye to separating what it is that I am saying as distinct from what others have said.

In reference to your concluding paragraph:
"It is actually easy to answer the initial
question "Are Electric Currents "Frozen In" to
Plasma? ".
The answer is simply: generally they are not frozen-in.
This is mainstream understanding.
However, the frozen-in conditions are often met
in practice, at least approximatively [sic].
Therefore, the question is more about the appropriate use of an approximation.
That's day-to-day business in physics!
Sceptically [sic] yours,
Lal"
This last paragraph is at least partially correct. Its first sentence is exactly what I said in both my book, The Electric Sky, and in my IEEE paper. I am sorry it wasn't written in a way that made that clear to you. The only point that I disagree with in your last paragraph is your statement that, "This is mainstream understanding." It is most definitely NOT generally mainstream opinion. Mainstream opinion is that magnetic fields are indeed frozen-into plasma. I can give you many references to this from the literature if you desire them.
Don
http://members.cox.net/dascott2/ImageList.html

Dear Mr Scott,

I appreciate extremely the positive tone of your answer.
It contrasts very much with the bad debates I experienced here.
A spirit of scientific vandalism.
I am also very sorry for my own tone, but it is the consequence of this.

Let me however stress that the blind critic of the "mainstream view" is leading to this (minor) polarisation of the debate which is counterproductive for everybody (involved).

Therefore it should be no surprise to you that I read your paper in the same way as you interpreted yourself the so-called "mainstream views".
Your statements about it in your paper are a complete carricature.
And it is easy to mack a carricature and contradict it.

Any undergraduate texbook on plasma physics is perfectly clear on these elementary MHD topics.

Furthermore, you are also -apparently- opposing the model of resistive reconnection.
It is not totally clear from your paper if you oppose its application to a certain situation (which one?) or if you consider that resistive reconnection is a wrong model.
If the last is your point of view, then I would be more than shocked.

Plasma physics is actually an extremely difficult field of physics.
Almost nothing in plasma physics is understood in a satifactory way.
Even the resistivity of a plasma is a difficult topic!
But resistive reconnection is totally relevant, not only in solar physics but also in tokamak physics.

What is then the point of comparing what you are saying with what others are saying, considering that you agree with mainstream science?
Open any decent astrophysics book on the topic and you will see the real level of understanding.
Have a look at this book for example:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yKfQLYAyOn0C&pg=PP1&dq=plasma+astrophysics#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Read any chapter in this book and you will realize that the behaviour of (astrophysical) plasmas are a lot more complicated that the simple discussion of the v x B motional field.

I am sure you can agree on this.
After all, wont you agree that a plasma is a collection of charged particles?
If you agree with that you can only agree that MHD is just one of the most primitive model of a plasma we can imagine.
There are many observations that support the need to understand plasmas at a more fundamental level than simple electical engineering MHD.
See the book.


Thanks again for your assertive answer,

Michel

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1879&p=26719#p26719
_________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Are Electric Currents "Frozen In" to Plasma?
by lalbatros on Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:51 am

mharratsc wrote:
How about putting it this way?

Nowhere in our naturally-viewed Universe have we discovered any form of plasma to be superconducting.

This statement is based off of the experimental results of plasma physicists in lab experiments, and even astrophysicists (such as Alfven) whose primary aim was to study the characteristics of plasmas in space without any pre-conceived notions.

Experiential data.

How then can the claim be made that frozen-in magnetic fields are often met "in practice"??

Mathematics practice??

The only explanation can then be: the practice does not take place in reality.

If your formula shows you one thing, but experiments in reality show you another... what should you do then?

Mike H.
___________________________________________________________________________
Hi Mike,

I worked for nearly 10 year in nuclear fusion on tokamaks.
That's what I mean first by "in practice".
I could write pages on this practice, but you could just take one of the many books on the topic.
One of my first job was about the equilibrium of the tokamak plasmas and how its position and eventually its shape can be controlled by the various external currents used for this purpose. It is not so often in plasma physics that theory is a reliable basis for engineering. In that specific case, the MHD approximation assuming infinite conductivity works pretty well. There is no need for more when solving this equilibrium problem. That's engineering practice.

This illustrates a point that apparently posters on this site have much difficulty to understand.
A theory, in itself, is of absolutely no value.
I mean this for all theories, absolutely all theories.
The value of a theory exists only when it is applied correctly and when its domain of applicability is known (reasonably at least).
Till today, there are no theories that can be applied in every circumstances without taking any care for its applicability.
Some theories do have a much broader range of applicability.
However, more general theories are always more difficult to use on specific questions and some approximations needs to be used for applications.
This is just why MHD theory has been designed.
Actually the general theory of plasma is perfectly known and quite simple: the motion of charges and electrodynamics make the whole plasma physics.
But the general theory is not directly usable and in the end we practically work with approximations.

The ideal MHD is indeed a very good example in this respect.
It applies very well to predict plasma equilibrium in a tokamak.
Well, actually, not really without any limits, and even for apparently equilibrium problems.
For example, when the velocity distribution of the particles is highly assymetric for very hot plasmas, then the standard MHD approximation is not a good approximation anymore and it needs at least some corrections. Starting with the basic laws of motion for particles, it is possible to develop much better approximations than ideal MHD, that are not necessarily much more complicated than simple ideal MHD. These laws could then take the effect of an anisotropic distribution into account and its influence on the plasma equilibrium. This is essential in the diagnostic of very hot tokamak plasmas. For example, this must be taken into account in order to measure the total energy of the plasma volume based on the measurements of external equilibrium currents.

For slow motions of the plasmas, like the rotation of a magnetic island, the simple ideal MHD can also be a good model ... still within the right limitations (small gyroradius for example).
However, when fast motions are involved, like during global disruptions or during internal partial disruptions (tokamak sawteeth oscillations e.g.), the ideal MHD model is almost totally irrelevant (like the scenery versus the story).
In this case, the next simple model is resistive MHD that takes resistivity effects into account.
This model is derived from the general laws, just like MHD, but the approximations made are "better".
This model is useful as it shows clearly when and why a plasma can become unstable.
It has -at least- shown the existence of a wide range of plasma instabilites called "resistive instabilities".
However, it is generally unable to explain the speed of these events (same as for space plasmas).
Till today, I think that there are still no totally satisfying theory of disruptions.
However, there is an understanding of the complex phenomena that are involved, based on the general laws.
These general laws (moving particles + electrodynamics) have never yet shown any sign of invalidity.
Instead, by improved (yet still approxilmate) solutions have shown their abilities to explain plasmas in general.
(and also quatum plasmas like in solid state physics!)
Definitvely, the ultimate theory needs to consider the particles motion in some detail in other to understand the full story.
The MHD is unusable to analysis these things.

Now I already ear your your little voice: ... theory and no experience ...
Read again what I just said.
Is it not clear that without theory your observations have just no meaning?
Not more meaning than a train for a cow.
So, Mike, you should introspect on your own statement:

"Nowhere in our naturally-viewed Universe have we discovered any form of plasma to be superconducting. "

How do you know that there is no superconducting plasmas in the universe?
Is your eye able to measure conductivity?
And what do you mean by superconducting?
Do you mean that a superconding current should last more than a human lifetime, 100 years?
And after all, do superconductors really exist?
Till today, nobody has ever proved that a superconducting current could last more than 1000 year.
Or at least, this was not done by pure observation, some theory should have been used.

Learn this, Mike: in physics you always need to consider the error bars, even in your statements.

Very sceptically yours,

Michel

more

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1879&p=26770#p26770
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: Are Electric Currents "Frozen In" to Plasma?
by Birkeland on Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:07 pm

lalbatros wrote:
"I worked for nearly 10 year in nuclear fusion on tokamaks."
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject. I've more than often felt a bit skeptical to the whole tokamak concept. It seems backward or incomplete in the sense that you're not getting to the core, but are working in an outside toroidal range compared to inertial electrostatic confinement fusion. I'm referring to the Polywell concept that, in theory, works by electromagnetic trapping of electrons in a central chamber. Any comparative thoughts on the tokamak and the polywell concept would be welcome.The universe is the total of that which existsnot merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the cause of the universe - Ayn Rand
Birkeland

_________________________________________________

Re: Are Electric Currents "Frozen In" to Plasma?
by lalbatros on Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:00 pm

Till today I did not know about the Polywell device. Therefore I have read this paper:

http://askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf

Its reading was rather depressing for me as it looks like expensive amateurism.
In tokamak research, I have experienced what Dr Bussard precisely called "really good science" (page 4).
I was specially impressed by the wide range of plasma diagnostics that were developped and the amazing observations that were obtained.
These experimental results are a very weighty foundation to improve the theoretical understanding.
I doubt that nuclear fusion could be reached without "really good science".
This is unpopular but very probable.

As far as the EU hypothesis or the "frozen in" current question are concerned, the polywell device is totally irrelevant.
The largest and hottest laboratory plasma have been obtained in tokamaks.
Therefore tokamak research is probably one of the best earth-based source of information on plasma physics.
It makes sense to learn from tokamak research when discussing the EU hypothesis.

More specifically, it should be clear, specially for Mike, that ideal MHD, the frozen in question and many other elementary topics in plasma physics are very well understood and are in no way "mathematical abstractions disconnected from reality".
Having such kind of prejudices is of no use in a scietific discussion.
On the contrary, the mathematical models are perfectly useful and can be compared quantitatively to experimental results.
This means first of all that their range of applicability is reasonably known, and this is also part of the theory.

However, plasma physics is actually much more complicated that most posters here seem to undertand.
It is extremely surprising for me that people claiming a new cosmological hypothesis based on plasma physics are so little aware of real plasma physics both experimental and theoretical.
On the experimental side, it is quite funny that they seem to know more about the Z-pinch than about the tokamak!
Yet, there is quite a lot of physics to be observed and analysed going on in tokamaks!
On the theoretical side, I can't understand why the discussions here never goes beyond elementary MHD questions.
Yet it is obvious, both experimentally and theoretically, that MHD is not more than a simple approximation with a very restricted domain of applicability.

Looks like science ... but this is homework science with simple questions and many wrong answers.

Might be useful to know ...

Michel

Michel: "Looks like science ... but this is homework science with simple questions and many wrong answers."


The point is that shapes, actions, motions, etc. of electrified plasmas formed in the laboratory match patterns seen in the cosmos, as well as microscopic and atomic patterns. The interactions are scaled. Mainstream astronomers refuse to admit it.

5 year old kids can draw the same patterns.
It doesn't imply we live in kid's universe.

All the data used by the nuts have been provided by mainstream science.
The thunderbolt fancy tellers just want to look clever to ignorants.
They want to become the one-eyed kings among the blinds.
Actually they can't support any idea further than the analogy stage, at best.
They can't even offer just one statement for further experimental and theoretical analysis.

Applying the same logic to computers, they could just pretend that:

thunderbolt logic: the laws of hydraulics explain how computers work

Of course the mainstream view is different.

Mainstream cosmology only knows gravity, and believes in Big Bang, black Holes, and Dark Matter. How silly is that?

A Lamentation for Arp 261
Oct 08, 2009
ESO has released another image of another instance of standard-theory hermeneutics. The several space bureaucracies have become adept at discovering peculiar celestial objects that send them back to the drawing board only to draw the same idea again.

The press release begins with a spark of curiosity: Sometimes objects in the sky that appear strange, or different from normal, have a story to tell and prove scientifically very rewarding. This was the idea behind Halton Arps catalogue of Peculiar Galaxies that appeared in the 1960s.

The press release neglects to mention that one reward of Arps catalog was the questioning of the expanding universe hypothesisa challenge that was suppressed by the political prohibition of questioning established answers.

The press release remarks that ...the image proves to contain several surprises, but this soon proves to be only a rhetorical remark: The next paragraph sweeps the surprise into the standard bin of colliding galaxies before anyones pulse can get in a faster beat. Curiosity is soothed back into unquestioning somnolence by parroting approved answers. That makes for a short press release, so the piece is filled out with repetitions of standard repetitiousness about supernovae and stars.

What if curiosity were not patronized into conformity? What if the questions were encouraged to explore the surprises in defiance of the answers who seek to constrain vision with their tunnels of acceptability? What else could Arp 261 be?

Instead of clouds of gas and dust that crash into each other, there could be cells of plasma driving electromagnetic forces throughout the system. Gravitational forces and gas phenomena could be insignificant. Instead of colliding galaxies, Arp 261 could be a single barred spiral galaxy disrupted by a surge in its galactic circuit.

The bright new clusters of very hot stars could be high-current discharges along spiral-arm Birkeland cables. The loop of bright clusters at the center of the image in the upper arm contains filaments that seem to converge. If the clusters were moved to the point of convergence, they would make the arm a continuous spiral: Perhaps the loop is the result of a double layer that exploded in the surging current.

Modern astronomers busy themselves applying accepted theories to new observations in deliberate disregard for the unexpected. They may as well reprint previous papers, close the telescopes, and save the taxpayers pennies. Theyve ceased looking for new ideas and have become technicians of the rote.

Astronomy has become a science of answers, of secure knowledge, of ritual. It can be contained on a hard drive. Its a science for robots or parrots. Answers are victories that soon become dead leaves of reminiscence, dry pages of textbooks and scriptures.

A science for humans is a science of questions, of learning, of possibilities and opportunities. Its aim is not to fold the unquestioned into the envelope of the given but to learn new words and to write new narratives. Arp 261 is part of a lexicon that for too long has been neglected.

Mel Acheson


http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

Mainstream cosmology only knows gravity, and believes in Big Bang, black Holes, and Dark Matter. How silly is that?
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Your are just riduculing your own knowledge of mainstream cosmology.

... Instead of clouds of gas and dust that crash into each other, there could be cells of plasma driving electromagnetic forces throughout the system. Gravitational forces and gas phenomena could be insignificant. Instead of colliding galaxies, Arp 261 could be a single barred spiral galaxy disrupted by a surge in its galactic circuit. ...
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes of course!
And maybe the the tided could be caused by solar eruptions!
And maybe when you fart you could eject more material than when you defecate!

Impulse Control:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091009impulse.htm

It's something Cement Head will never understand.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091009impulse.htm

"Written by Stephen Smith from an idea suggested by Jim Johnson"
___________________________________________________________________

Some believe batman did exist, some other believe in the EU pseudo hypothesis.

Cement Head believes in Santa Clause, and that gravity is the only force between the Earth and the Sun.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091013gaps.htm

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080527hole.htm

It is true that the Kepler's laws can be explained by an electrostatic force!!!

Cement Head: Nobody at EU is trying to explain Kepler's laws with electrostatic force. You are the laughing stock.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/091014nebula.htm