Friday, November 21, 2008

Billions of Electron Volts Hitting the Earth



ATIC, the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter, a NASA funded balloon-borne instrument high over Antarctica, has detected Birkeland currents with energies of 300-800 billion electron Volts, thousands of times the energy of X-rays.

Chang, et al.,: An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300–800 GeV.

Galactic cosmic rays consist of protons, electrons and ions, most of which are believed to be accelerated to relativistic speeds in supernova remnants1, 2, 3. All components of the cosmic rays show an intensity that decreases as a power law with increasing energy (for example as E-2.7). Electrons in particular lose energy rapidly through synchrotron and inverse Compton processes, resulting in a relatively short lifetime (about 105 years) and a rapidly falling intensity, which raises the possibility of seeing the contribution from individual nearby sources (less than one kiloparsec away)4. Here we report an excess of galactic cosmic-ray electrons at energies of 300–800 GeV, which indicates a nearby source of energetic electrons. Such a source could be an unseen astrophysical object (such as a pulsar5 or micro-quasar6) that accelerates electrons to those energies, or the electrons could arise from the annihilation of dark matter particles (such as a Kaluza–Klein particle7 with a mass of about 620 GeV).
Nope, no mass there. They must be talking about two electrons max.

"Freund's (2003) experimental work confirms the infrared radiation emission nature of such geodynamic anomalies and processes. It is therefore logical that Earth's geodynamics are driven by electro-motive force (EMF), or rather, electromagnetic anisotropic concentration processes, and surely not by the conventional physically inadequate heat-engine bulk convection formalism. In other words, volts and amperes control tectonism and all geodynamic phenomena...." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

Tassos, S.T., and Ford, D.J., An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 19, Number 1, Pages 43-90, 2005

9 comments:

Anaconda said...

ELECTROMAGNETISM VS. GRAVITY -- NO CONTEST

Electromagnetic force is exceedingly strong: Electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity. That is:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
000,000,000,000,000 stronger.

The raw numbers above spell out the difference.

But there is another meaningful distinction that also provides insight:

Electromagnetism is inherently dynamic, while gravity is static. (Sure gavity is dynamic if you're falling out of a plane at 10,000 feet, or a tall highrise comes crashing down, as we all know.)

But by and large, gravity is a constant force, static, isometric if you will.

Electromagnetism, in a loose sense, vibrates and fluxuates by it's very nature. It's a self-reinforcing phenomenon.

Electric current encourages more electric current.

Gravity? No, gravity doesn't encourage more gravity. Gravity is so constant it's almost passive by nature.

Now, don't get me wrong gravity is a good thing, but in terms of dynamic forces on Earth and in the cosmos -- it's no contest -- electromagnetism wins hands down.

That should make your hair stand on end!

Anaconda said...

THINK OF IT

Kristian Birkeland accurately described the electrical force that bears his name, Birkeland currents.

Originally Birkeland was laughed at and his work ridiculed, then it was violently opposed, now it is self-evident.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer

The same could be said for Expanding Earth theory and Abiotic Oil theory.

How did astronomy and geology get so far-off in the ditch?

OilIsMastery said...

"Religion has prevailed! Science has become religion!" -- Halton Arp, astrophysicist, 2000

"Science...has adopted the methods of religion." -- Halton Arp, astrophysicist, 2000

"The most harmful aspect of what science has become is the deliberate attempt to hide evidence that contradicts the current paradigm." -- Halton Arp, astrophysicst, 2000

"The tradition of 'peer review' of articles published in professional journals has degenerated into almost total censorship." -- Halton Arp, astrophysicist, 2000

Arp, H., What Has Science Come to?, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 14, Number 3, Pages 447-454, 2000

"F.T.Freund, in his paper "Rocks that Crack and Spark and Glow: Strange Pre-Earthquake Phenomena" (JSE, 17, 37-71), very sucessfully showed how erroneous results in rock conductivity measurements become part of mainstream science. We think this is a side effect of a wider problem; mainstream science progressively turns into an ideological system of belief in theories, and as such, it tends to ignore the implications of logic and observations, when these contradict their predicated mental abstractions." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

Tassos, S.T., and Ford, D.J., An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 19, Number 1, Pages 43-90, 2005

Anaconda said...

OilIsMastery:

Sadly, you are right.

Ironically, atheists seem to be just as easily caught up in this "religion".

Who would have thunk it?

Louis Hissink said...

Anaconda

Geology got into the ditch because it's dominated by the deductive method, where scientific facts are established by well reasoned persuasion rather than compulsion from empirical fact.

However expanding earth theory has its own issues and it might interesting to work out from what initial starting point this theory developed from.

I might dwell on that during the Christmas period shortly since I am still in the field closing down a drilling program and am on a very tight schedule.

As a teaser think about ignoring geological time per se, and think about an earth this is periodically affected by cosmic sized Birkelands.

Also have a look at Vadim Anfiloff's work in terms of earthquakes and a cooling earth.

I lean to the idea that the earth has episodically expanded and then shrunk a little after the global thermal event passed away. It will not rely on assumptions of mass creation in the centre of the earth, (mass creation is a nonsense in any case, since mass is simply a measure of a force acting on some matter), but does rely on the volumetric expansion when high density rocks are melted to produce lower density derivatives. Melt a peridotite followed by fractionation and you end up with flood basalts of lower density - same amount of matter but the density is lower, hence the volume is greater.

(Density should ideally be described in terms of charge per unit volume).

But enough for now. :-)

OilIsMastery said...

Hi Louis,

In response to: "it might interesting to work out from what initial starting point this theory developed from. I might dwell on that during the Christmas period shortly...."

I would like to address this specifically because it is indeed interesting, it should be worked out, and I encourage everyone to do so.

So far as I'm aware, the first author to suggest the Earth was expanding was Alfred Wilks Drayson.

"Upon examining the records of former measured distances, it appeared that the later operations showed this same distance to contain more feet and inches than formerly. My first idea was, that the measuring metals had contracted, but the great care which each operator had taken to guard against such a contingency, very shortly induced me to search for another cause. After many months, it was suggested to me, that possibly the earth was expanding, instead of the metals contracting; but no sooner did this idea present itself, than it was almost instantly rejected, for I hastily concluded that such a fact could not have escaped observation had it existed. I have always been disinclined to reject any suggestion, however novel, until I had closely examined its various phases. I therefore proceeded to reason upon the possibility of the growth of the Earth." -- Alfred Wilks Drayson, natural philosopher, 1859

"Captain Alfred Wilks Drayson of the British Royal Artillery (later a major general), in his 1859 book, The Earth We Inhabit: It's Past, Present, and Probable Future, concluded that the earth is expanding at a rapid rate. He cited a large number of surveys in which the distances between fixed points were greater in later surveys than in previous ones, and others in which the length of a degree had increased" (Carey 1988). He also interpreted the breaks in the Atlantic telegraph cables as evidence for Earth expansion.

Then there was William Lowthian Green of Hawaii in 1875, and "I.O. Yarkovski, whose book, Universal Gravitation as a Consequence of Formation of Substance Within Celestial Bodies (in Russian), was published in Moscow in 1899 and in St. Petersburg in 1912. He conceived the transition from weightless matter (ether) to substantial matter to give birth to planets and stars. Through the decades since, this concept has been developed geologically by a small group in Russia [sound familiar?] in several papers and book, particularly by I.B. Kirillov [who died in 2006], V.B. Neiman, and A.I. Letavin of Moscow and V.F. Blinov of Kiev. This groups work culminated in November 1981 in a conference in Moscow on Earth expansion and pulsation, organized by Prof. E.E. Milankovsky, of Moscow State University, and the Moscow Society of Naturalists. Over 700 specialists from Moscow and other regions of the USSR participated [sound familiar?], and 20 papers were presented, divided between those who favored expansion and those who supported pulsation, that is, an alternation of expansion and contraction." (Carey 1988)

In 1906, Eduard Suess published The Face of the Earth.

"...he recognized that 200 to 300 million years ago Africa, South America, India, and Australia, had been a supercontinent sharing the same Glossopteris flora and a common ice age. But Suess assumed, not that Africa and the rest had moved, but that the parts between had foundered to form new oceans." (Carey 1976)

The same biogeographic arguments (marsupials, sphenodons, etc) compel us to believe the Pacific was completely enclosed in the Cretaceous (McCarthy 2003, 2005).

In 1909 Roberto Mantovani suggested Earth expansion to explain the similarity of the opposing Atlantic coasts.

"Roberto Mantovani, violinist and scientist, was part of an orches-tral team reaching the volcanic Réunion Island in 1878. During his stay on the island, Mantovani had the occasion of observing the huge volcanic fractures on the Indian ocean shore near the town of Saint Denis. He argued that, on a global scale, all the continents might have undergone the same disjunction processes as the volcanic flanks. The global fractures are today the oceans. After several years from his observations, Mantovani published his idea in 1889 in the Bulletin of the Societé des Sciences et des Arts of Saint Denis, where the Italian established his family and became Consul of Italy. After an economic crisis and an epidemic plague in the Réunion Island, Roberto Mantovani left his post as Consul to go and live in San Servan, near the port of Saint Malo, in northern France, where he continued his activity as violinist, managing a school of music. As a scientist, he gave public conferences on the idea of planetary expansion. His more famous paper, quoted later by Wegener, was published in 1909, in a popular magazine 'Jem’instruis'. The paper contains the first suggestive mapping of the breakup of the Pangea continent based on geological arguments. The great novelty in the 1909 paper was the mapping of the Pacific view: dotted lines were drown between pairs of geographical points which once were in contact while today are separated by the huge extension of the Pacific basin. The idea was that the corresponding points were in contact before the expansion of the Earth. The enlarging of the huge fractures formed all oceans. We had to wait the sixties to find the same kind of lines in the Indian and Atlantic oceans in plate tectonics. According to plate tectonics this is not true for the Pacific Ocean, because in this case the plate movement is inverse and the ocean tends towards closing. The 1909 Pacific map was forgotten, and only Mantovani’s Pangea representation is reproduced today in some books dealing with the history of science." (Scalera & Jacob 2003)

Mantovani is the more famous because he was cited by Wegener in exactly one sentence in his 1915 book, On The Origin of Continents and Oceans.

"In a short article in 1909 Mantovani expressed some ideas on continental displacement and explained them by means of maps which differ in part from mine [DUH!] but at some points agree astonishingly closely: for example, in regard to the earlier grouping of the southern continents around southern Africa." (Wegener 1915)

This would be the only time Wegener would ever acknowledge Mantovani and he never mentioned earth expansion -- ever.

Mantovani was then followed by "the great modelers" Bogolepow, Lindemann, Hilgenberg, and Carey etc.

Drayson, A.W., The Earth We Inhabit: It's Past, Present, and Probable Future, 1859

Suess, E., The Face of the Earth, 1906

Wegener, A.L., The Origin of Continents and Oceans, 1915

Carey, S.W., The Expanding Earth, 1976

Carey, S.W., Theories of the Earth and Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences, 1988

Scalera, G., and Jacob, K-H., Roberto Mantovani, An Italian Defender of the Continental Drift Planetary Expansion, 2003

McCarthy, D.D., The Transpacific Zipper Effect: Disjunct Sister Taxa and Matching Geological Outlines That Link the Pacific Margins, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 1545-1561, 2003

McCarthy, D.D., Biogeographical and Geological Evidence for a Smaller, Completely-Enclosed Pacific Basin in the Late Cretaceous, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 32, Issue 12, Pages 2161 - 2177, 2005

McCarthy, D.D., Biogeography and Scientific Revolutions, The Systematist, Number 25, Pages 3-12, 2005

Louis Hissink said...

Hi Oilismastery:

Obviously there is more to this than I had realised - I'll read Drayson's work first (I did study land surveying) and see what he concluded.

Wal Thornhill and I are also thinking about this issue, from time to time, but earth expansion theory assumes that the geology of the ocean basins is newly created.

Not so - New Concepts in global tectonics newsgroup shows that the oceanic crust is continental - various papers on it.

Chris Smoot and Bruce Leybourne have together and indpendently surveyed the oceans (Under U.S. Navy auspices) and many of the seamounts have donut shaped depressions around them. These structures would be similar to the "craters" on Mars etc which the thunderbolts people have looked at.

So the standard maps showing spreading ridges may well be quite wrong.

Also Ralph Juergens wrote a perceptive article on the interpretation of the ocean floor magnetics used to substantiate ridge spreading.

Just how this would affect Maxlow's modelling is another matter.

Anaconda said...

OilIsMastery:

Louis Hissink:

I was aware that scientists in both respective camps, Plasma Universe theory and Expanding Earth theory, object to the other camp's theory, although, there are notable exceptions like Stavros T. Tassos, who I know OilIsMastery holds in high regard.

I'm not a scientist, I'm a scientific observer, who first investigated Abiotic Oil theory and "fossil" theory and concluded "fossil" theory is false. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in support of Abiotic Oil theory.

The fact that no oil geologist can sustain a debate on this website on the scientific merits of "fossil" theory makes my case.

(At best they make a driveby comment or two, designed as a combination tour de force and coup de grace. But in the process, inevitably overreach exposing the fallacy of "fossil" theory.)

Pardon my digression.

My interest in these two additional scientific questions flowed from there.

In science, it seems that many times when an individual supports a minority view on one scientific question there is a temptation to exclude other questions. I suppose there is fear of getting labled a "fringer". Also, in expending so much time, attention, and energy on one theory, little is left to consider other theories, so it's simply easier to follow the herd.

Also, we get enamored with our own "pet" theory and thus tend to "shoehorn" every piece of data and observation into "our" theory to the exclusion of other theories.

Rivalry for time and attention also play a role in this tendency.

I keep coming back to the dictum of the scientific method: Follow the scientific evidence wherever it leads.

Louis, you stated: "Geology got into the ditch because it's dominated by the deductive method, where scientific facts are established by well reasoned persuasion rather than compulsion from empirical fact."

I agree that scientific compulsion is best and most conclusive, however, there are times, particularly in "field" sciences where reasonable men of good faith can draw different conclusions from empirical data and observations.

In science, there is always a gap between the known and the unknown. Science is an attempt or "quest" to bridge that gap.

It seems to me, no matter how desirable that "compulsion dictates" in science, there always will be room for "persuasion", because in the face of the unknown (no data or quantified observations), Man is forced to infer from the known what is still unknown.

That is why, while we call it, "the law of gravity", it is not a law, but only a theory.

BF said...

Puzzling hot spots in the cosmic-ray sky
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/37

"Dear fiend, As you see, the writer prefers to say that he does not know the source of the cosmic rays or what the force is that impulses them with such an unexpectedly high energy load, when clearly it is the electromagnetic force."