Monday, November 17, 2008

Birkeland Currents



Via NASA Electric Currents from Space (Hat tip: Anaconda)

When in 1973 the navy satellite Triad (see history) flew through this region in a low-altitude orbit, its magnetometer indeed detected the signatures of two large sheets of electric current, one coming down on the morning side of the auroral zone, one going up on the evening side, as expected. Because Kristian Birkeland had proposed long before currents which linked Earth and space in this fashion, they were named Birkeland currents (by Schield, Dessler and Freeman, in a 1969 article predicting some of the features observed by Triad). Typically, each sheet carries a million amperes or more.
1 million amperes or more? Nope, no mass there...LOL.



Potemra, T.A., Observation of Birkeland Currents with the TRIAD Satellite, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 58, Number 1, Pages 207-226, Sep 1978

11 comments:

Lous said...

Guys,

This is excellent material, keep it up. I especially like the 1978 image of the Birkeland!

Louis Hissink said...

Oilismastery

could you contact me please?

hissinkl1947@bigpond.com

OilIsMastery said...

Hi Louis,

Done.

Welcome to the website.

Kindest regards,

Quantum_Flux said...

It is so bizzare. I'll bet that fusion occurs with depth as a result of hydrostatic and electrostatic pressures. Maybe fusion also occurs in the Coronal Arcs too, and maybe the Birkeland Currents are the result of Coronal Mass Ejections. I am not certain about any of this however, although I have no theoretical objections to it other than that each star should be unique in the physics based on many different parameters (nuclear, electrical/magnetic, gravitational). The stars are very complex systems I suppose.

In addition, it is very hard to discount relativity with the claim that space is filled with plasma, not enough detail is given, plus there are some bad probability equations in the Electric Cosmos Model in attempt to discount Einstien's Cross since it ignores that galaxies typically exist in a plane of rotation rather than a random 3d distribution in space.

What if Dark Matter and Dark Energy are truly real entities? In short, Electric Cosmos is a real piece of work that still needs to be worked out. The original theorist did not have it in the bag by any means, same with Expanding Earth and Electric Volcanism.

Quantum_Flux said...

I guess that goes for astronomy and cosmology, planet formation in general. There are huge uncertainties due to not being reproduced in a laboratory. Abiotic Oil, on the other hand, the one particular experiment by JF Kenney, was produced in a lab setting. I'll keep my eye out for evidence for all these claims however, if it begins to come together for me then I'll gladly advocate these ideas.

BF said...

Good to see Louis find his way to the site. I have his and this site filed together on by browser!

Great work guys - the orthodoxy haven't got a chance!

Anaconda said...

Quantum_Flux:

You are to be commended for your contributions because there are many people who simply say, "I don't believe it," and turn away, content with their beliefs, not willing to critically examine those beliefs because that would bring too much uncertainty in how they view the world.

The bulk of humanity has always been more comfortable with an old idea, however false that idea may turn out to be.

Not all "old" ideas are false, but, in science it's amazing how many "old" ideas do turn out to be false.

Your questions and challenges, while unique to yourself and your own life experiences, many times are the same questions and challenges that other people have, but aren't willing to articulate and thus put themselves out in the arena of ideas.

Being in the arena of ideas is stressful.

I understand it's difficult to accept "new" ideas, when the "old" ideas were all you were ever told.

The main thing, Quantum_Flux, is that you grapple with the ideas.

That takes strength of character.

It's far easier to turn away from a new idea and put one's head in the sand.

Anaconda said...

Quauntum_Flux:

You expressed the fact that Abiotic Oil theory can be demonstrated in the laboratory as a reason you are convinced there is abiotic oil.

There are many laboratroy experiments that replicate and confirm Plasma Universe theory.

This YouTube video lists a number these experiments replicating natural electical phenomenon and explains why "black holes" don't exist: Black Holes Plasma Cosmology Electric Universe Astronomy.

Plasma Universe theory has the proof.

"Black holes" do not.

Also, check out this YouTube video: Planetary scars Plasma Cosmology Astronomy which shows features on the planets and the Moon that are consistent with Plasma Universe theory.

"Strength of character is grappling with strange, new ideas."

"It's also the way to scientific enlightenment and acheivement."

Louis Hissink said...

BF

Thanks for the kind words - I have an interesting paper being published in E&E in the new year on a summary of the Electric Universe etc. It was reviewed and I had to add a couple of politically correct statements so not as to frighten the horses too much.

Incidentally one fact which only dawned on me recently was the necessity of having a continuous electrical supply to maintain the earth's surface electric field - (100 volts per vertical metre up to the ionosphere). Without this electrical input, the electric field will dissipate and the earth would end up like Mars or the moon.

The input currents have just been discovered as FTE's. NASA 30th October announcement.

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

I would be remiss if I didn't offer my thanks for your website and ideas. I first saw your writings in regard to Abiotic Oil theory, it was refreshing and encouraging to see an exploration geologist stand up for Abiotic Oil theory.

(So many times, it seems, the most vociferous "fossil" theory advocates are exploration oil geologists. Why this is so, I'm not sure why.)

Then going to your website, I aquainted myself with Plasma Universe theory. Of course, initially it took some time to digest, but, as opposed to "big bang, black hole" theory, so many natural phenonenon, both on Earth and in space, were easily explained by Plasma Universe theory. The evidence is compelling or should I say, "by scientific compulsion I became convinced of Plasma Universe theory."

And almost all of it was backed up by observations of experiments in the laboratory (something "big bang, black hole" theory can't match).

Frankly, based on what I now know, it's hard to see how "big bang, black hole" theory even stays in the game as a viable theory, gravity simply is not dynamic enough.

In regards to Expanding Earth theory, I'm not sure where you stand, but I will say your website was the first mention against Subduction theory I seriously thought about. Now with OilIsMastery focussing on that issue, the evidence is nearly as compelling as for Plasma Universe theory. And, Plasma Universe theory provides a "mechanism" for Expanding Earth theory (not all Plasma Earth theorists like that) in the form of massive streams of charged ions from the Sun to the Earth. No unknown, unseen subatomic particles required, although, I understand a number of folks think there are subatomic particles that play a part.

Also, it's compelling that Plasma Universe theory has a direct impact on Abiotic Oil theory. It provides the energy and dynamism for Abiotic Oil theory and perhaps provides a mechanism for why the Earth has periods of increased geologic activity which in turn result in larger accumulations of hydrocarbons in specific geological ages. (Optimum daisy growing [organic detritus] has nothing to do with why some geologic ages produced more petroluem than others.)

Anyway, thanks again, you followed the scientific evidence wherever it led -- that's the best compliment one can give in the scientific community.

Best regards,

Anaconda

BF said...

"Thanks for the kind words - I have an interesting paper being published in E&E in the new year on a summary of the Electric Universe etc. It was reviewed and I had to add a couple of politically correct statements so not as to frighten the horses too much."

You're more than welcome, Louis.

I'm likely not alone in being delighted to hear that E&E is to publish a summary paper on the EU by you. I really appreciate your efforts and look forward to reading the paper early next year.