More evidence for positive electron holes (p-holes) as the mechanism for accumulation of matter and growth at the core of astronomical bodies: Cosmic Rays Detected Deep Underground Reveal Secrets Of Upper Atmosphere.
ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2009) — Cosmic-rays detected half a mile underground in a disused U.S. iron-mine can be used to detect major weather events occurring 20 miles up in the Earth’s upper atmosphere, a new study has revealed.
Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and led by scientists from the UK’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), this remarkable study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching a detector deep underground, closely matches temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere (known as the stratosphere).
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
12 comments:
SOME QUESTIONS AND ASSERTIONS TO PONDER
1. Constant force equals acceleration.
2. An electromagnetic "force tube" applies constant force over distance (Birkeland currents).
3. What characteristic about space encourages charge seperation of electrons and ions?
4. Why do electrons and positive ions attract at long-distance, but repel at short-distance?
There is an equation that one learns in high school physics:
Constant force equals acceleration.
I've seen this equation demonstrated with a big rubber band attached to a little wooden car.
Stretch out the rubber band attached to the car, let go of the car, and the car covers increasing distance over time with the same force applied (the rubber band contracts evenly).
I asked myself, if constant force equals acceleration, then if force remains constant over a long distance then speed keeps increasing, what, if anything, stops the increasing speed if force is held constant?
I was told friction will eventually drag at the object or in really high speeds, Albert Einstein's bar against anything going faster than the speed of light.
That seemed to end the debate.
Now it turns out that that may not be the terminal velocity of the Universe, but simply an incorrect idea of Einstein's.
So, for the sake of discussion what if we relax the restraint imposed by Einstein, what happens if constant force is applied over light years of distance?
You say, that is so removed from reality, it's fruitless to hypothetically pose the question.
I diagree with that response.
There are Birkeland currents, also called 'magnetic flux tubes' that are observed to travel literally 'light years' across a particular part of space.
Remember, magnetic fields are only detected in the presence of electric current.
The Birkeland currents create a constant "flux force" on the electrons which accelerates them.
Another question: What to do with the idea that increasing force causes increasing acceleration, how would that idea impact a 'force tube' that is constantly constricting adding more force?
In a way, Birkeland currents are self-constructing 'force tubes' that can apply constant force on electrons and ions over great distances.
Possibly even distances which would allow the constant force to continue accelerating the electrons to above the speed of light.
Light is released from an electron at a given speed. The force exerted on the photon ends upon exiting the electron, therefore, the force isn't constant and, therefore, no acceleration occurs.
The above is opposed to a electromagnetic 'force tube' where the force applied to an electron can be constant over very long distances.
There is something about space.
One of the reasons it is so hard for Man to conceive of plasma, seperated charge particles, is because they are relatively rare on Earth as opposed to the other states of matter: Solids, liquids, and (neutral) gases.
But if plasma is 99% of matter in the Cosmos, there must be some reason for that high level of charge seperation in space as opposed to on Earth.
Now some talk of heat, I have my doubts. Electromagntic attraction doesn't depend on heat. That is the reason plasma can exist in the icy reaches of space.
Still, while I don't have the answer, there must be something about "space" that seemingly encourages charge seperation into electrons and ions.
Finally, another concept that many don't understand: Electrons and ions attract at long distance, but repel and short distance. This observation controls the formation of 'double layers' and Birkeland currents. Since this phenomenon is behind the formation of 'double layers' and Birkeland currents and the maintainence of charge seperation in space, it seems imperative to understand why this happens.
Ahem, coughs,again.
Cosmic rays are charged particles in motion.
Engineers call that electricity.
Hence "Electricty Detected Inside the Earth".
WHAT ARE HIGH ENERGY ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE/PARTICLES?
Electricity is charged particles, whether electrons or ions.
But x-rays, radio waves, visible light waves, or gamma rays have not been considered "electricity" because they are not "charged" particles, rather, they are considered "energized" photons or electromagnetic waves exhibiting wave/particle characteristics.
Although, it needs to be stated: Energized "photons" come from electrons that reach certain energy levels then fall back to a lower energy level, thus giving off the photons.
Many of the photons are the result of electrons being energized because they are part of electric current.
All these electromagnetic phenomenon and somehow astronomers refuse to see or admit electricity's role in space.
Go figure.
Anaconda,
Good questions. I have no clue.
Louis,
Thank you for correcting me. I should refer to cosmic rays as electricity and will do so from now on...=)
I stand corrected: Cosmic rays are not electromagnetic waves.
"Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, about 9% are helium nuclei (alpha particles) and about 1% are electrons (beta minus particles). The term "ray" is a misnomer, as cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles."
The definition of electric current is a directionally moving charged particle.
Ok, so how come protons, positively charged particles, and electrons, negatively charged particles, are interpreted as inputs into the earth system, both travelling in the same direction.
This is based on Anaconda's point that electric currents are directional oriented charged particles.
flagged
@ Louis Hissink:
Could you clarify your question.
If your question is about why electrons and ions are found travelling in the same direction, a logical conclusion is they may originate from the same source.
What the article does suggest is that an "event" happens "somewhere" which causes a large number of these cosmic rays to hit the stratosphere raising the temperature of the stratosphere.
As stated in the report:
"On investigation, they found these changes coincided with very sudden increases in the temperature of the stratosphere (by up to 40 deg C in places!)."
40 degrees Celsius during the middle of Winter in the upper atmosphere (20 miles up)!
Now, I think I understand where Louis is going: This cosmic ray bombardment is coming from an "event". The farther away the originating "event" from Earth, the more focussed and 'directional' the cosmic rays must be (and energetic). If a group of cosmic rays are causing this "warm up" then the cosmic rays fit the definition of "electric current".
Electric currents are directional oriented charged particles.
Therefore, this is another example of plasma dynamics effecting Earth in a significant way -- a way that gravity can't do.
Also, it raises the question: What causes the originating "event" which generates the cosmic rays?
Some sort of gravity interaction or some sort of electrodynamic interaction?
That's where my first comment on this post comes into play. Constant force equals acceleration, and an electromagnetic "force tube" applies constant force over distance (Birkeland currents).
Why? Because the question must be raised: How likely is a "gravity event" to cause cosmic rays?
Gravity only engages in attraction, not repulsion. That's an absolute recognized scientific fact.
So, gravity would only generate "inward energy" toward a gravitational center.
On the other hand, electricity can cause energy to "shoot" outward with great acceleration as the result of a directional "force tube".
It is the duality of electricity's behavior that makes electricity so dynamic. The "attaction at long-range, repulsion at short-range" property which facilitates "force tube" acceleration.
(An interesting analogy: What makes computers so powerful? The duality dynamic! "0" and "1" is all that is needed to cause computers to do all they do.)
So between the two possible "processes" for originating the cosmic rays (gravity or electromagnetism), which is more likely?
Remember, this happens unpredictably, but consistently over time.
Aren't "gravity events" theorized to be more "one time only", whereas, electrical events happen consistently if not predictably?
And isn't that why mathematicians don't like plasma? Plasma is notoriously hard to mathematically model.
Louis, I sure could use some input on this line of thinking.
COSMIC RAYS ORIGINATE OUTSIDE THE HELIOPAUSE
I thought this image of the Sun's interace with the interstellar medium would be interesting.
Sun's heliopause.
It reminds one that the Sun is only a small spot on a rather large page.
Sun's heliopause
Another interesting image:
The Earth's plasma fountain
"Plasma Fountain is in the North Pole of the Earth. This figure depicts the oxygen, helium, and hydrogen ions that gush into space from regions near the Earth's poles. The faint yellow gas shown above the north pole represents gas lost from Earth into space; the green gas is the aurora borealis-or plasma energy pouring back into the atmosphere."
Discovery:
"The plasma fountain was discovered using data from the Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer instrument on the Dynamics Explorer spacecraft, in the 1980s. Recently, the SCIFER sounding rocket was launched into the plasma heating region of the fountain."
Wikipedia entry for Plasma Fountain.
The Electric Glow of the Sun, April 27, 2005(thunderbolts.info) -- "A little known fact: Popular ideas about the Sun have not fared well under the tests of a scientific theory. The formulators of the standard Sun model worked with gravity, gas laws, and nuclear fusion. But closer observation of the Sun has shown that electrical and magnetic properties dominate solar behavior."
The article is well worth reading.
One item that I have been challenged on about the Electric Sun theory is where and how do the electrons "flow" into the Sun from galactic Birkeland currents?
Here, I was challenged to show that electrons were flowing into the Sun.
Needless to say my interlocutor wouldn't take my word for it.
So I linked the following article:
Spicules Complete the Circuit, February 8, 2008(thunderbolts.info) -- "Colossal Birkeland currents conduct the Sun’s energy out into space but also pull electrons back into its poles."
"One of the more unusual discoveries by the ACE/SWEPAM mission is an electron depletion in the solar wind due to “backstreaming electrons” flowing into the Sun from the surrounding space."
So, actual observation and measurement have confirmed one part of the Electric Sun theory.
The first article also does a good job of explaining this "flow into the sun.
This link to an artist's rendering of the Sun's heliopause does a great job of helping the reader grasp the concept that because of the volume inside the heliopause, as the article states: "A weak electric field, immeasurable locally with today's instruments but cumulative across the vast volume of space within the heliosphere, is sufficient to power the solar discharge." So the density of electrons per meter can be quite low and hard to detect, yet fully able to power the sun by glow discharge fed by galactic currents.
Another aspect of the first linked article is the idea of constant force equals acceleration and "force tubes", Birkeland currents, generating substantial acceration. So much so that charged particles are still accelerating as they go past Earth!
Plasma Cosmology better explains the processes of the Universe.
Post a Comment