Earthly Plasma Effects

I’m studying Ollier and Pain’s book about the origins of mountains and the example of Uluru in central Australia, aka Ayers Rock, as a mountain created by the erosion of all the surrounding rocks.  Ayers Rock is made of steeply bedded arkose and the question of where did all the eroded material or rock go? There’s no evidence of an ancient planation surface, so the erosional circumstances of Ayers Rock remains a geological mystery.

One novel erosional mechanism is plasma machining and it occurred to me that exponents of plasma physics applied to geological processes are ignoring a fundamental factor – the behaviour of electrified plasma in and on water.  All the laboratory scaled plasma experiments, including those made by interested amateurs, involve applying high voltage and amperage electric currents to DRY solid matter, or in the geological sense, dry rocks. Add water, especially ionised water, and literally, all hell could break loose.  There is a very good reason why electricity and water do not mix too well, and modelling wet material subject to plasma arcs in the laboratory environment is almost as dangerous as fooling around with plasma Z-pinch experiments.

On reading Ollier and Pain you discover the enormous volumes of sediment deposited at the Earth’s surface during during the Cainozoic Era. This requires massive erosional events which pose no problem for the Lyellians as they invoke the factor of near infinite time. However the appearance of rounded cobbles and boulders in the Surtsey Island beach deposits suggest that the formation of sediments occurs more rapidly than generally believed.  This fact is seized on by the biblical literalists as supporting their religious beliefs, while the biblical liberalists, or Lyellians, reject this rapid process simply for the lack of any viable mechanism. The secular humanists and atheists have their own creation myth in the astronomical Big Bang event, and hence tend to agree with the biblical liberalists in terms of the efficacy of the long chronology.

The general model of fluvial transport involves crustal uplift and gravity powered water flow with or without ice and wind, along with chemical weathering, to slowly erode the mountains or uplands.  This is all and well until one gets to the base of the mountain or upland that of necessity has to be surrounded by lowlands, and then the problem of moving eroded materially laterally appears. Flowing water can’t actually do it. Well, it can if the eroded material is very fine grained, and the particles remain in suspension. Large particles move downstream via the process of either rolling or saltation, so it is believed, until an obstacle is encountered and movement stops until the channel depression is filled and downstream movement restarts when the sediment load overflows the barrier into the next channel depression.

The problem is that one needs a little bit more than an infinite amount of time to move sediment eroded from mountains into large sedimentary basins, as presently believed.

My experience is that water simply cannot do it and something else must have been additionally involved.  This possibility raises enormous problems for the geological profession for the paradigm of Uniformitarianism requires that only observable presently operating physical processes can be used to explain geological observations. Mysterious external or exogenous processes are simply not permitted as this is a necessary requirement for the application of the scientific method.

The problem is the definition of the present and what primary observations are ‘scientifically’ permissable by that definition.  When native peoples relate historical stories, (their histories) that involve rainbow serpents and other celestial prodigies that sculptured the present day land-forms, then those stories have to be taken at face value and not as some primitive superstition.  They may be considered unbelievable but when reduced to essentials all human observations, and thus beliefs, have to be anchored in historical physical observations, no matter how muddled the memory of those observations became over the ages to the present day.  The ability to make sense of native myths depends on the number of ideas one thinks with, and one’s experience.  I recall a lecture by Prof. Ian Plimer stressing the need for an interdiscplinary approach to university study, when we undergraduates were required to include some social science subjects to our curriculum; the great pity was that we never thought of wandering to the school of electrical engineering for our multidiciplinary subject requirements.

And it strikes me, as a retired diamond exploration geologist, the fact that kimberlites, the primary source of diamonds, occur in all geological terrains, from crystalline basement to sedimentary basins and everthing in between, that I would wander into taboo lands to find new explanations simply because the ideas I was inculcated at University were simply unable to explain what I observed in the field.  That native peoples indicated anachronistic historical knowledge of geological phenomena only strengthened the resolve to travel further into the taboo-lands of  plasma physics.

There’s another taboo-land we need to visit – the land of our mind in order to understand how we think and to explain how many of us, when confronted with new data, refuse to change our minds and to continue to see only what we believe. The inability to change one’s mind is the hall mark of the ossified brain.

Posted in Hare-brained theories | Leave a comment

Signals and Noises

A familiar graph in the geosciences is the Greenland ice-core isotope plot.

 

v16n1_icecore1_S2N

GISS O16 isotope plot

A first pass ‘look’ at the plot would interpret the data as noise, the red line region, and signal, the blue line region.  Remember the X-Axis is Depth, not age.

One explanation might be that the ice core labelled as “noise” might be very recent ice and that the abrupt change from red to blue marks an icy unconformity below which there is signal. The depth of the red-blue transition is approximately 1250 metres down, so when you work from down to up. and courageously assign an age to the core, then what age is the red-blue transition assigned?

Given the calving rate of the Greenland Ice Cap, (and has anyone actually estimated that?), it seems likely that the ice-conveyor operates to the depth of 1250 metres above which ice is more or less rapidly replaced, leaving behind fossil ice below the icyformity.

When did Greenland ice up? At the end of the Roman Period that in the revised chronology would have been ~950AD.

Update: Electrical resistivity sounding of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, Sion Shabtaie, Charles R. Bentley (Source)

Electrical resistivity soundings using a Schlumberger array have been carried out at Dome C, East Antarctica (74°39′S, 124°10′E, elevation 3400 m), to sound the entire 3500-m depth of the ice sheet. Changes in density and temperature are largely separated in the ice at Dome C, so activation energies for both firn and ice could be determined: we find an activation energy of 0.25 eV in both solid ice and firn between −15°C and −58°C. A common value of the activation energy points to a single transport regime in which the charge carriers and conduction paths are the same in firn and ice. To evaluate the variation of resistivity with density, we have considered five dielectric mixture models that fit the available data on the high-frequency dielectric constant of firn. Only Looyenga’s equation fits the field data for dc resistivity. In the upper 900 m of the ice sheet, where impurity concentrations are known from core samples, we find no correlation between resistivities and the concentrations of salts or acids. Instead, we find it likely that resistivities are correlated with the crystal size, hence with the Holocene-Wisconsin boundary in the ice column. A pronounced increase in resistivity, to a value comparable with that in temperate glacier ice, occurs deep within the ice sheet. We attribute this to a large increase in the size and irregularity of the ice crystals, which destroys the continuity of the impurity shells surrounding the ice crystals that we believe supply the conduction paths (Shabtaie and Bentley, 1994a). High resistivity does not imply removal of the impurities from the system; moderate concentrations of impurities can be accommodated by locating them in disconnected domains. (my boldening LH)

So layering marked by acids or bases, isn’t producing the resistivity layering from the radar surveying.

Posted in Hare-brained theories | 6 Comments

Earth Expansion – Spontaneous or Driven?

One of the more peculiar facts surrounding diamond is its apparent crystalline stability at the Earth’s surface, and behind the De Beers’ famous marketing jingle Diamonds are Forever.

This model is based on the standard diamond stability plot.

Why don’t diamonds spontaneously break down into graphite? Why are diamonds used in drilling machines to bore into solid rock at very high temperatures and pressures associated with drilling? I recall a laboratory experiment described by John Hawthorne (De Beers) at the Anglo American Research Labs during 1980/81 when a diamond crystal was placed in a concrete mixer with a grinding media, and left to operate over night. Next morning no diamond was found in the comminuted slurry. Almost magic. And no graphite.

Here’s a photo of a burnt out diamond coring bit used in the GWD01 drill hole associated with a gravity anomaly. Whoops? And the diamonds were still present in the bit matrix.

Pardoo 013.JPG

Diamonds are also the source of the diamond dust used to cut and polish gem quality diamonds; graphite is again conspicuously absent in this material. If grinding diamonds into dust doesn’t yield graphite, even under the high temperatures and pressures of a high-speed diamond drilling machine, then why is diamond so apparently physically stable at the Earth’s surface?

Which leads to the idea of an expanding earth model. Is the Earth continuously expanding or is it, like natural diamond, stable until affected by an external driver to initiate expansion? Which suggests the expansion is punctuated in a similar fashion to Gould and Eldridge’s idea of an evolutionary punctuated equilibrium for the biosphere?

Just mentioning.

 

Posted in Geology, Hare-brained theories | Leave a comment

Hot Earth Lacking Heat Source

Real Clear Science published an article lamenting that science can only explain half of the Earth’s internal heat. They believe that the earth’s heat sources are from radioactive decay products and residual heat when the planet was first formed.

Some of the heat is produced by radioactive elements, but there is some really unclear science when they write the following:

The main known sources of radioactivity within the Earth are unstable types of uranium, thorium and potassium – something we know based on samples of rock up to 200km below the surface.

The only rocks that come from those depths are kimberlites, and kimberlites are definitely not radioactive.

So what are the intrepid scientists going to do? Collect sufficient geo-neutrinos to identify which come from uranium, potassium etc.

We must also realise that mainstream science labours under the intellectual weight of Newton’s Gravity theory that has ossified into unchallengeable dogma.

In the previous post I suggested that planets are formed by prolonged plasma Z-pinch mechanisms and if so, and we have a planet like Earth that now has a weak Z-pinch field, (it has to have a weak Z-Pinch field because of the existing plasma configuration), and the previously. highly compressed matter is now slowly changing physical state to a lower pressure, higher volume state. This transition from high pressure, high temperature state to lower pressure and temperature states releases energy, and thus heat.

file-20170803-17289-1o0gxw3

Earth heat flow map. wikipediaCC BY-SA

So the high heat flows from the various spreading zones around the planet are from the outpouring of basalt from a more dense ultramafic parent in the upper mantle. Note that these zones of high heat source are not radioactive, evidence that they cannot have been sourced from a magma heated by radioactive decay.

The other oddity, and it is Wikipedia after all, is the high heat flow ice caps, Antartica and Greenland. Sort of counter intuitive I would suggest. I wonder if it is due to the presence of Chinese fried ice-cream desserts?

Ignoring gravity and using plasma universe physics, then the missing heat is not really a problem – a simple case of the Earth slowly expanding and degassing over time.

Update: Incidentally, a very weak plasma Z-Pinch field surrounding the Earth would result in a very weak Lorentz force that from symmetry would converge to the centroid of the Earth. Some would call this weak force gravity.

Posted in Geology | 5 Comments

Expanding Earth & Misplaced Plasma Theory

One of the problems facing Earth Expansion Theory (EET) is the absence of a plausible physical mechanism to produce expansion. The largest obstacle the EET’s have is countering the mechanism of gravitational accretion that the gravity model assumes to occur inside planets and stars. The proposed solution has been to invoke mass formation at the core but how that is achieved is not easily explained.

All of the various theories proposed to explain EET involve the addition of ad hoc extras compatible with gravitational accretion. Which means that gravitational accretion is not questioned but rather than, maybe, something else is being missed. The latest ad hoc factor involves plasma theory where it is proposed that the solar wind, comprised of protons and electrons, enters the earth system via the polar regions and travels towards the core where new matter/mass is formed.  This explanation was published in Issue 126, December, 2016 of AIG NEWS, pages 39-42, available here. The theory has some problems.

The first problem is the use of the idea of magnetically charged electrons and protons. No such things. Protons and electrons are electrically charged particles of varying energy states. They generate magnetic fields when in motion.

It is then proposed that these magnetically charged particles are attracted by conduction to the strongly magnetic core-mantle region of the Earth by entering the polar auroral zones and lower terrestrial layers as well as via lighting strikes during electrical storms.  Solar protons also reach the Earth’s surface via rain, with corresponding emission of electrons in the opposite direction.

Except that protons and electrons are not able to pass, in general, through matter in the solid state with the exception that electrons can travel through conductive solid metals. In actual fact protons and electrons pass through the earth-system via the magneto and ionospheres, with most of the motion restricted to the non-solid layers of the Earth including the oceans, atmosphere and ionosphere. The bulk of the solar wind is constrained to the ionosphere since the atmosphere itself is highly resistive and impedes  the simple passage of charged particles.

Pollack has shown that the oceans, which comprise 70% of the Earth’s surface, emit large quantities of protons at daybreak which then travel laterally, under the effect of horizontal electric fields, to produce winds etc.. The EET solar protons would thus become entrapped into this system and diverted from their assumed path to the core-mantle region.

Explosive volcanic eruptions are primarily of matter in the plasma state accompanied by spectactular lightning displays.  This behaviour seems to be caused by highly electropositive magma interacting with a negative earth surface charge,

It is not permissible to invoke matter creation at the core since creationism is not allowed in any scientific explanation, so the EET solar wind fueled mechanism is implausible. Is there an alternative explanation? Yes, that planets are the result of prolonged plasma Z-Pinch mechanisms in which matter, protons and electrons, are compressed into high density forms of matter that then, after the forcing plasma current wanes, start to equilibrate to lower density minerals resulting in volumetric expansion of the planet. Gravity is irrelevant in this scenario, much as it is irrelevant in the plasma universe model, though it is necessary for political correctness to incorporate it into the theory.

EET has one fundamental obstacle facing it – gravitational accretion. Until that mechanism is falsified, EET will be restricted to making ad hoc adjustments to the ruling gravitational only paradigm. But if the Universe is electrical, and gravity an electrical effect, then earth expansion becomes explicable.

Posted in Geology, Geophysics, Hare-brained theories | Leave a comment

Cavendish Conundrums

The Gravitational Constant, G, is determined by the Cavendish Experiment, but as Rupert Sheldrake has noted in one of his You Tube lectures, Big G varies and no one understands why.

gravitation_cavendish_experiment

The plane of motion of the oscillating test objects is horizontal, thus eliminating any gravitational force, and restricting any motion to that of mass attracting mass etc..

In this experiment there exist 3 physical fields,

  1. Gravitational Field, oriented vertically and acting downwards
  2. Electric Field oriented vertically and the Lorentz force acting horizontally
  3. Magnetic field, oriented anywhere from horizontal at the equator to vertical at the pole, depending on the latitude of the location the experiment is being conducted, (or should I say, performed……..).

As the objects of the experiment are made of the metal lead, magnetic effects are believed to be absent.

As the motion of the oscillating system is restricted to the horizontal plane, variations in gravity at right angles to the horizontal plane cause no effects.

But variations in the electric field (vertical) will cause variations in the Lorentz force that acts horizontally, and in the same plane as the oscillation of the small mass m.  This variation cannot be due to variations in gravity.

Which leads to the suspicion that gravity is some sort of an electrical phenomenon.

We already know that surveyors plumb-bobs used to orient theodolites in geodetic surveys near adjacent mountain masses do not deflect as expected towards the mountain due to, it is guessed, an absence of mass.

And I know that a downhole survey of an angle hole drilled through artesian water saturated Canning Basin Sediments on both Pardoo and De Grey pastoral stations east of Port Hedland in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, show anomalous gravity measurements directly under the artesian aquifer that cannot be explained by Newton’s Gravity theory.

It is likely the variation in Big G is caused by variations in the Earth’s ambient electric field, implying that gravity is essentially an electrical phenomena.

Update: Oscillation ????

I was thinking about the cause of the oscillation of the suspended smaller masses while the larger masses are basically fixed in space. Here’s one explanation:

The small mass approaches the larger mass. Repulsion occurs due to like repelling like, which then feeds back via the Lorentz Force into the electric field, that then propels the small mass back towards the larger mass, which then repels the smaller mass. Again. And the system oscillates as observed. Bear in mind that gravitational attraction is extremely weak at this scale, if at all measureable, so the observed phenomena have to be explained by physical forces most likely operating at this scale. In other words the electrical force.

Posted in Electric Universe, Geophysics, Hare-brained theories | Leave a comment

Gobs more on Gravity

It is clear that physicists in particular, and hence science in general, still do not understand the nature of gravity after its initial formulation by Isaac Newton over 300 years ago.  His famous equation describing the magnitude of the force causing two bodies to appear to attract each other remains valid to this day but equally this equation does not explain gravity.

In Newton’s time the Earth and planets were interpreted as spherical objects suspended in vacuum orbiting a radiant Sun.  It was a description of the visible solar system observed by the naked human eye.

The strangeness of Newton’s gravity equation is that it only deals with two bodies and no more. Just as strange as Coulomb’s Law that describes the force between two electrically charged bodies, with the difference being that Coulomb’s law deals with both attraction and repulsion while Newton’s only attraction.  Both equations are of the form F=Constantxb1xb2/d^2.  In gravity’s case b is the weight of the body compared to the earth, and is always positive; there is no such thing as a negative weight, if such a force can be measured in the first place. It easily follows that for the Coulomb Law b is the electric charge on the body, either positive or negative. “d” is the distance between the two bodies, in this case squared.

(As an aside, one could write computer code to numerically predict the three body problem but it is the nature of computer coding that each line of code introduces the time factor as a result of precedence, since parallel instantaneous numerical calculation is not possible. Hence the probable explanation why 3-body modelling evolves into chaotic motion.  Gravity occurs instantaneously and this cannot be modelled by computer code).

Where Newton’s Law remains incomplete is because no one at the time could conceive of a negative force between two bodies, since lighter than air bodies such as hot-air balloons had yet to be invented, so no one observed a body moving spontaneously upwards away from the earth’s surface. Of course people at the time understood that arrows, cannon balls and birds left the earth’s surface and flew but such objects were forced into the air and would in time return back to the surface. Throwing a ball into the air always resulted in the ball coming back to the surface.

The celestial model that Newton thus used involved the sun and planets being spherical bodies, as observed, separated by space or vacuum in which the only force was gravity as described by Newton; the billiard ball model, as it were. In this system gravity is always positive.

Today that view is plainly simplistic.  The solar system is now comprised of planets with magnetospheres and ionospheres, a Sun that ejects unpredictable electrified plasmas that affect the planets and emits a continuous stream of charged particles, positive and negative, that comprises the solar wind; and all of these effects would have been invisible to Newton and his peers. One could thus propose that what Newton and his peers observed was the aggregate motion of the celestial bodies propelled by an invisible electromagnetic force that was called gravity.

In the plasma universe model, 99.999% of the visible universe is made up of matter in the plasma state, and the physics described by the Laws of Maxwell etc. Plasma physics is thus the norm, and in contrast, our solar system a highly anomalous exception.  The problem is that in the gravitational or standard astronomical model we have assumed our solar system to be the norm and it’s the rest of the Universe that is at odds with Newton’s Law of Gravity. That’s why astrophysics has to conjure up black holes, dark matter, dark energy, magnetic reconnection, to make the Universe fit into our ruling gravitational paradigm.

Except we have it completely back to front.  Our solar system is the oddity, not the Universe.

In the Plasma Universe 99.999% of matter is ionised and its physics adequately described by the laws of electromagnetics as detailed by A. J. Peratt, 2015, Physics of the Plasma Universe.  In the plasma universe we are dealing with protons, electrons, neutrinos and ions, positive and negative. Newtonian bodies are exceptions in that they are electrically neutral shapes of plasma explicitly in the solid state, and comprise only 0.001% of the visible universe. These objects could be interpreted as frozen plasma.

The reason our solar system is at such odds with the rest of the Universe is because it seems to have only arrived at its present configuration during the last 1000 years or so, perhaps even to Medieval times when the Gregorian Calendar was implemented in 1582 CE. However since other galaxies seem to obey the Faraday motor mechanism, including our own Milky Way galaxy, this suggests the inner planets in our solar system will slow down in their present orbits until they reach orbital velocities expected for such a mechanism.  It suggests that Newton’s Law of gravitation will become less accurate and the laws of Maxwell and Heaviside more accurate in describing the physics of our solar system over time. But not in our times of course since it may take millions of years to reach rotational equilibrium. Or it might take a shorter time – no one knows.

Newtonian bodies can acquire static electric charges, but otherwise they are electrically neutral in which, however, protons are dominant since it is these entities that give matter mass. Protons will move towards the cathode, or negative charge, of the electric field they are immersed in. The Galilean observation of a marble and cannon ball both reaching the Earth’s surface when dropped from a height is no more complex than assuming both marble and cannon ball are made of protons and electrons, and then it’s simply protons moving to the cathode, or Earth’s surface; hence both bodies will arrive at the surface at the same time.

It is important to realise Newton’s Laws only apply to solids and not gases or liquids. Newton’s Law applies to bodies that have shape, are visible and capable of independent motion; it is, after all said and done, Newton’s Laws of Motion. Newton’s laws should not be applied to invisible objects or sub-atomic particles. To overcome this science has invented the centre-of-gravity entity concept and while easing the arithmetic, it none the less  has not solved the body definition. As an example where would the centre of gravity of the Earth’s oceans lie? At the same location as the centre-of-gravity of the mantle, core, outer core, and oceans, everything else being equal. Which makes d, the distance between two bodies, zero, and F, thus infinity and explains how the notion of gravitational accretion is framed.  Physical reality suggests otherwise, however.

The observation that plumb bobs used in geodetic surveying are not attracted by adjacent mountains, and thus masses, simply means that mass does not attract mass, contrary to what is universally assumed by the Gravitationalists. The anomalous behaviour in the diamond core hole of the downhole surveying instrument, detailed here and at Malagabay.wordpress.com, adds further support for the conclusion that mass does not attract mass. Instead gravity seems to be the response of solid, or more accurately non-ionised, matter to electric fields.

The error the physicists made is that they assumed Newton’s Law of Gravitation to be axiomatic. Instead of changing the theory when the data contradict it, science instead decided that because gravity theory is absolute, then the data or observations are incorrect and need to be adjusted to comply with the theory, or the Law of Gravity.

Except there are no Laws in science, only in religion.

Posted in Hare-brained theories, Heresy | Leave a comment