Prev: PETA Fascists Begin Bullying Meat-eaters
Next: rupie, you're a psychotic dope
From: pearl on 30 Jun 2008 06:45
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d648e550-13ed-4405-b414-443966a7bf5a(a)r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 29, 10:16 pm, "pearl" <t...(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:a67870f5-9d0a-4888-ba33-e6b421ce4055(a)k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
...
> > > > > That's every bit as nutty as believing that the earth is hollow.
> >
> > > > You should really look into it before applying these labels.
> >
> > > > For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yqBaD5VwrQ&NR=1
> >
> > > Hi, Lesley. Look, I haven't checked out that YouTube link just yet,
> >
> > Hi Rupert. It's a *must watch*. Also re: formation of mountains.
> >
> >
> >
> > > but I did have a look at this Wikipedia article:
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth
> >
> > > It would perhaps be more appropriate for me to have made some such
> > > statement as: "Currently the scientific community regards the
> > > hypothesis of a hollow earth as pseudoscience." That much should
> > > certainly not be controversial.
> >
> > > I'd be interested in any comment you have about the section of the
> > > Wikipedia article dealing with gravitation. If you wish me to take
> > > seriously the idea that the hollow-earth hypothesis has some kind of
> > > scientific credibility then you certainly must do something by way of
> > > addressing the reasons why the overwhelming majority of the scientific
> > > community currently believes that the hypothesis is not viable.
> > > Perhaps your YouTube link does this, I haven't checked yet.
> >
> > mmmm ... something about applecarts... :).
> >
> > Ok.. Wikipedia..
> >
> > 'Newtonian Gravity and a Hollow Earth
> >
> > Someone on the inside of a hollow Earth would not experience an
> > outward pull and could not stand on the inner surface; rather, the
> > theory of gravity implies that a person on the inside would be nearly
> > weightless. This was first shown by Newton, whose shell theorem
> > mathematically predicts a gravitational force of zero everywhere
> > inside a spherically symmetric hollow shell of matter, regardless of
> > the shell's thickness. A tiny gravitational force would arise from the
> > fact that the Earth does not have a perfectly symmetrical spherical
> > shape, and also from forces due to masses such as the Moon which
> > do not form part of the spherical shell. The centrifugal force from
> > the Earth's rotation would pull a person (on the inner surface)
> > outwards, but even at the equator this is only 1/300 of ordinary
> > Earth gravity.'
> >
> > From pages I've repeatedly linked to, but -never- addressed by ball...
> >
> > 'Gravity and isostasy
> >
> > If the newtonian theory of gravity were correct, there could be no huge
> > caverns in the earth's outer shell and no tunnels connecting the outer
> > and inner worlds. Even a few kilometres beneath the earth's surface the
> > immense pressures would cause any cavities to collapse. Moreover, a
> > habitable inner surface, with gravitational forces holding inhabitants
> > 'down', would be impossible, because the gravitational attraction of the
> > matter beneath their feet would be counteracted by the gravity of the
> > matter forming the earth's shell above their heads -- i.e. on the opposite
> > side of the 'cavity' -- and by the attraction of the inner sun.
> >
> > However, if, as several experiments suggest, the newtonian assumption
> > that gravity has unlimited penetrability is incorrect, and negative particles
> > and ions can screen or counteract the attractive force of gravity [1],
> > pressures (and temperatures) would not increase steadily with depth, the
> > earth's shell could be honeycombed with cavities and tunnels, and the
> > force of gravity on the inner concave surface would be compatible with
> > life.
> > ...
> > The fact that there is no empirical basis for the common assumption that
> > gravity is proportional to mass casts doubt on the standard interpretation
> > of gravity measurements; rather than being a direct function of the quantity
> > of matter, the strength of the gravitational force may depend on the
> > electrical and other properties of matter. The defective theory of isostasy
> > can certainly not be used to lend weight to the orthodox picture of the
> > 'mantle'.
> > ...'
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner2.htm
> >
> > 'Gravity .. involves a coupling of the mass-energy of the sun and planets,
> > along with their associated massfree gravitational energy. And it acts not
> > through empty space but through an energetic ether - something that is
> > as much missing from Spolter's physics as from orthodox physics (see
> > section 3). As shown in subsequent sections, the net gravitational force
> > need not be directly proportional to inert mass, as characteristics such
> > as spin and charge can modify a body's gravitational properties.
> > ..'
> > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm
> >
> > 'The mass of the planet also indicates that the hollow Earth theory is
> > unfeasible. Should the Earth be largely hollow, its mass would be much
> > lower and thus its gravity on the outer surface would be much lower
> > than it currently is.'
> >
> > See: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner1.htm#s3.
> >
> > etc.
>
> Hi Lesley,
>
> I tried to have a look at the video but unfortunately I got a message
> saying "We're sorry, this video is no longer available".

Hi Rupert. That's strange. It's still loading ok here.

> I'll take a look at your other links next, but at this stage I'd just
> say, with regard to all this stuff about gravity, I am actually in a
> position to comment here, I do know a bit of mathematical physics, and
> at this stage I'd have to say that it strikes me as quixotic, to put
> it mildly. An alternative theory of gravity that has implications at
> the scale of planet-sized objects... well... all I can say is it will
> be big news when the revolution comes.
>
> But I mean, I'm happy to look into it. If someone's done some sort of
> detailed mathematical model and explained how it gives a better fit
> with what we currently know about cosmology, I'm happy to look it over
> and let you know what I think.
>
> You have to understand that the theory of general relativity is one of
> the major edifices in the history of physics. Any sort of significant
> modification to it is going to require some strong empirical
> confirmation, right across the board in all the areas in which general
> relativity has applications. General relativity is the basis for our
> current understanding of the large-scale structure of the universe. If
> you're proposing a different picture you need to show in detail how it
> makes more sense given what we currently know.

'Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts
to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a
counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects.
This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current
metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object.
But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the
observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony
of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see
below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity
measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the
Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model.
....'
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11

'NASA Geophysical Fluid Flow Cell GFFC

The idea of using electric field gradient to simulate gravity is found in
NASA's approach to simulate fluid dynamics in Earth-like gravity field.
Go to Google and search for: spherical capacitor nasa or GFFC.
Then you will get several documents about experiments with spherical
capacitors simulating gravity field conditions for studying behavior of
fluids. Note that a spherical capacitor is the perfect shape to generate
a non linear electric field gradient between its centre electrode and its
inner surface. NASA does not explicitly state that gravity is electric
field gradient, but they use the effect to just simulate gravity force.

Everything is composed of atoms, which are themselves composed of
electrical entities. After all, that all on the Earth is charged and attracted
because of it, instead of mass attraction... It is usually forgotten that
every atom is "composed" by electric "charges" moving. If there is
something that we can call matter, that is electricity.
....'
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-efield.asp


From: Rupert on 30 Jun 2008 22:44
On Jun 30, 3:45 am, "pearl" <t...(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:d648e550-13ed-4405-b414-443966a7bf5a(a)r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 29, 10:16 pm, "pearl" <t...(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> > > "Rupert" <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:a67870f5-9d0a-4888-ba33-e6b421ce4055(a)k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> ..
> > > > > > That's every bit as nutty as believing that the earth is hollow..
>
> > > > > You should really look into it before applying these labels.
>
> > > > > For example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yqBaD5VwrQ&NR=1
>
> > > > Hi, Lesley. Look, I haven't checked out that YouTube link just yet,
>
> > > Hi Rupert.  It's a *must watch*.  Also re: formation of mountains..
>
> > > > but I did have a look at this Wikipedia article:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth
>
> > > > It would perhaps be more appropriate for me to have made some such
> > > > statement as: "Currently the scientific community regards the
> > > > hypothesis of a hollow earth as pseudoscience." That much should
> > > > certainly not be controversial.
>
> > > > I'd be interested in any comment you have about the section of the
> > > > Wikipedia article dealing with gravitation. If you wish me to take
> > > > seriously the idea that the hollow-earth hypothesis has some kind of
> > > > scientific credibility then you certainly must do something by way of
> > > > addressing the reasons why the overwhelming majority of the scientific
> > > > community currently believes that the hypothesis is not viable.
> > > > Perhaps your YouTube link does this, I haven't checked yet.
>
> > > mmmm ... something about applecarts...   :).
>
> > > Ok.. Wikipedia..
>
> > > 'Newtonian Gravity and a Hollow Earth
>
> > > Someone on the inside of a hollow Earth would not experience an
> > > outward pull and could not stand on the inner surface; rather, the
> > > theory of gravity implies that a person on the inside would be nearly
> > > weightless. This was first shown by Newton, whose shell theorem
> > > mathematically predicts a gravitational force of zero everywhere
> > > inside a spherically symmetric hollow shell of matter, regardless of
> > > the shell's thickness. A tiny gravitational force would arise from the
> > > fact that the Earth does not have a perfectly symmetrical spherical
> > > shape, and also from forces due to masses such as the Moon which
> > > do not form part of the spherical shell. The centrifugal force from
> > > the Earth's rotation would pull a person (on the inner surface)
> > > outwards, but even at the equator this is only 1/300 of ordinary
> > > Earth gravity.'
>
> > > From pages I've repeatedly linked to, but -never- addressed by ball....
>
> > > 'Gravity and isostasy
>
> > > If the newtonian theory of gravity were correct, there could be no huge
> > > caverns in the earth's outer shell and no tunnels connecting the outer
> > > and inner worlds. Even a few kilometres beneath the earth's surface the
> > > immense pressures would cause any cavities to collapse. Moreover, a
> > > habitable inner surface, with gravitational forces holding inhabitants
> > > 'down', would be impossible, because the gravitational attraction of the
> > > matter beneath their feet would be counteracted by the gravity of the
> > > matter forming the earth's shell above their heads -- i.e. on the opposite
> > > side of the 'cavity' -- and by the attraction of the inner sun.
>
> > > However, if, as several experiments suggest, the newtonian assumption
> > > that gravity has unlimited penetrability is incorrect, and negative particles
> > > and ions can screen or counteract the attractive force of gravity [1],
> > > pressures (and temperatures) would not increase steadily with depth, the
> > > earth's shell could be honeycombed with cavities and tunnels, and the
> > > force of gravity on the inner concave surface would be compatible with
> > > life.
> > > ...
> > > The fact that there is no empirical basis for the common assumption that
> > > gravity is proportional to mass casts doubt on the standard interpretation
> > > of gravity measurements; rather than being a direct function of the quantity
> > > of matter, the strength of the gravitational force may depend on the
> > > electrical and other properties of matter. The defective theory of isostasy
> > > can certainly not be used to lend weight to the orthodox picture of the
> > > 'mantle'.
> > > ...'
> > >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner2.htm
>
> > > 'Gravity .. involves a coupling of the mass-energy of the sun and planets,
> > > along with their associated massfree gravitational energy. And it acts not
> > > through empty space but through an energetic ether - something that is
> > > as much missing from Spolter's physics as from orthodox physics (see
> > > section 3). As shown in subsequent sections, the net gravitational force
> > > need not be directly proportional to inert mass, as characteristics such
> > > as spin and charge can modify a body's gravitational properties.
> > > ..'
> > >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/gravity.htm
>
> > > 'The mass of the planet also indicates that the hollow Earth theory is
> > > unfeasible. Should the Earth be largely hollow, its mass would be much
> > > lower and thus its gravity on the outer surface would be much lower
> > > than it currently is.'
>
> > > See:http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/inner1.htm#s3.
>
> > > etc.
>
> > Hi Lesley,
>
> > I tried to have a look at the video but unfortunately I got a message
> > saying "We're sorry, this video is no longer available".
>
> Hi Rupert.  That's strange.  It's still loading ok here.
>

You sometimes get problems with the Internet in China, I'll try again
later.

>
>
>
>
> > I'll take a look at your other links next, but at this stage I'd just
> > say, with regard to all this stuff about gravity, I am actually in a
> > position to comment here, I do know a bit of mathematical physics, and
> > at this stage I'd have to say that it strikes me as quixotic, to put
> > it mildly. An alternative theory of gravity that has implications at
> > the scale of planet-sized objects... well... all I can say is it will
> > be big news when the revolution comes.
>
> > But I mean, I'm happy to look into it. If someone's done some sort of
> > detailed mathematical model and explained how it gives a better fit
> > with what we currently know about cosmology, I'm happy to look it over
> > and let you know what I think.
>
> > You have to understand that the theory of general relativity is one of
> > the major edifices in the history of physics. Any sort of significant
> > modification to it is going to require some strong empirical
> > confirmation, right across the board in all the areas in which general
> > relativity has applications. General relativity is the basis for our
> > current understanding of the large-scale structure of the universe. If
> > you're proposing a different picture you need to show in detail how it
> > makes more sense given what we currently know.
>
> 'Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts
> to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a
> counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects.
> This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current
> metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object.
> But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the
> observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony
> of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see
> below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity
> measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the
> Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model.
> ...'http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11
>

Okay, I'll just make a few comments.

1) "Counter-intuitive". Irrelevant. The fact that some aspects of
nature are counter-intuitive has been a platitude of modern physics
for at least 80 years. There's no reason to think that any "intuition"
you may have based on your experience of ordinary-sized physical
objects and ordinary speeds would be of any help to you in
understanding the basic laws of the universe across the board.

2) "Space must also warp at near infinite speed to produce the
observed planetary orbits." Pretty meaningless. What's meant by the
speed at which space warps? The rate of change of the metric? We can
find out what that needs to be in order to account for the observed
motion of the solar system if you like, but on what grounds could any
particular value be called "too high" or "too low"? You would need to
demonstrate a tension with some other empirically known fact.

3) The theory of general relativity is an extremely elegant and
parsimonious theory, and postulating fluctuations in the metric of
space-time is not "unnecessary", there is a good motivation for it and
in terms of the range of empirical phenomena which it successfully
explains (such as previously unexplained anomalies in the orbit of
Mercury), the success of the theory is unmatched. It's a paradigm of
an empirically successful theory, it's crucial to our investigation of
the large-scale structure of the universe. Ever used any form of GPS
technology? We wouldn't be able to get it to work without making use
of the corrections required by the theory of general relativity.

4) "Common sense". Not a consideration. It just doesn't cut the
mustard to say "Well, it doesn't make sense to me that the space-time
continuum could be curved". Evolution didn't have any reason to equip
you with an intuition that was comfortable with the idea of curved
space. Your ancestors got a big advantage out of having a strong
intuition that space is Euclidean, because that's a very good
approximation in the environment you live in and at the scale you have
to deal with. It took many thousands of years for mathematicians to
get comfortable with the idea of non-Euclidean geometry, but it's a
perfectly good geometry and if some deviations from the Euclidean
model help to explain what we can observe there's really no particular
reason to discount a non-Euclidean model as a hypothesis. In
evaluating any competitor of the theory of general relativity, what
we'll have to do is look at the mathematical model and see how well it
compares in terms of explaining what we can observe. And general
relativity helps to explain a very wide range of phenomena.

5) I'm happy to look over any alternative mathematical model and try
to evaluate how well it compares with the theory of general relativity
in terms of explaining a wide range of empirical facts, and in terms
of providing a basis for technology that wouldn't otherwise be
possible. If there's an actual mathematical model behind this Electric
Universe thing, you're welcome to point me to it. What you've shown me
so far is a non-starter in terms of being a serious critique of
general relativity.

6) The reality is that in order to have an informed position on these
debates you have to spend a bit of time studying the subject. It would
take me a while to become informed enough to be able to take a
position on Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design. At this
stage all I can say is "Well, the scientific community currently
regards intelligent design as psuedo-science, by an absolutely
overwhelming majority, they might all be wrong, but I haven't had the
time to look into the matter just yet". You really have to take things
like the Electrical Universe model, which are widely regarded as
psuedo-science, with a significant pinch of salt, unless you're
actually prepared to go to university and study physics and come to
your own personal view about the matter. I'm happy to give you
feedback on what I think about this thing. At this stage we haven't
seen any actual mathematics, so there's really nothing to talk about.
From: pearl on 1 Jul 2008 07:17
"Rupert" <rupertmccallum(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f4da6521-29fa-4764-b331-2ef57252c1d2(a)v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 3:45 am, "pearl" <t...(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote:
...
> 'Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts
> to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a
> counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects.
> This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current
> metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object.
> But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the
> observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony
> of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see
> below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity
> measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the
> Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model.
> ...'http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11
>

Okay, I'll just make a few comments.

1) "Counter-intuitive". Irrelevant. The fact that some aspects of
nature are counter-intuitive has been a platitude of modern physics
for at least 80 years. There's no reason to think that any "intuition"
you may have based on your experience of ordinary-sized physical
objects and ordinary speeds would be of any help to you in
understanding the basic laws of the universe across the board.

2) "Space must also warp at near infinite speed to produce the
observed planetary orbits." Pretty meaningless. What's meant by the
speed at which space warps? The rate of change of the metric? We can
find out what that needs to be in order to account for the observed
motion of the solar system if you like, but on what grounds could any
particular value be called "too high" or "too low"? You would need to
demonstrate a tension with some other empirically known fact.

3) The theory of general relativity is an extremely elegant and
parsimonious theory, and postulating fluctuations in the metric of
space-time is not "unnecessary", there is a good motivation for it and
in terms of the range of empirical phenomena which it successfully
explains (such as previously unexplained anomalies in the orbit of
Mercury), the success of the theory is unmatched. It's a paradigm of
an empirically successful theory, it's crucial to our investigation of
the large-scale structure of the universe. Ever used any form of GPS
technology? We wouldn't be able to get it to work without making use
of the corrections required by the theory of general relativity.

4) "Common sense". Not a consideration. It just doesn't cut the
mustard to say "Well, it doesn't make sense to me that the space-time
continuum could be curved". Evolution didn't have any reason to equip
you with an intuition that was comfortable with the idea of curved
space. Your ancestors got a big advantage out of having a strong
intuition that space is Euclidean, because that's a very good
approximation in the environment you live in and at the scale you have
to deal with. It took many thousands of years for mathematicians to
get comfortable with the idea of non-Euclidean geometry, but it's a
perfectly good geometry and if some deviations from the Euclidean
model help to explain what we can observe there's really no particular
reason to discount a non-Euclidean model as a hypothesis. In
evaluating any competitor of the theory of general relativity, what
we'll have to do is look at the mathematical model and see how well it
compares in terms of explaining what we can observe. And general
relativity helps to explain a very wide range of phenomena.

5) I'm happy to look over any alternative mathematical model and try
to evaluate how well it compares with the theory of general relativity
in terms of explaining a wide range of empirical facts, and in terms
of providing a basis for technology that wouldn't otherwise be
possible. If there's an actual mathematical model behind this Electric
Universe thing, you're welcome to point me to it. What you've shown me
so far is a non-starter in terms of being a serious critique of
general relativity.

6) The reality is that in order to have an informed position on these
debates you have to spend a bit of time studying the subject. It would
take me a while to become informed enough to be able to take a
position on Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design. At this
stage all I can say is "Well, the scientific community currently
regards intelligent design as psuedo-science, by an absolutely
overwhelming majority, they might all be wrong, but I haven't had the
time to look into the matter just yet". You really have to take things
like the Electrical Universe model, which are widely regarded as
psuedo-science, with a significant pinch of salt, unless you're
actually prepared to go to university and study physics and come to
your own personal view about the matter. I'm happy to give you
feedback on what I think about this thing. At this stage we haven't
seen any actual mathematics, so there's really nothing to talk about.

------------------

'Professor James McCanney, M.S. is a physicist who has spent
decades promoting his theoretical work showing that the solar system
is ever changing and is electrically active.

These theories have been confirmed with space probe data and prove
that there are definite Earth effects resulting from our Sun's electrical
activity. He has openly opposed NASA's view that outer space is
electrically neutral and has direct knowledge of NASA's lies.

Prof. McCanney received a sound classical physics training at St. Mary's
University, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major in
physics and mathematics in 1970. He was offered full scholarship awards
to three major U.S. physics graduate schools to pursue graduate physics
studies.

However, he chose instead to postpone graduate studies for a period
of three years while he traveled and taught physics and mathematics in
Spanish in Latin America.

During this time he spent a good deal of time traveling to ruins of ancient
cities and archeological sites, studying firsthand many times as the ruins
were dug from under dirt that had not been moved for thousands of years.
Also during this time he developed the basis for his theoretical work that
would, at a later date, deal with the celestial mechanics of N-bodies and
plasma physics. It was here also that he learned to appreciate the fact that
the ruins and devastation he was witnessing had to have come from
celestial events that were so devastating that they left the Earth and these
stone cities in ruins, in some cases leaving no trace of the inhabitants.

With this new understanding of archeology, astronomy of the ancients,
physics, and the world around him, Mr. McCanney returned to graduate
school in 1973 and earned a master's degree in nuclear and solid-state
physics from Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. He was again offered
a full fellowship to continue on with Ph.D. studies, but once again he
declined and returned to Latin America to study archeology and teach
physics, mathematics, and computer science in Spanish. He continued
his work to explore the mysteries of celestial mechanics and its
relationship to the planets, moons, and other celestial bodies.

In 1979 he joined the faculty of Cornell University, Ithaca NY, as an
introductory instructor in physics. It was during this time that he had
access to NASA data returning daily from the Voyager I and II
spacecraft as they traveled by the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond
(as well as data from many other spacecraft).

It was here he recognized that his theoretical work regarding the
electrodynamic nature of the solar system and universe had its
signatures in the new data that was streaming in from the edges of the
solar system.

All standard science continued to look at gravitational explanations for
the working of the planets, moons, and other objects of the solar system,
while Mr. McCanney was applying his electrodynamic scientific theories,
and ventured to say for the first time that comets were not dirty snowballs.

His papers were published at first in the standard astrophysical journals,
but soon he began to receive resistance from the standard astronomical
community, and within a short period of time, the journals would no
longer publish his theoretical work. Mr. McCanney was removed from
his teaching position because of his beliefs regarding the electro-dynamic
nature of the solar system.

Contrary to the traditional belief that the solar system formed all at one
time 4.5 billion years ago and has not changed significantly since,
Mr. McCanney's theoretical work essentially stated that the solar system
was dynamic and adopting new members on an ongoing basis.

He pointed to the planet Venus, the Jovian moon Io, the Saturnian moon
Titan, and the small planet Pluto (which supports an atmosphere even
though it is so distant from the warmth of the Sun and has insufficient
gravity to hold an atmosphere for long) as being obvious new members
of our solar system. He stated that all this was proof that the way this
occurred was by "planetary capture".

His theoretical work additionally stated that comets were not dirty
snowballs, but were large electrical "vacuum cleaners" in outer space.
The comets were drawing in vast amounts of material by way of powerful
electrical forces, and there was potential for very large comets capable of
disrupting the planetary structure that was already in place.

His innovative theories on plasma physics and a new model for fusion in
the solar atmosphere provided the basis for the electric fields and plasma
discharge phenomena that have become the core elements of his
theoretical models of the true nature of the solar system in which we live.

James McCanney was on the faculty of the Physics and Mathematics
Departments of Cornell University. His work was in theoretical celestial
mechanics and plasma physics. Having presented his theories at the Los
Alamos National labs, James McCanney now expands on his data on
Planet X.

Upon being fired from the physics department for his radical beliefs,
Mr. McCanney was rehired shortly thereafter by the mathematics
department, also at Cornell University, where he taught for another year
and a half and continued to publish his papers in astrophysical journals.
Once again astronomers forced his removal and he was once again
blackballed from publishing in the astrophysics journals in 1981.

During this time Mr. McCanney established himself as the originator of
the theoretical work regarding the electrical nature of the cosmos, which
today is being proven correct on an ongoing basis by space probes
returning data from outer space.

Many of his predictions, such as:
-x-rays to the Sunward side of comet nuclei,
-that comet nuclei would be found to have no ice or water frozen on
their surfaces,
-and that comets interact electrically with the Sun to affect Earth weather,

have now been confirmed by direct measurements in 1986, 1996, 2001,
and 2002 respectively. Many other more abstract concepts have also
been verified.

There exists a rare combination of factors that makes Mr. McCanney
a unique person who stands alone in the development of the scientific
theories summarized in his book. Some have tried to borrow and copy
this work, but when observers consider the factors involved, they too
will agree that the extensive rewriting of standard scientific structures
had to be accomplished by someone with a rare set of characteristics
and circumstances.

He was always at the top of his classes in mathematics and physics,
and was always creating his own formulas and proofs. His education
was soundly based in classical and modern physics. He was able to
recognize that when the basic new aspects of the functioning of the
solar system were understood and then verified in space probe data,
he had the ability to extend this information and take it to all its
logical conclusions. This all occurred while working in and around
the top-rated scientists of the day at Cornell University, who were
still at least two decades behind what Mr. McCanney was discovering
and writing.

Another unique condition was that Cornell University offered a rare
location since it was not only a Library of Congress (if it was in print
it was there), but also it was a repository of data for NASA. Armed
with his existing theoretical work and this incredible source of
information, and with the timing that coincided with the daily arrival of
new data from the Voyager and other spacecraft from the far reaches
of the solar system, he was in a totally unique position to do what he
has done.

An essential requirement of anyone who attempts to alter the fundamental
propositions of a subject as complex as astronomy and astrophysics is
an in-depth knowledge of the history of that and all related sciences.
Mr. McCanney has studied the history of science extensively and
understands where the theories came from that currently make up the
structures of science.

There are few people who have the tenacity to pursue and uphold their
beliefs for as long as he has had to do in facing the odds pitted against
him over the past decades, and to emerge intact with as full a
commitment as when he started down this path long ago.

These numerous and individually rare characteristics make the record
clear that the important contributions made here combine both personal
traits and a situation of "being in the right place at the right time" as the
spacecraft data poured into Cornell University as Mr. McCanney's
theoretical ideas were solidifying.

In 1981 the interdisciplinary journal KRONOS agreed to publish what
has since become known in inner circles as the "3-Part Comet Paper".
His work today includes many new significant insights into the
connection between the Sun, comets, Earth weather, the Sun-Earth
connection and Earth changes.

Mr. McCanney has also remained active and well-known within the
space science/astronomy community and within professional societies,
and although standard astronomers still resist accepting his theoretical
work, he is generally well respected amongst his peers in these
communities when attending professional conferences. He is what
some have called "the last of the independent scientists" who were
able to work "on the inside" and still remain active to talk about it
"on the outside".

In the mid-1990s Mr. McCanney's work was recognized by a group of
high-level Russian scientists who had measured but did not understand
electrodynamic effects around Earth and in the solar system. They
translated all of his papers to date into Russian. These are being taught
at the university level as the leading edge of research in this field. It is
only due to the ongoing and intentional efforts of NASA that his work
has received such little attention in the western scientific community and
press.

Radio Show:
James McCanney Science Hour: At The Crossroads airs every 1st and
3rd Thursday of the month, from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern Time on his
Internet website.

Website: www.jmccanneyscience.com

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_solarsystem05.htm#James%20M.%20McCanney,%20M.S


From: Rupert on 1 Jul 2008 08:55
On Jul 1, 7:17 pm, "pearl" <t...(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:f4da6521-29fa-4764-b331-2ef57252c1d2(a)v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jun 30, 3:45 am, "pearl" <t...(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> ..
>
> > 'Einstein's General Theory was devised to explain gravity. It attempts
> > to discard the observed action-at-a-distance of gravity by proposing a
> > counter-intuitive warping of space in the presence of massive objects.
> > This unnecessary complication of space is then added to the current
> > metaphysical concepts of what constitutes the mass of an object.
> > But space must also "warp" at near infinite speed to produce the
> > observed planetary orbits. Common sense, observation, and parsimony
> > of hypotheses all suggest that the electrostatic model of gravity (see
> > below) is superior. There is now experimental evidence from gravity
> > measurements at the time of a total solar eclipse that supports the
> > Electric Universe model and discounts the General Relativity model.
> > ...'http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11
>
> Okay, I'll just make a few comments.
>
> 1) "Counter-intuitive". Irrelevant. The fact that some aspects of
> nature are counter-intuitive has been a platitude of modern physics
> for at least 80 years. There's no reason to think that any "intuition"
> you may have based on your experience of ordinary-sized physical
> objects and ordinary speeds would be of any help to you in
> understanding the basic laws of the universe across the board.
>
> 2) "Space must also warp at near infinite speed to produce the
> observed planetary orbits." Pretty meaningless. What's meant by the
> speed at which space warps? The rate of change of the metric? We can
> find out what that needs to be in order to account for the observed
> motion of the solar system if you like, but on what grounds could any
> particular value be called "too high" or "too low"? You would need to
> demonstrate a tension with some other empirically known fact.
>
> 3) The theory of general relativity is an extremely elegant and
> parsimonious theory, and postulating fluctuations in the metric of
> space-time is not "unnecessary", there is a good motivation for it and
> in terms of the range of empirical phenomena which it successfully
> explains (such as previously unexplained anomalies in the orbit of
> Mercury), the success of the theory is unmatched. It's a paradigm of
> an empirically successful theory, it's crucial to our investigation of
> the large-scale structure of the universe. Ever used any form of GPS
> technology? We wouldn't be able to get it to work without making use
> of the corrections required by the theory of general relativity.
>
> 4) "Common sense". Not a consideration. It just doesn't cut the
> mustard to say "Well, it doesn't make sense to me that the space-time
> continuum could be curved". Evolution didn't have any reason to equip
> you with an intuition that was comfortable with the idea of curved
> space. Your ancestors got a big advantage out of having a strong
> intuition that space is Euclidean, because that's a very good
> approximation in the environment you live in and at the scale you have
> to deal with. It took many thousands of years for mathematicians to
> get comfortable with the idea of non-Euclidean geometry, but it's a
> perfectly good geometry and if some deviations from the Euclidean
> model help to explain what we can observe there's really no particular
> reason to discount a non-Euclidean model as a hypothesis. In
> evaluating any competitor of the theory of general relativity, what
> we'll have to do is look at the mathematical model and see how well it
> compares in terms of explaining what we can observe. And general
> relativity helps to explain a very wide range of phenomena.
>
> 5) I'm happy to look over any alternative mathematical model and try
> to evaluate how well it compares with the theory of general relativity
> in terms of explaining a wide range of empirical facts, and in terms
> of providing a basis for technology that wouldn't otherwise be
> possible. If there's an actual mathematical model behind this Electric
> Universe thing, you're welcome to point me to it. What you've shown me
> so far is a non-starter in terms of being a serious critique of
> general relativity.
>
> 6) The reality is that in order to have an informed position on these
> debates you have to spend a bit of time studying the subject. It would
> take me a while to become informed enough to be able to take a
> position on Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design. At this
> stage all I can say is "Well, the scientific community currently
> regards intelligent design as psuedo-science, by an absolutely
> overwhelming majority, they might all be wrong, but I haven't had the
> time to look into the matter just yet". You really have to take things
> like the Electrical Universe model, which are widely regarded as
> psuedo-science, with a significant pinch of salt, unless you're
> actually prepared to go to university and study physics and come to
> your own personal view about the matter. I'm happy to give you
> feedback on what I think about this thing. At this stage we haven't
> seen any actual mathematics, so there's really nothing to talk about.
>
> ------------------
>
> 'Professor James McCanney, M.S. is a physicist who has spent
> decades promoting his theoretical work showing that the solar system
> is ever changing and is electrically active.
>
> These theories have been confirmed with space probe data and prove
> that there are definite Earth effects resulting from our Sun's electrical
> activity. He has openly opposed NASA's view that outer space is
> electrically neutral and has direct knowledge of NASA's lies.
>
> Prof. McCanney received a sound classical physics training at St. Mary's
> University, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major in
> physics and mathematics in 1970. He was offered full scholarship awards
> to three major U.S. physics graduate schools to pursue graduate physics
> studies.
>
> However, he chose instead to postpone graduate studies for a period
> of three years while he traveled and taught physics and mathematics in
> Spanish in Latin America.
>
> During this time he spent a good deal of time traveling to ruins of ancient
> cities and archeological sites, studying firsthand many times as the ruins
> were dug from under dirt that had not been moved for thousands of years.
> Also during this time he developed the basis for his theoretical work that
> would, at a later date, deal with the celestial mechanics of N-bodies and
> plasma physics. It was here also that he learned to appreciate the fact that
> the ruins and devastation he was witnessing had to have come from
> celestial events that were so devastating that they left the Earth and these
> stone cities in ruins, in some cases leaving no trace of the inhabitants.
>
> With this new understanding of archeology, astronomy of the ancients,
> physics, and the world around him, Mr. McCanney returned to graduate
> school in 1973 and earned a master's degree in nuclear and solid-state
> physics from Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. He was again offered
> a full fellowship to continue on with Ph.D. studies, but once again he
> declined and returned to Latin America to study archeology and teach
> physics, mathematics, and computer science in Spanish. He continued
> his work to explore the mysteries of celestial mechanics and its
> relationship to the planets, moons, and other celestial bodies.
>
> In 1979 he joined the faculty of Cornell University, Ithaca NY, as an
> introductory instructor in physics. It was during this time that he had
> access to NASA data returning daily from the Voyager I and II
> spacecraft as they traveled by the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond
> (as well as data from many other spacecraft).
>
> It was here he recognized that his theoretical work regarding the
> electrodynamic nature of the solar system and universe had its
> signatures in the new data that was streaming in from the edges of the
> solar system.
>
> All standard science continued to look at gravitational explanations for
> the working of the planets, moons, and other objects of the solar system,
> while Mr. McCanney was applying his electrodynamic scientific theories,
> and ventured to say for the first time that comets were not dirty snowballs.
>
> His papers were published at first in the standard astrophysical journals,
> but soon he began to receive resistance from the standard astronomical
> community, and within a short period of time, the journals would no
> longer publish his theoretical work. Mr. McCanney was removed from
> his teaching position because of his beliefs regarding the electro-dynamic
> nature of the solar system.
>
> Contrary to the traditional belief that the solar system formed all at one
> time 4.5 billion years ago and has not changed significantly since,
> Mr. McCanney's theoretical work essentially stated that the solar system
> was dynamic and adopting new members on an ongoing basis.
>
> He pointed to the planet Venus, the Jovian moon Io, the Saturnian moon
> Titan, and the small planet Pluto (which supports an atmosphere even
> though it is so distant from the warmth of the Sun and has insufficient
> gravity to hold an atmosphere for long) as being obvious new members
> of our solar system. He stated that all this was proof that the way this
> occurred was by "planetary capture".
>
> His theoretical work additionally stated that comets were not dirty
> snowballs, but were large electrical "vacuum cleaners" in outer space.
> The comets were drawing in vast amounts of material by way of powerful
> electrical forces, and there was potential for very large comets capable of
> disrupting the planetary structure that was already in place.
>
> His innovative theories on plasma physics and a new model for fusion in
> the solar atmosphere provided the basis for the electric fields and plasma
> discharge phenomena that have become the core elements of his
> theoretical models of the true nature of the solar system in which we live.
>
> James McCanney was on the faculty of the Physics and Mathematics
> Departments of Cornell University. His work was in theoretical celestial
> mechanics and plasma physics. Having presented his theories at the Los
> Alamos National labs, James McCanney now expands on his data on
> Planet X.
>
> Upon being fired from the physics department for his radical beliefs,
> Mr. McCanney was rehired shortly thereafter by the mathematics
> department, also at Cornell University, where he taught for another year
> and a half and continued to publish his papers in astrophysical journals.
> Once again astronomers forced his removal and he was once again
> blackballed from publishing in the astrophysics journals in 1981.
>
> During this time Mr. McCanney established himself as the originator of
> the theoretical work regarding the electrical nature of the cosmos, which
> today is being proven correct on an ongoing basis by space probes
> returning data from outer space.
>
> Many of his predictions, such as:
> -x-rays to the Sunward side of comet nuclei,
> -that comet nuclei would be found to have no ice or water frozen on
> their surfaces,
> -and that comets interact electrically with the Sun to affect Earth weather,
>
> have now been confirmed by direct measurements in 1986, 1996, 2001,
> and 2002 respectively. Many other more abstract concepts have also
> been verified.
>
> There exists a rare combination of factors that makes Mr. McCanney
> a unique person who stands alone in the development of the scientific
> theories summarized in his book. Some have tried to borrow and copy
> this work, but when observers consider the factors involved, they too
> will agree that the extensive rewriting of standard scientific structures
> had to be accomplished by someone with a rare set of characteristics
> and circumstances.
>
> He was always at the top of his classes in mathematics and physics,
> and was always creating his own formulas and proofs. His education
> was soundly based in classical and modern physics. He was able to
> recognize that when the basic new aspects of the functioning of the
> solar system were understood and then verified in space probe data,
> he had the ability to extend this information and take it to all its
> logical conclusions. This all occurred while working in and around
> the top-rated scientists of the day at Cornell University, who were
> still at least two decades behind what Mr. McCanney was discovering
> and writing.
>
> Another unique condition was that Cornell University offered a rare
> location since it was not only a Library of Congress (if it was in print
> it was there), but also it was a repository of data for NASA. Armed
> with his existing theoretical work and this incredible source of
> information, and with the timing that coincided with the daily arrival of
> new data from the Voyager and other spacecraft from the far reaches
> of the solar system, he was in a totally unique position to do what he
> has done.
>
> An essential requirement of anyone who attempts to alter the fundamental
> propositions of a subject as complex as astronomy and astrophysics is
> an in-depth knowledge of the history of that and all related sciences.
> Mr. McCanney has studied the history of science extensively and
> understands where the theories came from that currently make up the
> structures of science.
>
> There are few people who have the tenacity to pursue and uphold their
> beliefs for as long as he has had to do in facing the odds pitted against
> him over the past decades, and to emerge intact with as full a
> commitment as when he started down this path long ago.
>
> These numerous and individually rare characteristics make the record
> clear that the important contributions made here combine both personal
> traits and a situation of "being in the right place at the right time" as the
> spacecraft data poured into Cornell University as Mr. McCanney's
> theoretical ideas were solidifying.
>
> In 1981 the interdisciplinary journal KRONOS agreed to publish what
> has since become known in inner circles as the "3-Part Comet Paper".
> His work today includes many new significant insights into the
> connection between the Sun, comets, Earth weather, the Sun-Earth
> connection and Earth changes.
>
> Mr. McCanney has also remained active and well-known within the
> space science/astronomy community and within professional societies,
> and although standard astronomers still resist accepting his theoretical
> work, he is generally well respected amongst his peers in these
> communities when attending professional conferences. He is what
> some have called "the last of the independent scientists" who were
> able to work "on the inside" and still remain active to talk about it
> "on the outside".
>
> In the mid-1990s Mr. McCanney's work was recognized by a group of
> high-level Russian scientists who had measured but did not understand
> electrodynamic effects around Earth and in the solar system. They
> translated all of his papers to date into Russian. These are being taught
> at the university level as the leading edge of research in this field. It is
> only due to the ongoing and intentional efforts of NASA that his work
> has received such little attention in the western scientific community and
> press.
>
> Radio Show:
> James McCanney Science Hour: At The Crossroads airs every 1st and
> 3rd Thursday of the month, from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern Time on his
> Internet website.
>
> Website: www.jmccanneyscience.com
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_solarsystem05.h...

Good, well, can you find me a citation of one of his papers?
From: pearl on 1 Jul 2008 09:29

'THE OLD PARADIGM

The old paradigm for understanding the origin and functioning of the
solar system is overwhelmingly dominated by gravitational mechanics.
It dates back to Newton when little was known about electricity.
Similarly, the Kant-Laplace hypothesis concerning the nebular original
of the solar system knows only gravitation; electromagnetism plays
no part in either the origin or functioning of the system. The same is
true of the next major step in the history of scientific cosmology -
Einstein's 1917 "Cosmological Considerations Concerning the General
theory of Relativity".

In the 1940's and 1950's, Velikovsky championed the importance of
electromagnetic phenomena in the solar system, both in his books,
and in his correspondence and discussions with Einstein, in which
Velikovsky insisted that "celestial mechanics without taking into
account the electromagnetic fields is in conflict with the facts." (1952)

ENTER HANNES ALFVEN

At about the same time, this theme was taken up by the mathematical
physicist Hannes Alfven, in great experimental and theoretical detail
as described below.

The nature and importance of "the fourth state of matter", and specifically
of matter in an electrically charged state, has a history that goes back to
Crookes in the 19th century. Crookes realized that gasses through which
an electrical current has been passed, themselves acquire a charge. In
1928, Langmuir coined the term 'plasma' to describe that mixture of gas,
charged ions and electrons. The advent of plasma physics has created a
revolution in science which has not yet been fully recognized. Indeed,
partly by accident, and partly with cold deliberation, the reality of the
plasma revolution in cosmology has been utterly played down.

The groundwork for the new electromagnetic dimension of cosmology,
crystallized around a single outstanding figure - Professor Hannes Alfven
and his team at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. 1942
marked the beginning of Alfven's application of hydrodynamic theory
to plasma physics. He created the magnetohydrodynamic equations
describing the motion of plasma as a fluid in electromagnetic fields. He
drew attention to the fact that "Waves of electrons and ions are found
not only in laboratory plasma but also in the atmospheric and solar
plasmas." Such waves are now known as Alfven waves, and for this
work, Alfven shared the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics.

In 1946, Landau formulated the equations that describe the interaction
between particles and waves in plasma, and about the same time Bohm
used the term plasmons to refer to the concerted behavior of electrons
in a plasma. Let us take a brief look at the first two editions of Alfven's
Cosmical (sic) Electrodynamics, published by the Clarendon Press,
Oxford, in 1950 and 1962 respectively. The second edition was co-
authored by Falthammar, and the English of both editions has an
interesting Scandinavian flavor. In 1954, Alfven published On the origin
of the Solar System which, in 1975, was expanded as Structure and
Evolutionary History of the Solar System, co-authored with Gustaf
Arrhenius.

In the Preface (written in 1948) to the first edition of Cosmical
Electrodynamics, Alfven spoke softly, but already sounded a big drum,
[warning]:

"Recent discoveries have revealed that electromagnetic phenomena are
of greater importance in cosmic physics than used to be supposed.
The time now seems to be ripe for an attempt to systematically trace
the electromagnetic phenomena in the cosmos."

In the General Survey, Alfven continued : "It seems very probable that
electromagnetic phenomena will prove to be of great importance in
cosmic physics. Electromagnetic phenomena are described by classical
electrodynamics which, however, for a deeper understanding, must be
combined with atomic physics. This combination is especially important
for the phenomena occurring at the passage of current through gaseous
conductors which are treated by the complex theory of 'discharges' in
gas. No definite reason is known why it should not be possible to
extrapolate the laboratory results in this field to cosmic physics."
(op.cit. p.1)

What emerges from a comparison of the two editions is the consolidation
of the densely mathematical and cosmological arguments of the first, into
the virtual certainty of the new paradigm in the second. As the authors
point out in the preface to the second edition:

The purpose of the first edition...was to draw attention to a field of
research in an early state of development...to the fundamental principles
of plasma physics and magneto-hydrodynamics...the magnetosphere...
interplanetary space, to solar physics and to cosmic radiation. During the
15 years that have elapsed since the first edition was written, the subject
has been developed by two of the largest research efforts of our time:
thermonuclear research has increased our knowledge of magneto-
hydrodynamics and plasmas, and... space research has been devoted to
the exploration of the magneto-hydrodynamic conditions around the
Earth.

Consequently, the second edition incorporates all the relevant findings
from these new fields of research - plasma physics as developed in
thermonuclear research etc., along with the early space data into the
consolidation of the crucial importance of electrodynamics in astronomy
and astrophysics. Thus Alfven states "In cosmic physics, electromagnetic
processes have recently attracted a rapidly increasing interest, and it is
now generally realized that they are of fundamental importance. In the
interior of the Earth there exist electromagnetic processes by which the
earth's general magnetic field is generated. In the ionosphere electric
currents change the earth's magnetic field, especially during magnetic
storms, and also produce luminous phenomena, aurorae, in certain regions
around the geomagnetic poles.. In the magnetosphere, a complicated and
rapidly varying system of currents [were] found by space research
measurements. In certain regions (the radiation or Van Allen belts) there is
also a flux of high-energy charged particles trapped in the magnetic field."
(Cosmological Electrodynamics, 2nd edition, p.1)

Furthermore, "The conditions in the ionosphere and the magnetosphere
of the earth are influenced by the electromagnetic state in interplanetary
space, which in turn is affected by the sun. There are a number of solar
electromagnetic phenomena sunspots, prominences, solar flares, etc.
In other stars electromagnetic phenomena are of importance, most
conspicuously in the magnetic variable stars." (ibid., p.1.)

Alfven goes on to point out that it was not "until classical electrodynamics
had been combined with hydrodynamics to form magneto-hydrodynamics,
which further must be combined with plasma physics in order to allow a
deeper understanding of electromagnetic phenomena in cosmic physics."
(ibid., p.2.)

The term 'plasma' refers to an ionized gas, an ensemble of neutral molecules,
electrons, positive and often also negative ions, together with the energy
released from the excited atoms. Alfven stresses the crucial importance of
plasmas for cosmology. The properties of plasmas are of paramount interest
in cosmic physics because most of the matter in the universe is in the plasma
state. In the interior of stars, the gas is almost completely ionized. In the
photosphere of the sun (and other stars) the degree of ionization is not very
high, but above the photosphere, in the chromosphere and the corona, the
ionization is again almost 100%. Vast regions of interstellar space, particularly
around the hot stars of early spectral type, are highly ionized. In the sun and
interplanetary space, probably also in interstellar and intergalactic space, the
plasma is penetrated by magnetic fields. As a consequence, the
astrophysicist's interest in plasma physics is mainly concentrated on magnetic
plasmas." (Alfven, op.cit. p. 134)

In their volume Structure and Evolution of the Solar System, (published in
1975 by Reidel), Alfven and Arrhenius continue to refine their astrophysical
model. In their Introduction, they assert that: "Many of the 'generally
accepted' theories [in this field] lack a valid foundation" (p.xv) One such
theory "which cannot stand critical examination is the Laplacian concept of
the formation of the sun and the solar system by non-hydromagnetic
processes". (p. xv)

They go on to criticize the fact that whereas, "In most other fields of cosmic
physics it was realized already 25 years ago that electromagnetic processes
have a dominating influence on the dynamics of cosmic gas clouds (plasmas),
the majority of cosmogonic papers published today are still based on the
assumption that such forces can be neglected" (p. xv) This is only marginally
less true today than when it was stated by Alfven in 1975.

Alfven and Arhenius insist that "The processes involved in the formation of
celestial bodies in our solar system requires us to use not only the methods
of ordinary chemistry and ordinary celestial mechanics, but also those of
plasma chemistry and magnetohydrodynamics generally ignored or
incorrectly applied." (op.cit., p. 4)

Here is how Falthammar, a colleaugue of Alfven described the situation in
1988: "It was widely believed that cosmic plasma would have negligible
restistivity. From that it was [mistakenly] concluded that the electric field
would be a secondary parameter, of little importance. Therefore, electric
fields, and especially magnetic-field- aligned electric fields, which we now
know to be of crucial importance, were long disregarded. Even today,
only a few space missions in the outer magnetosphere have included
measurements of electric fields."

"It is a sobering fact", adds Falthammar, "that even after hundreds of
satellites had circled the earth, the concept of our space environment was
still fundamentally wrong in aspects as basic as the existence and role of
electric fields of the near Earth plasma itself." Leaving these earlier but
absolutely essential contributions to our understanding of the fundamental
electromagnetic component of the solar system, which complement and
certainly do not exclude, the classical gravitation/inertia view of celestial
dynamics, let us see how and where McCanney fits into the picture.

ENTER JAMES McCANNEY

McCanney took up the baton in 1979 and the early 1980's at the Physics
and later the Math departments at Cornell. Given the retardation effect with
respect to the electromagnetic component, that Alfen has made clear, it is
easy to understand, yet utterly lamentable that McCanney was not given
tenure at by either department. The other side of that coin is that
McCanney was free to take up the role of "an independent scientist," not
subject to the pressures of the scientific community, peer pressure or
governmental non-disclosure agreements and funding." (ibid. p. 32) Cornell
had certain advantages: the Library was part of the Library of Congress
network, so if a book was in print, it was available. Even more importantly,
it was a repository of data from NASA. As we read in the introduction to
his book, Armed with his existing theoretical work, and this incredible source
of information, and with the timing that coincided with the daily arrival of
new data from the Voyager and other space craft, he [McCanney] was in a
totally unique position to do what he has done. (loc.cit. p.iii) In other words,
schematically speaking, McCanney took over where Alfven left off. Here is
the core of McCanney's position with respect to the electromagnetic part of
the paradigm.

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPONENT OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM

(1) "Our solar system acts like a large electrical circuit. Our sun forms an
electric capacitor (a separation of electrical charge as done by a simple
DC battery in a flashlight).

(2) This solar capacitor has its negative pole at the surface of the sun, and
also has a negative pole far out beyond the outer planets in the form of a
sparse nebular cloud of dust and gasses.

(3) "An excess current of protons continually generates and supports the
solar capacitor by way of the 'solar wind' (literally a wind of such particles
leaving the sun and blowing outwards into space).

(4) All stars and galactic nuclei, and even unlit small stars such as our
'planets' Jupiter and Saturn are producing cosmic batteries around
themselves.

(5) This is a natural by-product of the nuclear fusion process (the burning
of nuclear fuel such as hydrogen, helium, etc.) in the atmospheres of these
celestial objects." (McCanney, op.cit. p.10)

(6) "The sun is powered at its atmospheric surface by an electrical fire of
hydrogen and helium that we call 'fusion' that is constantly ignited by
energetic lightning bolts in its turbulent atmosphere. It is the local electric
field at the outer surface of the sun (the solar corona of high energy
electrons) that hurls the vast solar flares out into the far reaches of the solar
system. The positively charged protons are accelerated outwards, while the
negatively charged electrons are retarded, thus causing what I have called
the excess current of protons in the solar wind. The sun produces far
more energy in the form of electrical energy than it does in the form of light
energy."
(ibid. p.13)

(7) To give an idea of the stupendous magnitude of solar flares, they "release
the force of 10 million volcanic eruptions in a matter of minutes. Furthermore,
a single coronal mass ejection (CME) can carry "more than 10 billion tons of
hot, electrically charged gas" [i.e. plasma] from the sun's corona into space,
" a mass equivalent to that of 100,000 battleships" packing a punch
"comparable to that of 100,000 hurricanes" and traveling at "between 1-5
million miles an hour."

(8) "The power of CME lies in its ability to drive currents in the Earth's
magnetosphere" and "if the magnetic field carried by the CME has a
southward orientation (opposite Earth's northward-flowing magnetic field
lines) the magnetosphere gets a major jolt transferring millions of amperes
of electric current to the magnetosphere." (Carlowicz and Lopez, op.cit.
p.89) This can knock out power lines and electric generators, and disrupt
all forms of electronic communication
..
(9) That is as far as the establishment position goes - and Carlowicz &
Lopez represent the establishment viewpoint which McCanney denounces,
because it deliberately fails to warn against the far greater dangers which
the solar storms hold - namely their capacity, when triggered by comets or
planets intruding into the solar system, to produce major earth changes
such as polar shifts, flash freezing of continents, which certainly occurred
in the past.

That Carlowicz & Lopez do in fact mislead their readers is evident from
their statement, on p.91, that "storms from the sun cannot harm life on
the surface of the Earth."

(10) "In the summer of 2001, at the recommendation of a panel of space
and solar physicists, NASA announced the cancellation of the International
Solar-Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program. The Agency decided that 'official
coordination of the international missions was a scientific luxury it could no
longer afford.' NASA withdrew its support for the (solar) Wind mission,
and for participation in Japan's Geotail mission. Funding for some of the
key elements of the ISTP success story - the theory and modeling programs,
the data centers, the ground-based observatories - was almost entirely cut
off." Why? Because the coordination of the data from all of those sources
would have let the cat out of the bag and made it a lot more difficult to
sustain the two illusions that (1) electromagnetism plays a negligible part in
solar physics and (2) there is no real, imminent threat of major catastrophic
Earth changes
....'
http://www.detailshere.com/solarcapacitor.htm


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: PETA Fascists Begin Bullying Meat-eaters
Next: rupie, you're a psychotic dope