Crater Cutter kit

My challenge is to produce a reliable 10kV spark generator which will cut me craters with a plasma arc. You can see the general idea on my blog: http://www.wikihow.com/Etch-Your-Own-Crater? The 10kV spark generator is my missing ingredient, so Instructables please step forward with a design!
Once running we can re-create any planetary feature by means of Cathodic or Anodic erosion. I believe this is a genuine alternative to the current 'impact crater' scenario, so favoured by astronomers.

Picture of Crater Cutter kit
LIGHTING.JPG
LUNAR5.JPG
NewSci_2.jpg
sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 59Next »
Kiteman1 year ago

So, you're working on a device to demonstrate that the craters on moons, planets etc were caused by electrical effects?

Cigarshaped (author)  Kiteman1 year ago

Yup! This has been an on-going discussion for nearly 30 years. My mentor Wallace Thornhill did the original experiments in Aus, and combined it with other research into prehistoric cosmic events. There is plenty more evidence that craters were caused by planetary interaction than this on-going 'impact' idea. It is not understood well in astronomical circles that all objects in space possess electrical status. The universe is mostly plasma, which allows vast electric charges to exist within the double-layer sheaths which surround areas of different potential. Planets were viewed by our ancestors in far more detail than we see them now. Blackfoot Indians could clearly see the scar (Valle Marinaris) on Mars. So electrical interaction was quite commonplace for a period - ginormous voltages and currents are involved in these 'lightning' exchanges. Watch the video and see plasma produces rotating pairs of arcs naturally, acting like electric cutters. Metal workers already use plasma for these purposes.

OK, so even though we have seen these features being formed by falling celestial bodies, and we have found the debris of celestial bodies in these features, and the geology of these features shows a mechanical folding over, with a complete absence of fulguritic formations, and the small fact that there is no possible mechanism to generate and conduct currents between planets, and the absolute physical impossibility of seeing any feature on any celestial body [other than the Moon] with the unaided eye, you think that the various non-volcanic craters we see on celestial bodies were formed by big sparks?

Cigarshaped (author)  Kiteman1 year ago

Continuing the conversation:

"Blackfoot Indians could clearly see the scar (Valle Marinaris) on Mars.."

"..the absolute physical impossibility of seeing any feature on any celestial body [other than the Moon] with the unaided eye,.."

Until you re-appraise the gravity dogma then the possibility is hidden from view. We have been masked from cosmic events for several centuries so the assumption has grown that the solar system is a stable, virtually unchangeable structure. Whereas the evidence passed down from ancient days is that things were far from stable.

That is why the Electric Universe theory involves such a holistic approach, and takes into account global archetypes, common 'myths' and written records. Thornhill has built up an understanding of gravity as a by-product of the electrical interaction between our current-sourcing star and its associated companion bodies. Gravity has to be an instantaneous action, not limited by light speed which will vary with the star energy level. The Sun is a variable star and responds to its environment in the galaxy. The 11/ 22yr cycle shows wide ranging values of x-ray output, which is inconsistent with a 'fusion furnace' model.

The suggestion is that ancient man witnessed periods when our star exhibited lower energy levels, resulting in lower values for G (the most variable constant ever). This ties in with the enormous creatures that roamed the Earth in the past, who could not survive our current G value (whatever the oxygen levels). As a result planets were in closer orbits and thus interacted to a greater extent than we have ever seen.

Are you familiar with the term not even wrong?

That.

Cigarshaped (author)  Kiteman1 year ago

Enjoy your blissful ignorance!

Um... I'm not the one who thinks bright light travels faster than dim light, or that the brightness of a star changes the gravity on a planet...

And since when have modern physicists claimed that the solar system was stable?? That idea went out with... Kelvin?

Cigarshaped (author)  Kiteman1 year ago

If the brightness of a star indicates its supply of current then its is fairly obvious that the mass of all associated planets will be affected.

"The fact that powerful solar flares have been found seemingly to affect
the mass of the Earth, albeit temporarily, suggests that as an
electrical property of matter, the mass of an object may not be
altogether constant but may be subject to variations that old-paradigm
physics would not allow. This would be consistent with the anomalies
that have been widely reported in the experimental values of Newton’s
gravitational constant “G”. This implies also that our certainties
regarding planetary and other masses should be re-evaluated."

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/article-18-implications-of-the-electrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-3/

If the brightness of a star indicates its supply of current then its is fairly obvious that the mass of all associated planets will be affected.

1. The brightness of a star has nothing to do with a "supply of current".

2. There is nowhere to supply that current.

3. There is nothing "obvious" about the link between the brightness of a star and the mass of a planet, not even within the context of the "electric universe".

4. You've changed your story - first it was gravity, now it's mass.

That's four serious problems in the first sentence. The we turn to the "reference"...

The fact that powerful solar flares have been found seemingly to affect the mass of the Earth, albeit temporarily,

That's not a fact. No such effect has been found.

suggests that as an electrical property of matter, the mass of an object may not be altogether constant but may be subject to variations that old-paradigm physics would not allow.

It suggests no such thing. Solar flares do contain charged particles, but the overall charge is neutral, and planets have neutral charge, so there cannot be any electrical effects, and charges interacting do not affect each other's mass anyway...

This would be consistent with the anomalies that have been widely reported in the experimental values of Newton’s gravitational constant “G”.

What anomalies? The reason constants are called constants is because they are constant. Or do you perhaps mean the variations in the local acceleration due to gravity, small-g? Variations which are precisely and exactly explained by local variations in the geography (density of crust, presence of mountains etc)?

This implies also that our certainties regarding planetary and other masses should be re-evaluated."

No, it doesn't.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/article-18-implications-of-the-electrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-3/

Using blog-posts as if they were peer-reviewed journal entries is not a valid approach to science, and using the author's own website to prove the author's claims are "true" is borderline academic fraud.

Cigarshaped (author)  Kiteman1 year ago

If the brightness of a star indicates its supply of current then its is
fairly obvious that the mass of all associated planets will be affected.

  • 1.The brightness of a star has nothing to do with a
    "supply of current".
  • Both brightness and colour temperature would depend on current in a solar plasma discharge. The HH diagram is a perfect example, which should be re-labelled with current along the x-axis.

2. There is nowhere to supply that current.

>A positively charged sun attracts high speed electrons from the heliosphere. These have been detected by the Voyager craft and travel via the corona to the solar ‘transformer’ to be re-emitted as positive ions which form the current return path via the solar wind to the heliospheric cathode. That is why we witness multimillion degree outer atmosphere and cool surface photosphere. Sunspot umbra are the coolest place on the sun, where they should be the hottest (in a gravity/fusion star)!

  • 3.There is nothing "obvious" about the link
    between the brightness of a star and the mass of a planet, not even within the
    context of the "electric universe".
  • >Here is the theory of gravity/ mass in a nutshell.
  • 1) Planet behaves like a capacitor dielectric (where distortion of electron orbits produces the dipole effect, to enhance dielectric charge storage).
  • 2) Sub-atomic dipoles are induced in the planet by the solar ‘emf’ (gravity) which sets up an internal electric field. Star’s energy input decides the emf.
  • 3) In this ‘electret’ free electrons tend to drift towards surface
  • 4) The internal electrical stress/ polarization modifies the apparent mass of the planet
  • 5) Lightning can act as electron remover, reducing the ‘mass’ of the planet
  • 6)Newton’s law F = GMm/r^2 is commonly used, assuming G is same for all bodies in universe
  • 7) But what if mass is variable?
  • 8) Total orbital energy (E) of a planet (in solar orbit) = sum of KineticE and PotentialE
  • 9) KE = 1/2mv^2 & PE = -GMm/r
  • 10) For simple circle v^2 = GM/r, so that E = 1/2m(GM/r) – m(GM/r),r = m(-GM/2E) ie, r is proportional to m for constant orbital energy (OE)
  • 11) Orbit radius depends on mass, so if mass doubles the radius doubles, to conserve OE.
  • 12) In a lower energy system planets are much closer to their star,
  • 13) Charge exchange between planets maintains their relative orbits, to avoid collisions, doesn’t stop them getting really close though!
  • 14) Being an electrical self-stabilising system, it operates very quickly, appearing to satisfy Newton’s laws.
  • 15) Note that as the mass of a planet changes, so does its spin rate, to conserve angular momentum.

4. You've changed your story - first it was gravity, now it's mass.

>Completely interrelated, in an electric universe.

That's four serious problems in the first sentence. The we turn to the "reference"...

The fact that powerful solar flares have been found seemingly to affect
the mass of the Earth, albeit temporarily,

That's not a fact. No such effect has been found.

>Beg to differ. In 1960 Danjon reported a sudden deceleration of Earth’s rotation following a solar flare of record intensity. Length of day increased by 0.85 millisecs and then began to decrease at a rate of 3.7microsecs per day.

suggests that as an electrical property of matter, the mass of an object
may not be altogether constant but may be subject to variations that
old-paradigm physics would not allow.

It suggests no such thing. Solar flares do contain charged
particles, but the overall charge is neutral, and planets have neutral charge
,
>Depends how you define neutral. Within our double layer bubble we assume we are neutral. In a stable solar system each rocky object’s orbit is a function of its charge status. Fast moving objects develop noticeable double layer sheaths as they pass from more negative outer regions to the sun’s positive environment. Comets are a good example,
exhibiting bright DL glow, discharge jets and even disintegrating when the reach the OUTER negative zones.

so there cannot be any electrical effects, and charges interacting do not affect each other's mass anyway...

This would be consistent with the anomalies that have been widely
reported in the experimental values of Newton’s gravitational constant “G”.

Big G has never been more accurate than 3 decimal places. Everytime it
has a slightly different value. http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-massvariation.asp

This implies also that our certainties regarding planetary and other
masses should be re-evaluated."

No, it doesn't.

Admittedly in the current academic system there is little chance of anyone re-assessing their precious assumptions.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/articl...

Using blog-posts as if they were peer-reviewed journal entries is not a
valid approach to science, and using the author's own website to prove the author's claims are "true" is borderline academic fraud.

I think you will find that Thunderbolts consists of a growing number of disenchanted scientists and engineers. And what makes the peer-review system so good anyway? It is simply a mechanism for ensuring the
consensus view wins every time. Like those precious Royal Societies. All set up by the FreeMasons – I wonder why?

1-10 of 59Next »