Putting It All Together?
by Arlan Lillie
I was listening to an archived ArtBell ( www.artbell.com ) show the other day, to pickup some details from a discussion that he had with Charles Cagle, physicist (on 11/18/97), regarding the nature of ball lightning. The discussion with Cagle is fascinating, and there is a lot of technical detail. Being a pilot, I had heard stores of ball lightning (St. Elmos Fire). I have never seen it, but I was familiar with the concept.
It occurs when electrical current reaches a threshold (the Alfven-Lawson limit), it is no longer able to flow from pole to pole (polloidal). The electrical current contains a spin element, When it reaches this threshold of current flow, it then snaps 90 degrees to the original direction of flow, and then rotates around the path of the original current flow. It goes from a polloidal mode, to a torroidal (doughnut shaped) mode. When/if the current level drops below the threshold level, it then snaps back to a polloidal current. During this high current polloidal mode, there is, according to Cagle, the generation of subatomic particles.
It has been observed, that ball lightning has been able to pass through solid objects, such as the sheet metal skin of an airplane, totally intact, to come out the other side, just as it went in. It often goes from polloidal to torroidal and then back to polloidal rapidly, creating a buzzing sound.
The diagram to the right, is taken from Art Bell's webpage that was created to illustrate the discussion with Cagle. http://www.artbell.com/cagle.html I strongly suggest that you listed to the discussion on Real Audio and check out the page.
It works out, according to Hoagland that this can be accounted for, if you take their angular momentum into account. You know, the mass - times - the acceleration of a spinning body. When something spins, all parts of it are constantly changing direction. If you factor this in and plot it on a chart, the light reflected begins to be accounted for.
Originally, I was trying to understand the real difference between a comet and an asteroid. What is it that makes one highly visible and one almost impossible to see. The core of both are basically just a rock, the makeup may vary some, iron or other minerals, but for all intents and purposes the same. Remember, 'modern' science tell us that the difference is the sublimation of ice, contained in the comet -vs- the dry dark asteroid.
The question then becomes, if planets appear brighter than can be accounted for, until you take their mass into consideration, and asteroids can not be seen but comets can, which are fundamentally the same as asteroids, except perhaps their velocity relative to the sun (small mass - high relative velocity), is there a connection here? Maybe.
The next question that you might ask would be .. if you were to move a rock - or a rocket for that matter - fast enough, would it become luminous? It turns out that when the shuttle lands, the *skin* must be discharged before anyone can approach it. It gathers over a million volts of electrical charge as it passes thru the atmosphere (another form of plasma).
Ok, so is a comet just a fast asteroid? This is where the discussion on ball lightning seems to come in. The plasma flows out in a dialelectric skirt from the sun along the ecliptic plain to about a 45 degree latitude or more. There are models on the net that show this.
Is it possible that what separates an asteroid from a comet, is the velocity through the plasma? As a 'rock' careens through the very fabric of space ( and plasma from the sun), this fabric and plasma flows through the molecular lattice of the very rock, creating magnetic fields and the magnetic fields creating electrical fields. That these fields begin to gather ahead of the object, and dissipate behind the object, thus making its path luminous. We have seen Venus' tail. The earth likewise has a tail, it's just not seen by the mass of people here so they don't really get it. NASA doesn't really want to get it, but they are being forced into getting it due to the safety factors for the astronauts.
Is it possible that when it goes fast enough and creates a strong enough magnetic field, that the current goes from a polloidal current to a torroidal current and that it begins to become bright enough to see, that the magnetic forces that are created accelerate the amount of plasma flowing through the torroid and combined with the speed it seems to get brighter and brighter? (see PLANETOPHYSICAL FUNCTION OF VACUUM DOMAINS by A.N. Dmitriev)
Is it possible that this may explain the changes that take place as the comet passes through the ecliptic and over the sun. Its tendency to break apart, and the increase in brightness. This may also explain the extremely powerful magnetic forces that have been measured near comets, and how they could have 'companions' or satellites. Not to mention the difficulty in predicting their actual paths.
I have often questioned the images of comets that have been published, because they just do not look like gas vapor streaming from a rock, they look more like the electric arc from an arc welder. The above image seems to show this clearly.
Is it possible that these are the forces that account for the increase in brightness of the comet? And that this is the mechanism that comets use to 'gobble up' plasma and space debris as they fly through our system.
Cagle feels that this polloidal / torroidal mechanism is the archetypical structure in the universe. That this is the way that planets and moons are formed. There have been some interesting images from SOHO that would seem to bear this out. They were taken, by the way, after Cagles discussion on 11/18/97. It appears that exactly what Cagle describes in his discussion occurred exactly as he predicted it would happen.
Please see http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/orca.html .
This may not just be another discussion of things that are talked about on late night radio that have little bearing in our lives. If Cagle is right, if it this is the archetypical - the basic - standard - foundational nature of our solar system, then the personal implications for us may be far more profound. If we really understood the electrical nature of the fabric of our universe, we might be able to tap into that wheelwork of creation that Tesla talked about.