July 7, 2018
Deeper Look – Episode 57 (2018)
See some comments beneath the video.
The primary currents go right up and down through the center of the pressure cells. Magnetic fields wrap around currents, and produce secondary currents outside the ring of fields. That is almost certainly what we saw here, a smaller secondary current.
Showing 7 comments
Leave a Comment
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Ben this is what I get when I try to view premium content. What’s up with that?
Are you not able to view the videos? Are you using Chrome browser? I assume as it is what I am experiencing . Firefox works properly.
This isn’t the first place you’ve heard this idea? It is for me, and as a physicist by training I am intruiged. Or maybe you reject the idea, in which case please offer a counter-narrative, if you’re going to get all up on your hind legs over it.
That is way cool, nice capture.
Thanks for all of your work so many things to cover !
I appreciate the 0bservation!
Couple thoughts, Mr D., but first I’ll say that whether I agree with you or not on the various topics, l appreciate your open mind and tenacity. I mostly agree, but since I don’t study well that doesn’t mean much. Basically, cheers.
1. Magnetism has long interested me, and now I wonder if there’s science that describes large scale electric dynamic phenomena like you propose, even without the cloud/sky environment. Are there scale effects that amplify associated n-th level currents and mag fields to significant complexity or to other ‘weird’ effect?
2. Wondering if the old atmospheric nuke test vids are known or postulated as showing cloud effects due to electrical imbalances caused by the bombs. If so, might be a window on this.
Evolving Creation: Regarding #2, I believe that the cloud effects can be entirely explained by heat pulse (followed by more gradual cooling) along with the terriffic pressure changes occurring above and beside the fireball.
Ben: I appreciate your work here, and that should be understood without saying, as this is a premium area — as Mark Twain said, “The sincerest form of flattery is expressed by the phrase ‘Pay to the order of…'” (approximate quote). So please don’t take the following the wrong way, I *want* you to succeed. Nevertheless: As a pilot and putative weather expert (goes w/ the territory), I’m a little uneasy with the pat explanation of those clouds. Two reasons:
1. we didn’t see them being formed, just after the fact, and
2. On numerous occasions I have seen aerial refueling tanker tracks that look like that.
Not sayin’ it ain’t as you posit, just sayin’ I’d like be more comfortable if you would resist the temptation to jump to conclusions in the face of incomplete data, no matter how tempting the target. I remember how impressed I was at your “7 earthquakes in a row” video about 20 months ago, outlining the high standards you imposed on your results (hits vs. misses), and the later “Was it a fluke” video. Your standards are an important part of your credibility, Ben – let’s not grow weary of well-doing. It’s an important part of your rep.
Respects,
–The BeechComer