On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 tms@rumormillnews.com wrote:
........

> 
> Through happenstance I googled The Terror of Venus in search of the
> 'perfect' text to convey to readers much more of what happened described
> in the much greater speculative detail plasma-think supports.  Fortunately
> the site has matured immensely and that discovery presented a complete
> resource that deserves notice, study, and consideration.

Yeah, I had not even completed the first draft till 2005.
 
> Now it appears that I stumbled upon one of the sections of your site that
> offers fewest or zero points of controversy among the eldest students of
> catastrophism.

The point of contention is the distance between Earth and Saturn: I have
Venus "on an orbit some estimated 9 to 10 million miles away from Earth."

That is unbelievable for Velikovskians who follow his description which
makes Venus look visually close to earth.

It is an unbelievable proposition even for the neo-Velikovskian plasma
people who would allow thunderbolts, but not at a distance of 10,000,000
miles.

It is a problem for others who find it unbelievable that any q(1)q(2)/r^2
force could operate from that distance (and instantaneously).

	-=- On another matter -=- 

Violations of physics need to be avoided in your narrative. It will
instantly turn off your most intellegent readers. The following is meant
to correct a few notions all expressed on one page.

        "It becomes the mother of all comets and subject to a steady
        electrical acceleration toward the Sun.

You must mean gravitational. Only unlike electrical charges attract. That
is unlikely for stars and and planets, in that all of them will see each
other as
negative. And as you point out below, they would have to "see" each other
electrically. Only gravity doesn't care about plasmaspheres, and could do
the job. Electricity would not. The example of the two Pioneer craft..

So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes
   a charged object moving in the Sun's weak electric field. Being
   negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal "tug" toward
   the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the
   voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout
   interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding
   force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun.
   This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because
   all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it
   will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation
   because...

On the one hand, it can be presumed that the Sun has a large positive
charge below its outer layer of electrons, and this "attracts" the
supposedly negative comet object. 
 
It should be stressed that as soon as an extraneous object enters the
Sun's plasmaphere, it develops its own plasmasphere. The result is that
the planet becomes electrically invisible to other objects, including the
Sun. 

At least, that is the static situation. It also violates what Scott says,
that electrical field extend through objects and barriers -- despite the
fact that in the realm of discrete devices he, or any EE, uses shielding
with a metal barrier because electrical fields do not penetrate.

Shielding of electronics and computers comes to mind, as well as microwave
ovens. The exterior layer (double layer) of plasmaspheres are conductors,
and thus hide the object on the inside from fields on the outside. 

But I just checked the case for classsical small quolomb charges, and in
that case the E field does penetrate a metal sphere (and as demonstrated
also by Van Der Graaff generators, where an opposite charge is induced at 
the exterior).

So how does the Sun know enough to send a mass discharge in the direction
of approaching meteors? you ask. Well, first it is a dynamic situation,
not electrostatic. But also, the comet plasmasphere represents a conductor
placed in the path of the outstreaming plasma of the Sun. 

V=IR.  So the resistance drops, and thus the plasma current increases,
which will produce a change in the driving voltage -- also an increase,
and more 'stuff' departs from the Sun, to smack into the plasmasphere of
the approaching comet or planet (who might notice very little).

        "That acceleration will tend to cause the satellites of the brown
        dwarf to be dislodged from their orbits and, in a dynamic
        equilibrium, strung out behind in their primarys cometary wake.

Why? Smaller objects accelerate slower? That is Aristotelian physics. :)
Galileo proved different. I wonder, did you derive this from a book by
Cardona? That is sort of like his thinking. Along with "polar expulsions"
or "polar jets" for which there is no evidence, except by analogy to
galaxies. 

[I realized that you are quoting an essay by Thornhill verbatum]

Objects (satellites) traveling with a planet or star will be at the same
coulomb charge level, and will thus not the displaces or "dragged" away.
There is nothing to do the dragging. 

	"Since a comet's ion tail is a discharge current, the satellites
	will experience "mega auroras" and devastating interplanetary
	discharges to varying degrees.

It's not though. The tail is empty, it only electrically modulates between
the electric field of the planet and the electric field beyond the edge of 

        "Capture of a brown dwarf star begins when the plasma sheaths
        touch and they see each other electrically for the first time.

Again, capture depends primarily on gravity, not electricity. Gravity
operates transparently through a plasma sheath as if it didn't exist.

	"As a cathode in the Suns discharge, the brown dwarf will jet
	matter into space like a comet and lose electrons. This has the
	effect of reducing the gravity and apparent mass of the late star,
	which, in turn, modifies its orbit.

[is tjis right?]

(1) In approaching the Sun the planet will attempt to _gain_ electrons.
The in-flow of electrons is defined as a current flow out. The possibility
of an outflow of protons, or ionized atoms, will constitute the only flow
"out", but this is defined as an incoming current.

(2) The "out" plasma flow is in ions and electrons in a proportion of
perhaps a few to a few hundred per cubic yard. This is a sparsity -- a
vacuum -- which is hard to achieve in labs.

(3) The material "jetted away" moves to the outer edges of the
plasmasphere, so that, for example, the "tube" extending away in the
electrical shadow of the Sun is hollow -- there may be atoms, and ions,
but they are on their way to supplement the double layer.

(4) The ions and electrons are not moving away from the comet or planet.
They are stationary and moving with the comet, although the shape will at
times be readjusted to fit local electrical conditions. The Earth's
ionosphere will move electrons at a rate of 1000 miles per second. So a
40,000 mile wide plasmasphere could be realigned in 3.2 * 40 seconds. 

        "Brown dwarfs are noted for their occasional inexplicable polar
        jets and flaring.

That's nonsense. It is from Cardona, and represents an analogical
speculation in support of his fake physics which would place Earth below
the pole of Saturn. You don't need this. 

later /jno