Forum Activity
10. SEX
Last Post - 30 April 2009
New Threads Icon - 9 New Messages Icon - 16
Last Post - 14 April 2009
New Threads Icon - 8 New Messages Icon - 26
Last Post - 09 April 2009
New Threads Icon - 1 New Messages Icon - 2
Last Post - 16 March 2009
New Threads Icon - 8 New Messages Icon - 19
Last Post - 17 February 2009
New Threads Icon - 5 New Messages Icon - 5

Total New Threads Icon - Threads Total New Messages Icon - Posts

Relevant Links
If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this. Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3M "Post-It" Notepads


NASA scientists found evidence for life on Mars. Then they changed their minds

NASA scientists found evidence for life on Mars. Then they changed their minds

JULY 20, 1976. Gilbert Levin is on the edge of his seat. Millions of kilometres away on Mars, the Viking landers have scooped up some soil and mixed it with carbon-14-labelled nutrients. The mission's scientists have all agreed that if Levin's instruments on board the landers detect emissions of carbon-14-containing methane from the soil, then there must be life on Mars. Viking reports a positive result. Something is ingesting the nutrients, metabolising them, and then belching out gas laced with carbon-14. According to all the criteria, this should have triggered a party: it was a sign of life on Mars. But, despite the evidence, NASA said it wasn’t life.

Thirty years later, I visited Levin at his company’s headquarters in Maryland. He is more convinced than ever that his experiment worked and detected life on Mars. And he is no longer alone. Joe Miller, a cell biologist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, has re-analysed the data and he thinks that the emissions definitely point to life. NASA researchers are calling for a new version of Levin’s experiment to be flown to Mars. Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, calls the search for extraterrestrial life the most important scientific endeavour of our time. But have we already found it?

First Previous 1 Next Last 
User profile image

Location:Spokane, WA USA

#1 - Posted: 20/08/2008 04:59

The electrons on the metal globe of a Van De Graaf Generator gather on the outside surface of the globe.  It is universally held that this occurs because the electrons are all trying to get as far away from each other as possible.  This is absurd!  Why would the electrons on one side of the metal ball be so "eager" to get as far away as possible from the electrons that are located on the other side of the globe, many inches away from it, yet, they seem to have no problem crowding together on the surface of the metal ball???!!!
I think I can explain this!  When electrons travel in opposite directions in two parallel wires, they do not repel each other.  Instead, they are drawn together.  Likewise, if electrons are spinning in the same way (all clockwise, or all counter-clockwise)--they can draw close to one another.  The faster they spin, the closer they can get.
Of course, this would also cause a magnetic effect perpendicular to the metal ball.
This also might explain why metal balls can be "positively" charge, and seemingly, the "positive" charges still gather at the surface of the metal ball.  Since protons are almost certainly not mobile, it makes more sense to suppose that the "positive" charges on the surface of a metal globe are oppositely-spinning electrons!
What do you think?  Would you please be so kind as to forward this to anyone whom you think might be interested!

First Previous 1 Next Last 
In order to post messages in the forums you must first login or register.