Geoengineering

On Chernobyl and Moscow, concrete degredation due to neutron bombardment is the standard reason given. Age of both reactors is also close enough to assume that this is a likely reason. Further, similar material degradation has been observed in Soviet era naval reactors. Both situations revolve around the fact that costs were cut in Soviet designs primarily in the shielding areas. United States reactors use a combination of metal alloy infused concrete and diesel fuel (an excellent neutron absorber). Concrete breakdown however is a monitored occurence in US reactors so we may deduce that it is occuring... uh oh?



Mark Vitrone

I seem to be 15 years behind on Chernobyl reports and too quick to accept the initial coverup. I should have known they'd try to make a scapegoat of one man to save the skins of hundreds of corrupt officials. Looks like the whole Soviet establishment suffered from lunacy---not that any other government is much better.

Anyway, blaming it on the Moon makes sense only to astrologers, not to any creditable scientist.

Chernobyl Disaster and St. Petersburg Smelter Accident: What You Don't Know About Ether Drift CAN Hurt You

Abstract. Earth and Moon orbital positions near ellipse axes, standstills or nodes, combined with collinearity of Earth, Moon and Sun, create symmetries which facilitate field-to-ether interaction. The interaction creates new matter according to a trivial differential equation. At the time of the accident, Chernobyl's speed in the sun's frame caused resonance between the external electric field of the uranium nucleus, and the ether drift, providing the energy for lepton pair production to, perhaps, 0.01% accuracy.

Introduction. "Ether drift" is a term subsuming a multifaceted phenomenon. The Global Positioning System, and Michelson-type experiments utilizing high vacuum and metal shielding, provide negative ether drift results to high accuracy. On the other hand, the unshielded experiments of Michelson/Morley, Morley/Miller, Miller ("MMM") and Galaev provide mutually consistent positive ether drift results. The MMM results agree with the component of the solar apex motion parallel to Earth's axis; they also reflect the other component of solar apex motion, and Earth's orbital motion, though with phase lags and reduced amplitudes. The question, "Is there an ether drift?" is too simplistic to be correctly answered with either a "yes" or a "no".

Astronomical symmetry and the ether drift. The unexpected energy surge initiating the Chernobyl accident occurred at 1:50 AM Daylight time, April 26, 1986. The smelter splash at the St. Petersburg reactor facility occurred on the morning of Dec. 15, 2005; 10 or 11AM Standard time would be a good guess. Three symmetry conditions (Earth and Moon near orbital ellipse axes, and lunar node aligned with those axes) were all roughly satisfied at both times. For statistical significance, this gives p<0.1 for each separately and p<0.01 for both together. The additional symmetry condition, full (or new) moon, gives p=0.07 separately, p=0.005 together, and p<0.00005 overall, for the unusual astronomical symmetry present at these times.
Electromagnetic waves are reversible. A moving, Lorentz-contracted electric field looks the same when its motion is reversed. When the geometry of the gravitational field is degenerate (collinearity of gravitating bodies) and the geometry of the trajectory is locally degenerate (stationary curvature near ellipse axes), the external electric field of a nucleus can reverse its direction of motion relative to the ether.

The differential equation for particle production by the ether. As the direction of motion of the external nuclear electric field, relative to the ether, changes as a unit from forwards (t=0) to backwards (t=1) to forwards again (t=2), momentum is conserved by the generation of new field in the vicinity, having appropiate momentum. This new field in turn generates new field by the same mechanism. If y is the new field momentum present, the differential equation is:

y' = 1 + y; y(0)=0; by separation of variables (or by the substitution u=1+y), y(2)=e^2-1.

So the new field momentum after one cycle is e^2-1 times twice the original external nuclear field momentum.

Fit to the data. Using a net orbital speed (including Earth's rotation and lunar orbit) for Chernobyl of 29.862 km/s, a root mean square charge radius for uranium-238 of 5.8587 fm, and a step-function approximation for the nuclear charge distribution, one finds that the new momentum generated by one of the above cycles, exceeds by only 0.40%, the internal momentum, 2mc, of an electron (and/or positron) pair.
The Fermi distribution, using the typical value a=0.55, exceeds 2mc by 2.92%. However, 4/137.036=2.92%. That is, consideration of the field of this presumed new double particle of mass 2m and charge 2q, which momentarily exists before splitting in two, maximally compressed according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, produces agreement to the nearest 0.01%.
I approximately calculated the effect of nuclear skin thickness: the error from neglecting it altogether, is 1%, in rough agreement with the above, and is quadratic. So, if one optimistically assumes that the error of the Fermi function is 1/10 that of the step-function, an accuracy of (2.9-0.4)/10^2=0.025% occurs.

The splash accident. Although the molten metal involved in the fatal splash accident in December was essentially nonradioactive, some uranium contamination is likely. For example, commercial manufacturers of unleaded bronze cite the actual lead content as 0.3%, presumably due to use of the same equipment to produce leaded bronze. A temperature of 1000 degrees centigrade would afford a Maxwellian speed distribution peak, for uranium atoms, of 0.8% of Earth's orbital speed. This would enable resonance with the ether, as described above, to occur for some atoms, despite Earth's nonoptimal net orbital speed.

Venus and Mars. The aberrant temperature of Venus is believed to be partly due to the greenhouse effect, but part could be from internal heat generation. Resonance and lepton production could occur for commoner nuclei with charge about equal to that of lead. The circular orbit and lack of moon would afford greater symmetry, facilitating the ether interaction. Mars is too slow to achieve the ether-nucleus interaction at all, which could explain its geologic and magnetic dormancy despite Earthlike structure and rotation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Keller</i>
<br />The question, "Is there an ether drift?" is too simplistic to be correctly answered with either a "yes" or a "no".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That sounds like wishful thinking to me. GPS is 1000 times more accurate than MMM, and measures the speed of the signals in near-Earth space in 24 different directions at once. MMM measured the speed in isolated directions through Earth's messy atmosphere. There is no credible escape from the GPS conclusion that there is no aether drift in the near-Earth environment.

Another way to look at it is this: If a light signal from a GPS satellite had its speed changed by an aether drift by just 12 km/s, that would introduce an error of 1 kilometer in the observer's derived position. The system could not possibly work as it does with a precision of 1 meter for the best receivers. -|Tom|-

GPS and other highly null ether drift experiments employ vacuum. If your 12 km/s apparent drift applies only to the atmospheric part of the path (10km/40,000km), then the precision is 1km/4000=0.25m, vs. 1m precision for your best receivers.

Furthermore, even if ether drift occurs in space as in the atmosphere, clock desynchronization masks the drift, to first order. Let c=1 and suppose the ether drift speed is v&lt;&lt;1. In the lab frame, move a clock upstream distance d. Let the clock's velocity in the lab frame be w parallel to the drift, and y perpendicular to it. During the journey, the lab rest clock is slow by a fraction 0.5*v^2, and the moving clock is slow by 0.5*((v+w)^2+y^2)=0.5*(v^2+2vw+u^2). After the journey time d/w, the moved clock is 0.5*2vw*d/w=vd behind, because we routinely correct for u^2=w^2+y^2. The time for light to travel one way from the upstream, moved clock, to the downstream, lab clock will be measured as d/(1+v)+vd=d to first order. So, in a uniform ether drift, clock desynchronization will always mask the ether drift effect on light times, to first order. That's why GPS is so accurate.
If GPS were done with 2-way times, maybe, unless atmosphere is needed for the ether drift effect, 1 part per billion (4cm) position discrepancies would be found as in Miller's experiments. This was Maxwell's approach to the clock synchronization problem.
Galaev's approach to the problem, is to look for nonuniform ether drift. He found different apparent one-way drift speeds at heights, and inside metal tubes.