Global Warming & Terraforming Planets as Relates to Electric Bacteria

Understand: Electric bacteria 1.) directly consume and excrete electrons at different energy potentials without requiring metabolization. Like in photosynthesis, an electron is used to create sugar. However, unlike plants they don't need anything else Hence when thunderstorms race across the Amazon rainforest redistributing electrons and protons, ocean currents induce magnetic fields and electric currents in the sediments below, or solar storms produce Geomagnetically Induced Currents (GICs): do these events increase the food supply? Surprisingly the answer is not just YES but how much? And that question is far from a done deal. Electric bacteria can be found by a local stream next to you, but also kilometers deep underground. Indeed, what is their biomass? Another related question is can plants utilize this electric energy source as well? This seems ridiculous yet ongoing research indicates that electricity stimulates the growth of plants sometimes by as much as 50%.2.) Moreover we know that viruses are inherently piezoelectric and electrically conductive 3.), so what if anything do they contribute to the availability of biomass? Electric bacteria have entered fuel industry labs even 4.) Obviously, electrically generated "food" is a paradigm shift and may require rethinking. N'est pas? The final question how much of this now electrical stored energy affects temperature, especially below the surface, small but almost infinitely distributed.

With you in the wonder of science

Part of the Paradigm Shift Initiative

Prof Chris YUKNA

Citations

Christopher Gerard Yukna, It's clear to all with moderate intelligence that we need major paradigm shifts, and not just in the area you raise. The problem is achieving it when we teach all young physicists 'sets of facts' which are inconsistent and long out of date, and not 'how to think'! I've tried in papers published in top PR journals, but embedded 'beliefs' rule academia. Only if 'dissidents' collaborate can they gain traction, but we all think differently and most want's to be the 'new Einstein'! The coherent answers are there once we DO, but it seems more intellectual evolution is required. I can only keep trying. Best of luck to you as well. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Jackson-17/publications

Pathological Science Squared

Peter Jackson yes I quite agree, especially the need to not just in the areas I raised, ergo could you list just one or two as well? As you intimated we need colleagues to mass together. Not all of our novel points of view or ideas will be right but probably better than this majority that riddled with errors, lies, and dogma.

An Alternative take on Coral Bleaching

from https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/coral-bleaching-on-australias-great-barrier-reef-reaches-catastrophic-levels-study-finds/1737473

Below is an excerpt rife with misinformation or skewed knowledge:

"In 2024, the reef experienced its worst summer on record. Soaring ocean temperatures smashed records, causing the reef’s seventh mass bleaching event. Corals are bleached white when marine heat waves put corals under stress, causing them to expel algae from their tissue, draining their color.

The culprit is the burning of planet-heating fossil fuels, which is driving up global temperatures. Coral damage was also accelerated last year by the El Niño weather pattern, which heats ocean temperatures in this part of the world."

Nuff said

CGY

Christopher Gerard Yukna, "Not all of our novel points of view or ideas will be right but probably better than this majority that riddled with errors, lies, and dogma.".. For sure, but when they slot coherently together it suggests veracity. "could you list just one or two as well?", Certainly. The 'Discrete Field Model' (DFM) is a bit like a jigsaw puzzle picture in that way, including;

Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity, Cosmology etc. Here's i.e. the 2021 QM Paper. Hard to follow but self apparently reproducing the key data causally;

Springer-Nature Foundations of Physics, (2021) 51:77

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352056822_The_Measurement_Problem_an_Ontological_Solution

Sorry Peter Jackson I think I will need a dictionary and a bit of serious lifetime learning to get a handle on your paper. BTW What do you make of gluons? Chris

Christopher Gerard Yukna, All resolves VERY simply once understood. Take Special Relativity; Consistent with Einstein's (ignored so far) '52 paper, light changes speed on crossing between moving media, so has PROPAGATION speed c (/ c/n) in whatever flow it's in. He called that "logically unavoidable". GLUON is just a 'placeholder' name invented for the force keeping 'QUARKS' in a nucleus. Apparent Gluon/Quark behaviour means they're 'free fermions', as the electrons/ positrons beyond it. I find the most consistent model is that they're 'vortex pairs' propagating at motion shear planes as in all gases, so forming the e+/- two-fluid plasma 'shocks' found here. Most cancel ('annihilate') but some 'bind' into tori, to evolve to bound molecular gas etc. What was YOUR take on gluons?

Peter Jackson Gluons I like what you said about them being placeholders. I do not think they exist. But something keeps the nucleus together. I talked to Horst Stormer about this but it disturbed him a bit so I dropped the conversation. ( I mean he won the Noble so I was just a curious fan) I would like to hypothesize that the strong force is not a force but a function of the quantum realm. So we know that an electron can be in two places at once. Wyrd way of thinking if you ask me. Therefore, I would like to refer to a very old idea of Earnest Rutherford when he identified the proton he asked why couldn't a neutron be just an electron and a proton bound together with the added mass is just the binding energy. Hence a muon is just a electron with a massive energy packet absorbed. When a muon "orbits" a hydrogen nucleus the radius is tighter and so on and the leptons get heavier. On to the dance. So in deuterium, the simplest example, both the neutron and the proton "believe" they have the same electron shared or entangled in sort of an odd dance, a back-and-forth vibration. maybe even a wormhole. As the atom's atomic number and or diameter gets larger you will need more neutron dance partners to balance the vibes. You don't want in the middle of a nucleus's quantum realm a proton without a neutron to dance with. Anything larger than the diameter of uranium the very size of the nucleus makes it exceed this quantum realm dance limit. That is why I believe that they are not any super heavy stable elements hiding later down the periodic table. Indeed the decreasing half-lives of transuranium elements kind of lends credence to this idea. Chris

Christopher Gerard Yukna, I agree most particle physics is speculative and nonsense. Particle physics is the only area I DON'T like to speculate on, as I think the 'particle' concept is badly flawed anyway! Resolving the mysteries of SR, QM, GR & Cosmology has been hard enough. A few hints on 'states' emerged from those, but little like doctrine, and unprovable anyway so not productive!