MOST THOROUGH MODEL - 1
Continents, Star, Accretion, Filament, Science, Expansion, Atmosphere, Hole, Galaxies, Relativity, Distance, Comets, Mars, Asteroid, Moon, Fusion, CFDL
CONTENTS
{Underlined terms are clickable.}
ORIGIN OF CONTINENTS — STAR FORMATION — DUST GRAINS ACCRETION — FILAMENT IMPLOSION DURATION — BETTER SCIENTIFIC METHOD — EARTH EXPANSION VS. SHOCK DYNAMICS — PAST THICKER ATMOSPHERE — BLACK HOLES & OTHER EXOTICS — GALAXIES ARE LIKE EXOTICS — RELATIVITY & QUANTUM MECHANICS — BLACK HOLES — GALAXY FORMATION — STELLAR DISTANCE ERRORS — COMETS & CHARGE — COMET FORMATION — GALAXY EVENTS — MARS CANYON — PROTOSATURN SYSTEM, ASTEROID BELT & MOON — COMET & CHARGE — NO EARTH EXPANSION — MARS DISCHARGE — EARTH EXPANSION PRO & CON — IMPACT CRATERS & FUSION — EARTH EXPANSION — CFDL SOLAR MODEL — INTERSTELLAR FILAMENTS
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 10, 2014 11:41 am
ORIGIN OF CONTINENTS
Lloyd wrote: Origin of the Continents
I've read elsewhere that the sediments on the seafloors and continental shelves can only be a few thousand years old, if the erosion rate on the continents has been about the same as now. That would conform with Cardona's findings about the Saturn flareup and Mike Fisher's findings about a major impact having caused the supercontinent to break up, leaving the continents as they are now after sliding apart on the Moho layer.
I don't know much about seafloor sediments, nor dating methods. None of my work relies on a specific timescale -- it could have all happened fast, or slow. I agree with Fischer's Shock Dynamics model, except that I don't think that the hole thing was over in just 26 hours -- I think that the impact set the continents in motion, and then other factors (such as tectonic ratcheting) helped keep them in motion. Whether this played out over 250 million years, or 250 thousand, or whatever, the same processes would be at work. But I think that tidal forcing keeps the whole thing in motion, constantly kneading the crust, and enabling stresses to be relieved by plate motion. Thinking along these lines, I had an idea concerning why 68% of the land mass on Earth is in the northern hemisphere. Tidal forcing from the Moon is the same all year long, but the distance of the Earth to the Sun varies, reaching a minimum during the winter (in the northern hemisphere). This makes summers hotter in the southern hemisphere, and winters colder. It also means that the solar component of tidal forcing is stronger. So that hemisphere is getting more of the "kneading" than up north. This might cause the continents to drift northward. Analogously, if you throw an inner tube into a pool, and then you do something to create a continuous supply of waves in the pool, eventually, the inner tube will drift as far as it can from the source of the waves. So I'm thinking that the continents drifted into the northern hemisphere due to the slightly more dramatic tidal waves in the southern hemisphere. I have only just begun researching this.
Sparky wrote: This would suggest that CC's ocean floor age is off... The continents are much older.
So the ET Continental Granite idea is inconsistent with old continental crust and young oceanic crust -- is that the objection? One of these days, I'll have to start studying dating methods, but I see your point. The Expanding Earth Hypothesis has a nice answer for this: the oceanic crust was exposed as the Earth expanded. But that doesn't explain subduction. And as Lloyd noted in a subsequent post, expansion doesn't explain mountain building, while Shock Dynamics does. Anyway, I'll keep studying...
STAR FORMATION
Lloyd wrote: Star Formation
Looks like CC has a little more work to do to finish this part of the model.
At http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5972.html CC made these statements.
I recently updated that page. The newer version is here: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692. The old version just left it up to the imagination as to how the "like-likes-like" force causes the collapse of dusty plasmas, while the new version shows all of the math.
Lloyd wrote: What I meant in the above post is that CC's accretion model says Debye cells in space form filaments, I think, and the filaments then snap together in an implosion that forms stars, but in the second part from a post of his, he found that if halos are stripped from dust grains by shock waves calculations show that the charge separation would lead to a powerful implosion. So it looks like he needs to tie the halo stripping and filaments together.
Yes -- I'm still working on that part.
DUST GRAINS ACCRETION
Lloyd wrote: Also, someone pointed out elsewhere that he doesn't seem to explain where the dust grains would come from. Or maybe it's mentioned in a different paper, or maybe I overlooked it. I assume they'd come from supernova explosions, or something similar.
Yes, and interestingly, it's the same principle, but on two very different scales. My number crunching with dusty plasmas revealed that net neutral Debye cells at rest actually repel each other, and only if the sheaths are stripped off is there a net attraction, so that's a necessary step in the dusty plasma collapse. To be thorough, I then discussed (in the page mentioned above) how we should go back and update Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle, since Debye cells in space are electrically similar to atomic nuclei surrounded by electron clouds. So net neutral atoms with stable electron clouds should actually repel each other, and only if the electrons are unbound from the nuclei will there be a net attraction. So if the atoms are getting ionized, they will start to form molecules, and ultimately, dust grains. Then, to be really thorough, I came full circle, and applied that back to the study of dusty plasmas. To go from a giant molecular cloud (GMC), comprised mainly of diatomic hydrogen, to a dusty plasma, something has to ionize the GMC, to invoke the "like-likes-like" force, such that larger aggregates will begin to form into dust grains. And what could ionize the GMC? A supernova! So the UV radiation from a supernova ionizes the GMC, enabling the formation of dust grains surrounded by Debye sheaths, and once that has happened, arriving somewhat later are all of the particulate ejecta from the supernova, invoking the "like-likes-like" force between the Debye cells. Hence supernovae just happen to supply both of the necessary ingredients for star formation, first converting a GMC into a dusty plasma, and then converting a dusty plasma into a star.
Lloyd wrote: That helps a little, but doesn't quite clarify how filaments, or dislodged halos, lead to implosion. The halos post comes close to explaining by saying that the attractive force between charges after the halos are dislodged becomes enormous. But that still leaves me wondering about details. Like does it set up a chain reaction implosion?
I'm still studying filaments in space, but my working idea is that a gas cloud collision resolves into organized jets burrowing their way through, as can be easily demonstrated in terrestrial fluid dynamic simulations. These jets are the embryonic filaments. I'm working on the quantitative proof that the electrostatic forces are stronger in filaments than in spheres. In the meantime, what I'm saying is that the filaments then collapse, like a stretched rubber band imploding on its centroid when released. A spherical implosion is still possible, but a filament implosion is more likely, because the forces are stronger.
Lloyd wrote: Do dislodged halos combine with dust grains into filaments during implosion?
In a rectangular array of dust grains, if the halos were swept into comas by friction in a gas cloud collision, the tails of the comas would be pointing right at the next dust grain. Since the dust grains are negative and the halos are positive, now you have little electrostatic threads pulling the dust grains together by their mutual attraction to the oppositely charged halos. Can we expect all of the dust grains to be in these neat little rectangular arrays? Actually, that might not be far from the truth, since friction from the gas cloud collision will prefer for dust grains (with their comas) to fall into the lee of other dust grains. So yes, they're all going to line up, and the comas will produce a longitudinal tensile force pulling the filament together, in a direction parallel to the direction of the collision.
FILAMENT IMPLOSION DURATION
Lloyd wrote: How long does a molecular cloud implosion take? Or how long does it take for the halos and grains, or filaments, at the outer edges to reach the center? Do they accelerate? What max velocity do they attain?
My calculations show that the energy stored in the Sun could only have come from an explosion that had reached 86% of the speed of light. That sounds like a Really Big Number, but yes, the electric force is capable of accelerating particles to such speeds. And yes, the force increases during the implosion, starting at something like 1,000 times more powerful than gravity, and asymptotically approaching something like 2,000 times the gravity before the dust grains melt due to heat in the implosion. So the implosion accelerates rapidly near the end, to its final relativistic velocity. I haven't calculated the average velocity of the implosion, so I don't know how long the whole thing takes -- I think that the conventional answer is something like 1 million years.
Lloyd wrote: Is the center where the core forms?
Yes -- the center of the length of the filament.
Lloyd wrote: How long does it take to form the core?
I'm thinking that the final phase of the implosion is actually very brief -- perhaps something like a couple of weeks or months. In fact, I think that this is what is going on in a supernova -- the dusty plasma imploded, and when everything got to the center, it overheated and started radiating. Note that the body force acting on the dusty plasma will have little effect on the stuff that was already at the center, and a lot of effect on the stuff that was the furthest away. As with a stretched rubber band, if you let it go, the center doesn't move -- the highest velocities are achieved by the far ends getting pulled inwards. As a consequence, everything meets in the middle at the same time.
Lloyd wrote: How much pressure does it take to expel electrons from the center?
That depends on the ionization potential of the elements. For hydrogen it's very high; for heavier elements, it's a lot lower. But there aren't any calculated numbers for this -- it's all theoretical. I "might" be able to derive my predictions for the thresholds, but I don't know how I would confirm or corroborate them.
Lloyd wrote: How long does it take the core to transform into a positive center with a negative layer over it?
The initial charge separation would occur within the same timeframe as the final stage of the implosion -- a couple of weeks or months. Whatever matter implodes and doesn't get captured by the CFDLs will bounce off. In our solar system, since the overwhelming majority of the matter is in the Sun itself, it looks like the Sun captured just about everything involved in the implosion, except for a few planets, which I believe to have once been stars in their own right.
Lloyd wrote: What elements will the core end up with and how will each element be built up?
That depends on what elements were in the original dusty plasma, and on how much fusion occurred during the implosion.
Lloyd wrote: How about if we get an animation of the process to help clarify?
I'm still crunching numbers -- only when you have quantitative proof are you sure that you're on the right track. Some pieces I can already prove -- other pieces are still in progress. I think that somebody else is gonna have to do the videos.
BETTER SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Lloyd wrote: More on Objective Method
CC started work on comparing Sun theories at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8751, but I consider it a little insufficient. He provided good explanations of each theory etc, but what's needed for readers to see first, I think, is a rating table, like Juergens', where just the rating for each theory for each feature is listed.
I liked Juergens' table, but for the level of granularity in your list of topics, that just isn't going to work. His ratings were:
A. predictable on basis of theory
B. permissible in terms of theory
C. permissible, but difficult to explain
O. apparently irrelevant in terms of theory
X. evidence precludes theory
That kind of analysis really only applies to one discrete set of observations, to compare theories that explicitly address them. But the things that you listed contains LOTS of different observations. Each of these would have to be broken out into a separate line item. So you can't just say that a complex cluster of observations (e.g., sunspots, or granules, or helmet streamers) could be certified as predictable/permissible/irrelevant/precluded. You'd have to itemize things like the sunspot umbra, penumbra, toroidal B-field, etc. The hierarchical structure in QDL enables coarse topics to be broken down into finer grain topics, where the issues can be debated at that kind of level. But then all of the debates are buried deep in sub-folders, and it's hard to get an overview. One thing that seemed reasonable was to enable QDL's rating feature in folders containing multiple hypotheses, such that users could vote for which explanations they considered to be the best, and hypotheses that nobody liked would be forced to the bottom of the list. To evaluate the overall performance of models, at the level of granularity of your list of features, I then created a rating summary table. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12419. Now you can go through and rate each hypothesis, and it will automatically update the table.
Sparky wrote: Very Thorough! It will speed up the posting by making a form where we can just check off those things we believe in. No more typing out long, seldom read ideas.
The topical organization in QDL enables people to go straight to areas of interest, and precludes the redundancies inherent in forum discussions. It also supports questionnaires, so that people can get a sense of who believes what. Do you know of anybody who might like to try out that kind of workflow?
Aardwolf wrote: I favour the most scientific explanation not one based on averages or opinions.
Just take opinions (including summaries) for what they are. To make progress, we have to express opinions, so that isn't non-scientific. Settling on something just because it's somebody else's opinions is non-scientific.
D_Archer wrote: CC does not have an EU model. He has some wishy washy internally powered fire in sky model build on loose foundations* and self misderived understandings of physics to tie it all together in a big jumbled mess. Unintelligible in the end really; for any academic or lay person and that is the reason why it is ignored.
I'm sorry if you don't understand it, but it isn't wishy-washy. I have a quantified, physics-based model of star formation (by the collapse of a dusty plasma), of the internal structure of the Sun, and of the solar power output -- all of which are within range to the limits of the accuracy of the data. And I'm committed to answering questions. You're right -- that means that it isn't an EU model at all, because the EU models aren't quantified, and its proponents are not committed to answering questions.
Re: Most Thorough Model
EARTH EXPANSION VS. SHOCK DYNAMICS
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:08 am
Aardwolf wrote: Earth expansion does explain mountains. If you take a flat piece of land at a specific curvature then flatten that curvature the top layer of land will fold like a concertina along the weakest point.
But why wouldn't the crust also rift at the weakest point, separating the plates instead of scrunching them together? IMO, the most convincing evidence for the Expanding Earth Hypothesis is how neatly all of the continents fit together in a smaller shell. And I'm still tinkering with an idea of how the Earth could expand, within the framework of the CFDL model. I'm saying that the layers are held together with a lot more force than just gravity, due to charge separations that create an electric force between the layers. So if you take away the charge separations, that force goes away, and the Earth will expand. And one of the consequences of cooling is that supercriticality becomes less tenable. And the implication of that is that compressible supercritical fluids turn into incompressible solids or liquids when they cool down, and the matter expands back out to the dimensions required by the solid/liquid state.
Still, if we take a close look at the geologic features, the expectations of the EEH are not met. We'd expect mid-ocean ridges between all of the continents, and we wouldn't expect any of the plates to be converging -- they should all be diverging. And yet the evidence for converging plates is unmistakable (thanks to GPS measurements). So why isn't there a mid-ocean ridge in the Pacific Basin? The one in the Atlantic is quite clearly defined, while the ones in the Pacific are small and irregular. And the Asian plate is converging with the Pacific plate. {See:} https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/sage/geology/lesson2/concepts.html … This is where Shock Dynamics pulls ahead, because Fischer looked quite closely at all of these features, and showed that there is really only one model that accounts for all of it -- that everything is moving away from Madagascar, where there is an impact crater.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:18
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: This is where Shock Dynamics pulls ahead, because Fischer looked quite closely at all of these features, and showed that there is really only one model that accounts for all of it -- that everything is moving away from Madagascar, where there is an impact crater.
So it must be able to explain what direction the African and Antarctic plates are heading. So what direction are the African and Antarctic plates heading?
Here's what the referenced website said:
Those are absolute motions. Relative motions are different.
{See:} http://www.unavco.org/education/resources/data-for-educators/data-for-educators.html.
PAST THICKER ATMOSPHERE
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:05 pm
Lloyd wrote: Maybe Charles has ideas too about how gravity may have been weaker in the past.
In the CFDL model, if the Earth is expanding, it is not because of added mass, but rather, because of reduced electric forces. Thus the smaller Earth would have had the same mass, but the gravity field actually would have been more dense. So the dinosaur problem would only be solvable with Juenemann's hypothesis of a thicker atmosphere. Note that the thickness of the atmosphere, and the density of the gravity field, are not directly related. Venus is smaller than the Earth, but its atmosphere is much more dense. It's also highly electrified. So I think that Venus has an electric field that keeps the atmosphere bound to the planet. BTW, I "think" that the thicker atmosphere hypothesis is the only one that solves the problem for flying dinosaurs. If less gravity is coupled with a thinner atmosphere, it's no advantage. You need less gravity and/or a thicker atmosphere, and I "think" that the atmosphere is the bigger factor.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:33 pm
Aardwolf wrote: Shock dynamics is falsified with all the other plate tectonic theories. First you need to explain where Antarctica is heading. Second, as a theory based on Pangea, Australia and South America shared no common border yet 25% of all marsupial species are located in South America and 75% in Australia and not a single solitary species in the vast land of Africa separating them. Explanation?
Now I'm wondering if the Expanding Earth Hypothesis and the Shock Dynamics Hypothesis are mutually exclusive. Could the continents have once formed one solid global shell, while on expansion, could the shell have only rifted in one place, leaving a solitary land mass (i.e., Pangea), which was then hit by an asteroid, breaking it up into the pieces we see now?
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:27 pm
Lloyd wrote: What do you figure might cause expansion of the Earth without causing expansion of the shell/supercontinent?
I'm new to this whole topic, so at this point I'm just trying to collect epiphanies. One idea that I had was that expansion is a product of cooling. I know that this is counter-intuitive, but I'm going to investigate the possibility that supercritical fluids are more compressible than liquids and solids. The reason is that the supercritical fluids don't have bound electrons. As you compress gases, eventually you compress them into liquids or solids, which are incompressible, because you get to the point that the electron shells are touching, and further compression requires the liberation of those electrons. The extra energy required to do that is what gives liquids and solids their incompressibility. But in a supercritical fluid, those electrons have already been liberated by heat, so you can compress the matter beyond the liquid/solid density. Ah, but what if you cool the matter back down? Then those electrons can bind to the atoms again. When they do, they'll require that the matter expand back out to its liquid/solid density. I don't know if this is going to work. The real issue is not whether or not it would work in principle, but rather, in practice -- how much could the Earth have been over-compacted, at what kind of core temperature? Could it account for the amount of expansion required by the Expanding Earth Hypothesis? My guess is that it ain't gonna work. But you never know until you try...
Lloyd wrote: Mike Fischer says the supercontinent formed when something collided with Earth and produced the East Pacific Rise, which North America later ran into and crossed over partly. So expansion would seem to leave that rise or ridge unaccounted for.
I don't know enough to say. Fischer has made an extremely detailed analysis. When you see somebody looking that carefully at the details, and not finding any reason to abandon the hypothesis, you have a pretty good reason to think that he's onto something.
BLACK HOLES & OTHER EXOTICS
Lloyd wrote: Like me, many get the impression at first that his model for black holes must be similar to the mainstream model. But that ain't the case.
Precisely. I have one model for all of the "exotics": black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, BL Lac objects, white dwarfs, and planetary nebulae. The reason is that all of these objects have a variety of things in common, such as bipolar jets, extremely powerful magnetic fields, non-black-body radiation, and gamma-ray emissions. Main sequence stars have none of these, which is what convinced me that there are two fundamentally different types of stars: main sequence stars, and then the "exotics". But just because I talk about black holes doesn't mean that I buy into the mainstream model for them, any more than I think that neutron stars are made of neutronium. I just have to use the existing terminology for things, even if they're misnomers in my model.
As concerns what causes the extremely high rate of rotation in the exotic stars, I'm starting to think that this is a consequence of an imploding filament. Imagine that you have stretched a rubber band tight, and you let it go. This will be analogous to a collapsing filament. Everything will be moving toward the center, while the linear form of the thing means that it's mainly motion along a straight line, though the two halves are traveling in opposite directions (i.e., toward each other). My calculations have shown that the plasma can get accelerated to a respectable percentage of the speed of light. This means that it will be generating extremely powerful magnetic fields. So what happens when the matter gets to the center? Interestingly, the two halves of the filament will generate opposing magnetic fields, because they're traveling in opposite directions. So the matter isn't going to collide -- the two charge streams will glance off of each other, due to the magnetic pressure.
Analogously, imagine that you're driving a magnetized car, with the north pole facing forward, and you're playing chicken with another car that is similarly magnetized. If neither of you chicken out, are the two cars going to collide? If the magnetic fields are powerful enough, they can't collide. If their trajectories are perfectly symmetrical, they'll just bounce off of each other from the opposing magnetic forces (assuming that you're trying to ram each other in a north-to-north configuration). But if the approaches are not perfectly symmetrical, they'll glance off of each other. Then a very interesting thing happens -- once your north pole gets past the north pole of the other car, your north pole is attracted to the south pole of that car, and likewise, its north pole is attracted to the south pole of your car. So after the glancing blow of the near head-on collision, the two cars will clank together, north-to-south-wise. And they will be rotating really fast, because all of the linear momentum will get converted to angular momentum when the two cars clank together. So there's the source of the angular momentum. Two colliding relativistic jets will have a combined velocity that will be incredible, and all of that will get converted to angular velocity. Now you have two relativistic jets that have merged into one annular ring, and if it's rotating fast enough, the magnetic fields will be strong enough for nuclear fusion, like in a tokamak.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:49 am
Lloyd wrote: Charles, in your Black Hole paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6092.html, do you claim that black holes have been observed or detected? If so, how? You don't seem to have any references about that.
Yes, I should cite some references for that, but black holes have been detected on the basis of their gravitational influences on nearby objects. So we know that they are there -- the question is how could there be such a huge gravity source without the radiation that the standard model predicts, from stuff getting pulled into it. The standard model also asserts that stars can implode under their own weight, and black holes are way over the weight limit. This is what caused mainstream theorists to take a walk on the wild side, conjuring up the whole "event horizon" thing.
I countered with my "natural tokamak" model, with a toroidal structure of matter, contained by the magnetic field that it generates with relativistic angular velocities. This model is the only one to my knowledge that accounts for bipolar jets emanating from stars with extremely powerful magnetic fields. Since sometimes black holes emit bipolar jets, I threw black holes into the same category, though for the hole to be black, the fusion in the tokamak needs to either have stopped, or the radiation has to be blocked by surrounding dust clouds.
But the more I think about it, the more I think that black holes aren't necessarily all that fancy. Elsewhere I dismiss the possibility that stars implode under their own weight, becoming neutron stars, which is non-sense. In my model, there is no theoretical limit to the mass of a dead star, where it stopped radiating simply because it eventually cooled down. And if all of the matter that was going to get drawn into it already has been, there isn't going to be even any infrared radiation from thermalized collisions of infalling particles at the surface. So it could be just a huge gravity source that has already consumed all of the surrounding matter, but without any atoms getting crushed into neutronium. Only black holes that emit bipolar jets should be considered exotics.
Lloyd wrote: You say that fusion should occur in black holes, producing heavier elements from lighter ones. Which elements do you expect are produced from which?
In my model, fusion occurs in exotic stars (i.e., natural tokamaks) due to magnetic confinement, and in main sequence stars due to electrostatic discharges, and in the case of extremely large stars, due to gravitational loading. There is a standard progression, from hydrogen to helium, through carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, all of the way up to the 7th period elements. Even-numbered atomic masses dominate, since two out of the three combinations (even-even, even-odd, odd-odd) produces an even-numbered sum. But you get the whole periodic table in the end.
Lloyd wrote: The end of your paper there seems to say that black holes should have electric double layers. Offhand it's sounding like the CFDL model somewhat.
Sorta, but for a very different set of reasons. I'm saying that in a "natural tokamak", with matter revolving around the center at relativistic speeds, the +ions will take the outside track, due to centrifugal forces developed by their greater masses. This leaves the center to be populated by free electrons, attracted to all of the positive charge in the toroid, and thus favoring the center. So it's two circular charge streams, with the positive ring having a greater radius than the negative ring, and with the electric force between them pulling the outer ring inwards.
Lloyd wrote: I was curious what each exotic object would produce mostly. And what may become of each such object type?
Another work-in-progress of mine is comparing the properties of exotic stars, and seeing if I can just vary the factors in my "natural tokamak" model to produce the differences among them. Here's the table that I started, of the overlapping property sets of exotic stars: Exotic Star Properties. This will be a big project, since each of these star types is a study in and of itself, and the literature doesn't acknowledge a similarity of kind among these. Thus the data are not already sorted out for my purposes.
GALAXIES ARE LIKE EXOTICS
Lloyd wrote: Is a galaxy more like an exotic object with huge magnetic fields, or more like stars?
The evolution of galaxies, from random assortments of stars, into highly organized spirals, would make them more like exotic stars than main sequence stars. So just as dust grains get organized into stars, stars get organized into galaxies, but there are semi-spherical configurations (such as the elliptical galaxies) in which there is a small amount of angular momentum, analogous to a main sequence star, and there are flattened discs (i.e., the spiral galaxies) in which almost all of the momentum is angular, analogous to an exotic star.
Re: Most Thorough Model
RELATIVITY & QUANTUM MECHANICS
by CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:06 pm
David wrote: Yes, I have a question. Chandler has stated: "I dismiss QM, GR, and anything based on them."
If he rejects General Relativity, then what theory of gravitation is he using? Newtonian? Or does he have his own gravitational theory that can accurately predict the elliptical orbits of the planets, and the anomalous precession of Mercury?
Newtonian gravity predicts the elliptical orbits of planets reasonably enough. I believe that the anomalies are evidence of electrostatic forces, since planets have a net charge, and so does the interplanetary medium. Thus fluctuations in the density of the IPM will exert electric forces on the planets, perturbing their orbits. As concerns Mercury, I could think of a lot of things that could cause its orbit to precess, including electrostatic and electrodynamic forces, and drag forces from the somewhat denser solar wind in its neighborhood. So I don't consider Mercurial precession to be the monopoly of the GR camp.
antosarai wrote: And while you're at it, Mr. Chandler: isn't electron degeneracy pressure (and Pauli exclusion principle) — something crucial in your model — based on QM?
I wouldn't say that the Pauli Exclusion Principle is "based on QM", and therefore necessitates accepting the premise if we are to acknowledge the outcome. Rather, QM incorporates it into a framework. But then again, so does the Bohr model, which also came later. So the QM camp doesn't own the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and I can accept that, and its implications for electron degeneracy pressure, without having to buy the whole QM package. But you're right that EDP is a QM term. D'oh!
Re: Most Thorough Model
BLACK HOLES
by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:43 pm
Lloyd wrote: Charles, is Sagittarius A the only region in which a black hole can be inferred so far?
Sag A isn't the only one -- it's just the closest, and therefore, we have the most accurate numbers for it.
Lloyd wrote: By fitting their motion to Keplerian orbits they were able to infer in 1998 that 2.6 million solar masses must be contained in a volume with a radius of 0.02 lightyears.
I can understand how they estimated the mass of the black hole, but I don't understand how they arrived at the volume, just knowing the Keplerian orbits. A black hole of 2.6 million solar masses, at the same density as the Sun, would have a radius of 0.88 the orbit of Venus. OK, that's Really Big. But if only one of the stars orbiting Sag A has completed a full orbit since 1998, it would have to be a long ways away -- so far away that the gravity of Sag A would behave as a point source, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between big and small volumes just by the Keplerian orbits. So I think that the volume came from black hole theory, not observations. And I don't buy into black hole theory (i.e., the atomic structure is getting crushed). I think that most of the matter inside stars is at or near its liquid density. So I think that they got the volume wrong.
Lloyd wrote: Have you read Stephen Crothers' analysis of conventional black hole theory? Is the Schwarzschild radius inapplicable to black hole calculations?
I haven't looked at it -- that kind of thing is off of my radar screen. I have enough targets to worry about. It doesn't surprise me that GR isn't self-consistent, and it doesn't surprise me that nobody really cares. I just think that the whole thing is flawed.
GALAXY FORMATION
Lloyd wrote: Was Sag A likely formed during an implosion that formed the galaxy?
I do believe in galactic implosion/explosion cycles, and I believe that this is how galaxies morph, from peculiars to ellipticals, lenticulars, and ultimately, to spirals. In a galactic implosion, some of the stuff is melted and re-forged, but not all of it. I don't know if there will ever be a way of guessing which cycle produced which star.
Lloyd wrote: Do you think the ratio of the size of a giant molecular cloud to that of a star or star system that forms at its center after the cloud implodes is about the same as the ratio for the size of a volume of plasma space that implodes to form a galaxy? Do you have figures for both ratios?
Well, a dusty plasma implodes to produce a star. But the stars don't implode to produce a galaxy as one integral unit -- a galaxy is still just a collection of stars. In my model, it's possible for a dusty plasma to implode and not form a star. Rather, if the force feedback loop never amounts to anything, the plasma will just bounce off of itself, and expand back out to its original dimensions, sometime later to implode again. Note that while any random assortment of matter might implode, the explosion is always radial, since everything shoots back out from the centroid. Even random matter has a centroid, and after the first explosion, the matter will be in a spherical form around that centroid. When that matter implodes, it will be more likely to fuse into a star. So is it possible for galaxies to continue to get more and more geometrically perfect, until finally, when they implode, all of the matter gets fused into one super-duper star? As far as I know, there isn't a reason why this couldn't happen. So perhaps the Universe in the distant future will be made up of galaxies that have condensed into solitary integral masses. Then I suppose galactic clusters could combine... And then maybe all of that could implode, and produce a... [no, I'm not going to say it] ...how about... a Big Oh'sh-it. But no, I don't know if there is a limit to the mass of an aggregate, so I don't know if everything in a galaxy could condense into one object. Maybe they just vaporize themselves if that much matter implodes, and then they start over from the beginning. (Would that be in a Little Oh'sh-it, compared to the big one?)
STELLAR DISTANCE ERRORS
Lloyd wrote: Have you read the old thread called Stars Are Thousands of Times Closer than They Appear?
I can't remember, but certainly redshift interpretation is far from a closed issue, and it wouldn't surprise me if that title turned out to be correct.
Lloyd wrote: Do you have an idea why the Milky Way doesn't seem to have a large yellow central mass like many other galaxies seem to have?
It does have a central bulge, but you're saying that it doesn't have the typical old yellow stars like other spiral galaxies? (I don't know much about this.)
Lloyd wrote: Is it possible that most blue stars are actually planets like Uranus and Neptune?
Blue stars are "burning" very brightly, which in Uranus and Neptune, the "flame" has all but gone out.
Lloyd wrote: Is it possible that galaxies are star systems like the solar system?
That depends on how you define stellar systems. Most people would agree that they can have multiple stars. I agree with Jeffrey that all of the planets in our solar system were once stars. Anyway, can multiple stars have multiple sets of planets orbiting them? Is that one stellar system, or many? Depending on how you define it, a galaxy might be just one stellar system, with lots and lots of stars in it.
Re: Most Thorough Model
COMETS & CHARGE
by CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:28 am
Here I'm replying to what Lloyd posted on the Aristarchus vs. Chandler thread, but which isn't going anywhere fast, so I'm taking this up on this thread.
Lloyd wrote: Alien Sky video #3
Charles, have you seen this new video? It's about comets.
It will take me a while to get all of the way through it, but here are my initial comments.
Lloyd wrote: We've discussed somewhere that geysers on Mars and some moons may be caused similar to earthquakes and vulcanism by the CFDLs in them. Comets have jets that resemble those geysers. Could comets that are only a few miles in diameter be composed of CFDLs too, which cause the jets? Or do you accept the EU's explanation of them?
Yes, I think that comets have CFDLs, but not for the same reasons as planets and stars. There, the CFDLs are set up by gravitational loading, which (due to electron degeneracy pressure) separates charges, resulting in alternating layers of charges that cling together due to the electric force. But comets are too small for that. The minimum radius for spherical shapes in celestial objects is roughly 750 km -- everything bigger than that is spherical, and everything smaller than that is irregular. So that's the threshold for electron degeneracy pressure, which sets up the spherical layers, and also creates the plasticity for the matter to assume that form. Comets are much smaller than that, so the gravitational loading is insufficient for electron degeneracy pressure. Nevertheless, comets are racing through the interplanetary medium, and they develop charged sheaths, as described on Wikipedia:
Because the relative orbital speed of the comet and the solar wind is supersonic, a bow shock is formed upstream of the comet in the flow direction of the solar wind. In this bow shock, large concentrations of cometary ions (called "pick-up ions") congregate and act to "load" the solar magnetic field with plasma, such that the field lines "drape" around the comet forming the ion tail.
Well, we can see past the MHD band-standing, to what's actually going on. I covered this in detail in this paper: Meteoric Airbursts / General Principles. Basically, the onslaught of particles hitting the comet creates a boundary layer, and +ions bury themselves deeper in this layer than electrons, due to their greater mass. Thus the sheath that builds up is positively charged, surrounded by a negative layer comprised of electrons that got stripped off in particle collisions. The coma glows due to these charges recombining sometime after the comet has passed. Note that this is a radically different conception of the origins of the coma. Most people think that the coma is material getting liberated from the comet, like a dust trail. I'm thinking of it more like the vapor trail behind a jet flying at high altitude, which is water vapor that was already in the air, and which condensed as a consequence of the jet flying through it, but which didn't come out of the jet itself. So how much material do comets lose to their comas? They don't necessarily lose anything at all, if they are insulated from the solar wind by a +ion sheath. This explains why a comet moving through a 400+ solar wind could have an accumulation of dust on its surface. You'd think that a supersonic wind would sweep the surface pretty much clean of all dust, but there it is, clearly visible in all of the close-ups of comets.
I don't agree with the EU assertion that comets are negatively charged, having come from a negatively charged region of the interplanetary medium, and that they are discharging their way through the inner solar system. Rather, they are surrounded by +ion sheaths, and this induces a negative charge on the surface. So the surface IS negatively charged, but the whole comet is probably net neutral. And this explains the jets coming out of comets. If the surface gets an induced negative charge, the interior of the comet will be positively charged, and if the charge is powerful enough, the Coulomb force could expel material from the interior. BTW, the behavior of the jets is another proof of the presence of a +ion sheath around the comet. If the comet was being subjected to supersonic winds, the jets wouldn't just sprout out from the sunward side, and spray outward in a radial pattern -- they would show the effects of that supersonic wind, and be beaten back toward the coma, at least a little bit, if not dramatically so. I don't know the velocity of the jets, but remember that the solar wind is doing 400+ km/s, plus the speed of the comet itself (~45 km/s). So we should see at least a little bit of an effect from that supersonic wind, but we see none. This would only be possible if the jets are spraying into a stagnant +ion sheath surrounding the comet.
Lloyd wrote: I think a little after the one hour mark on the video there's discussion of the breakup of comets. It appears that CMEs or spikes in the solar wind output often cause these breakups. They also cause brightening of comets.
All of that makes sense if there is a +ion sheath around the comet. The induced negative charge on the surface leaves the interior positively charged, and the Coulomb force breaks the comet up into pieces, if the pressure couldn't be relieved by jets. The positive charge also weakens the crystal lattice holding the comet together. And the faster the winds, the more the charge separation in the boundary layer, due to frictional charging.
Lloyd wrote: Halley was beyond the orbit of Uranus when it brightened after its 1986 perihelion. That was apparently due to a CME. I was surprised that CMEs can go that far, since your graph showed that solar wind proton counts are near zero by the time they reach Earth's orbit.
That's interesting. There is a lot that still doesn't make sense to me about the interplanetary medium. The density data seemed to be reliable enough, coming from a bunch of different satellites, which all agreed with each other. But the implications are numerous and complex, and I'm not sure that I have my mind wrapped around the whole thing yet. I guess that there wouldn't be anything stopping a CME from making it past Uranus, if there wasn't much of anything in the IPM to stand in its way. But I don't see why the CME would still be organized -- why didn't it just balloon out and disperse itself? Is it just pure momentum?
COMET FORMATION
Lloyd wrote: I think the EU theory is that a close approach between Venus or something and Mars electrically carved out the Vallis Marineris canyon, producing asteroids, comets and some moons.
I think that the asteroid belt was produced by a collision between the planet that the Titus-Bode Law predicts should be there, and something that came zipping through the solar system. This has been dismissed because the asteroid belt has only 1% of the mass of a planet. But then everybody agrees that probably 99% of the material that was originally in the belt is no longer there, because it never found a stable orbit. I "think" that this means that it used to have the mass of a planet.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:38 am
GALAXY EVENTS
Lloyd wrote: Galaxies
I'm rereading your paper on Galaxies and something I never thought about much before is how stars would reform in a galactic explosion after an implosion. If stars do form during the explosion stage, I wonder if it would still be via giant molecular cloud implosions, and if the giant molecular clouds would tend to be much more common near the galactic core.
Yes, the explosion would vaporize everything, and then the stars would have to form from scratch, first from atoms condensing into molecules in giant molecular clouds. Then the molecules would form dust particles, which would form Debye cells, which would make it possible for dusty plasmas to implode into stars. So, how far away from the explosion would each of these stages occur? I dunno.
Lloyd wrote:I thought you initially said galaxies go through implosion/explosion cycles, but maybe I misunderstood. Do you say that the "implosions" don't involve everything hitting the center and re-exploding?
Yes, I'm still thinking that galaxies implode and explode. And yes, there isn't necessarily just one center -- irregularities in the distribution of mass can result in there being more than one point of convergence.
Lloyd wrote: Do you know if there's a string of star forming regions on our arm's leading edge?
I don't know.
Lloyd wrote: Have you had any ideas about how the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy got wrapped around the Milky Way?
I don't know.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:46 pm
MARS CANYON
Lloyd wrote: How do you think Vallis Marineris formed?
I don't know. My first guess would be that the three nearby volcanoes released a bunch of heat, which enabled the crust to cool, and to rift as it shrunk. If what was erupting was liquid water, it would have produced torrential downpours, which would explain the clear evidence of erosion (especially further downstream). IMO, that explains more of the features than the electrical scarring model. But this is all just "look like..." theory -- it isn't quantification and prediction, so I wouldn't hang my hat on any of it.
PROTOSATURN SYSTEM, ASTEROID BELT & MOON
Lloyd wrote: Do you think a body from the Saturn System could have been moving fast enough to break up a planet formerly in the main asteroid belt?
That would depend on how big it was.
Lloyd wrote: Could the Moon have been that body, which later broke up to form our supercontinent and the Moon?
Well, it's possible that the Moon was a rogue planet, which impacted the planet between Mars & Jupiter with enough force to shatter it into a kazillion asteroids, but the impact slowed it down enough that when it impacted the Earth, it just left a skid mark (in granite continents), and then got captured by the Earth's gravity. It's actually hard to imagine how the Moon could have been traveling slow enough to impact the Earth and not destroy it, unless it had already collided with something else. So that sounds pretty reasonable. BTW, the chance of one celestial collision at that scale is slight, and the chance of two is slight^slight. But if the Moon was left with little velocity after the first impact, and was drifting slowly toward the Sun, the chance of an inner planet running into it would have been greater. In other words, if you run across the highway really fast (at just the right time) your chance of getting hit by a car is slight, but if you walk slow enough, your chance of getting creamed becomes quite respectable. So we should suspect that the Moon was left nearly stationary by the first impact, and then the Earth ran into it. We might also say that for the Earth to not get perturbed into a more elliptical orbit by the impact, it had to be a glancing blow (i.e., with the Moon toward the outer solar system, or the inner, but not a head-on collision). With a glancing blow, the Earth would have been tugged toward the Moon up until the impact, but the impact would have offset that velocity, leaving the Earth with the same orbital characteristics. If it had been a head-on collision, the Earth would have been slowed down, and would have fallen toward the Sun, ultimately stabilizing in a more elliptical orbit. So the glancing blow makes more sense, and this would have left a skid mark, not just a circular blob.
COMET & CHARGE
Lloyd wrote: Do you mean then that the coma is the positive charge sheath, with a layer of negative charge on its outside, and an induced negative layer on the rocky comet body and an induced positive center?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: Is it positive and negative charge from the coma that goes into the comet tails?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: If so, does the coma get replenished by the solar wind?
Yes. Otherwise, comets would get depleted pretty fast. Halley's Comet has made 32 laps through the solar system since 240 BCE, and we can suspect that the mass hasn't changed much, since something with less mass would experience more friction per kilogram (i.e., a lower terminal velocity), and that would throw it into a different orbit. And yet the orbital period has stayed in the range of 74~79 years the whole time. So I'm thinking that it isn't losing mass, and that the coma is just the effect that the comet has on the IPM -- it isn't coming from the comet itself.
Lloyd wrote: The video also mentioned that the coma of comet Holmes became bigger than the Sun about 4 months after perihelion, I think. Do you think the CME that hit it was about that size?
I don't know.
Lloyd wrote: Would [CMEs] have magnetic fields that would help keep them organized?
They might resolve into filaments, with a z-pinch to keep the ions bundled together. Perhaps the comet got hit by one of those bundles.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:22 am
NO EARTH EXPANSION
Lloyd wrote: Expansion explains almost nothing. The mountain chains were formed by horizontal compression, not vertical motion.
I agree. For mountain-building to be a function of a changing degree of curvature, you have to assume that the degree of curvature is changing (which would create pressure at the top of the crust) in the absence of expansion (which would have relieved all of that pressure, and then some, especially at the weakest parts of the crust, where mountain-building is supposedly occurring). So, all other factors being the same, expansion should create rifts at the weakest parts of the crust, which are the opposites of mountains. To get mountains in an expanding crust, you still need a horizontal force, to prevent the rifts. The Expanding Earth Hypothesis explains the global fit of the continents, and adjacencies in the fossil records. As such, it needs to be considered. But it doesn't explain everything. I guess I just don't get the whole winner-take-all thing. Sometimes hypotheses are mutually exclusive, in which case you have to start eliminating the candidates that just aren't going to work. If two or more hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, you have to consider the possibility that two or more sets of principles are at work, and you have a blend of factors. This happens all the time in physics, and you have to add up all of the factors to get the final result.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:31 pm
MARS DISCHARGE
Lloyd wrote: What's the most that you think electric discharging would do on a planet like Mars?
That would depend on how big the discharge was. The size of a discharge is limited only by the capacitance of the charge carrier, and there isn't really a theoretical limit to that. So I'm not saying that mega-lightning never happened. I'm just saying that I don't find Valles Marineris to be conclusive evidence of it.
Lloyd wrote: On Earth lightning is known to strike large boulders and throw large pieces a considerable distance, i.e. tens of meters, maybe hundreds.
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: How much larger are arc discharges on the Sun?
The discharges in solar flares can be many thousands of kilometers long.
Lloyd wrote: Should they be able to do proportionally greater feats?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: Also, Wal considers the Mars volcanoes to be electric discharge anode or cathode spots. Juergens compared them to blisters on lightning rods. Have you seen the TPODs on that?
I haven't seen that TPOD.
Lloyd wrote: What would account for the low elevation of the {Mars} northern hemisphere and the lack of craters?
It looks like it got melted, especially considering (as you pointed out) the low number of craters, compared to the southern hemisphere.
Lloyd wrote: Thornhill said electric discharge machining removed material from the northern and deposited it in the southern.
Machining a flat surface takes very tightly controlled discharges. For this to happen in nature would be simply amazing. {I think he meant unlikely.}
Lloyd wrote: Would the southern hemisphere elevation be a supercontinent like on Earth previously?
Interesting question. We would tend to assume, by whatever model of planet formation you choose, that the whole planet was molten at one point. If so, we could expect a perfectly smooth surface, maybe sprinkled with some volcanoes, but we'd have no reason to expect the sort of regional differentiation that we see on Mars from the northern to the southern hemispheres.
Lloyd wrote: The volcanic shield area seems to be the youngest, with no craters, so the vulcanism must have occurred after the cratering and water erosion occurred during or after that. The ValMar {canyon} rift may have been due to limited expansion in the eastern shield area.
Interestingly, the erosion on the cliffs of ValMar is typical of a fast moving fluid cutting through loosely packed sediments. {Like Earth’s Grand Canyon?} So how could you get such a thick sediment to build up that high? Perhaps the whole planet was that deep in sediment before the re-melting started.
Lloyd wrote: Did you see Wal's paper on how adjacent planets can exchange mass electrically and round out the outer planet's orbit?
I don't think I saw that one.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:15 pm
EARTH EXPANSION PRO & CON
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: "For mountain-building to be a function of a changing degree of curvature, you have to assume that the degree of curvature is changing in the absence of expansion."
This doesn't make any sense. Why do we need to assume the degree of curvature is changing in the absence of expansion? In GET there is no absence of expansion. The curvature is changing while it expands. The rifting is occurring at the weakest points in the crust which are already established.
OK, there are two implications to expansion: 1) buckling at the joints, as you're saying, and 2) rifting at the joints, as I'm saying. But I "think" that the rifting will be more dramatic than the buckling. I'd have to plot out the geometry to get real numbers, but I "think" that you'd get a big gaping rift between the continents where they split apart where they were weakest, and which would preclude any lateral stress. Also, for the upper portion of the crust to get scrunched at the joints, you're assuming that as the Earth expands, the crust maintains its former degree of curvature, while the larger Earth "flattens" underneath it (i.e., as the radius gets bigger). But this assumes no elasticity whatsoever in the crust, such that it cannot flatten out. I don't think that the crust is that rigid.
Aardwolf wrote: Also, have you found an explanation yet as to why every rift surrounding the Antarctic plate indicates that it is moving away from every other plate it borders? Where is it going? Off Earth like a blister? I think we would have noticed.
I didn't really understand the question until you posted the image. It certainly appears that everything is moving away from Antarctica. Then the question is: why? Like I said earlier, the global continental fit, and the adjacencies in the fossil record as noted in the Expanding Earth Hypothesis, are somewhere between interesting and compelling. Just be careful of that "all-or-nothing" thing, or you could end up being wrong even when you were right. If you had something that is basically right, but which isn't the whole story, the part of it that has been over-extended will fault the whole thing (if such is the case). Before you conclude that Shock Dynamics cannot possibly be part of the answer, you should study it, because Fischer really did a thorough job. I disagree with him, because he thinks that it was all over and done in 26 hours, whereas I think that the impact set things in motion, and they're still in motion. But I'm not going to toss the whole thing just because there's a part that I don't get.
Likewise, I'm not going to toss Expansion because I'm not convinced that it's the whole story. Everybody else goes all-or-nothing, but I don't know of anything in the real world that isn't a combination of a wide variety of factors, so I always try to keep an open mind, until/if/when I see a model that can explain everything. So I might have to toss my "Granite Skid Mark" hypothesis, if the Expanding Earth Hypothesis is correct, because those two hypotheses are mutually exclusive. You can't have a skid mark from a celestial collision that just happens by chance to be in a shape that would completely cover a smaller Earth. But neither of those hypotheses are mutually exclusive with Shock Dynamics. Either the continents formerly covered the entire globe, or they were in one big supercontinent after the collision with Theia (i.e., the Moon). And then there was an impact that broke up the supercontinent. Either way, 2 out of 3 hypotheses survive.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:46 am
GaryN wrote: But GTSM has the planets shrinking as they cool. What is the cause of the expansion?
In the CFDL model, there are supercritical fluids inside planets and stars, and these have been compressed to densities greater than their solid/liquid densities. As they cool, more and more of the matter drops below the temperatures necessary for a supercritical fluid, and it transitions back into a liquid, and ultimately into a solid, which require more volume. So it's paradoxical, but supercritical fluids can expand as they cool.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 29, 2014 1:15 am
Aardwolf wrote: The flattening crust causes mountains. Not sure how clearer I can be.
Ummm... well... you could do some diagrams, or maybe do the geometry and say how much expansion would produce how much lateral pressure, and how much rifting, so the rest of us wouldn't get confused. You said that the rifting occurs at the weakest points in the crust. Mountain ranges sometimes have rifts (such as Death Valley in the Rockies). What makes the difference between a plain, a mountain range, and a rift, if all of it is getting flattened the same amount?
IMPACT CRATERS & FUSION
Lloyd wrote: Since you consider most craters to have formed by thermonuclear explosion, do you think those products could have formed from impacts?
Yes -- any decent-sized meteor impacting at 30 km/s should generate the temperatures and pressures necessary for a nuclear explosion, so there is no need for any stupid life forms to be nuking each other in order to get those heavy elements.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:41 pm
Lloyd wrote: Charles explained that fast moving meteors or larger objects that impact a body will produce thermonuclear explosions like an H-bomb, which involves mostly electrical and some magnetic forces. Above he agreed that such explosions likely account for Xenon-129, uranium and thorium found on Mars.
BTW, this is also one of the reasons for thinking that the Earth's continents were of ET origin. If the granite simply bubbled up from below, due to its smaller density compared to the basaltic mantle, we'd expect a lot less chemical differentiation, and a whole lot less of the really heavy elements. By simple mass separation, it should be almost purely comprised of the lighter elements, such as oxygen, carbon, sulfur, etc. To me, the presence of heavier elements (e.g., iron, nickel, cobalt, and especially uranium) indicates that it wasn't simple mass separation. I guess the heavy elements could have arrived during the Late Heavy Bombardment, but as with the ET Ocean hypothesis (i.e., the water on Earth all came from dirty snowball impacts), I have a hard time believing that there could have been enough small impacts to do the job. I don't know how the Expanding Earth accounts for the formation of the crust in the first place, but if they think that it was just the lighter elements that bubbled up and cooled, that leaves the heavier elements in the crust unexplained. The Theia Skidmark hypothesis explains the chemical differentiation, and the presence of extremely heavy elements, as the consequence of a large impact that fused a lot of the heavier elements during the impact itself.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:37 pm
EARTH EXPANSION
Aardwolf wrote: So you prefer to be dismissive of other possibilities in the same way the mainstream is dismissive of the EU. Science should actively pursue phenomena that disproves its theories, not hide from them.
I'm committed to keeping an open mind, and I'd be happy to discuss just about anything with you. But if you're already locked down on something, and you're always arguing from that position, and especially if you're just arguing (i.e., not objectively analyzing the information, and always discrediting anything that doesn't agree with your pre-formed conclusions), you can't call it narrow-mindedness on somebody else's part if they don't go along with what you're saying. I said that the Expanding Earth Hypothesis was somewhere between intriguing and compelling, but that there were details still unexplained, which is why I don't think that it's the whole story, if it is, indeed, at least part of it. If that isn't good enough for you, that's your problem. The path forward from here is to take a closer look at the actual details, and see if the EEH can be modified to account for everything, or if the fine-grain detail really require a different paradigm. People who are already sold (for or against) won't be any help with that.
Aardwolf wrote: Any news on where Antarctica is heading yet?
The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica. But that doesn't prove the EEH -- it could be simply that Pangaea is still rifting.
Aardwolf wrote:
Lloyd wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snider-Pellegrini_Wegener_fossil_map.gif
Well that map clearly shows that Glossopteris would have joined across the Pacific as well. Also, marsupials are found predominantly in Australia and South America alone, proving they must have shared a border.
How does that lend weight to the EEH, and not also to Pangaea?
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:57 am
Aardwolf wrote: The circumference of the Earth at the surface is 24902 miles so has a radius of 24902/PI/2 = 3963. The crust is 25 miles thick so the circumference at the bottom of the crust is 3963-25 = 3938xPIx2 = 24743. Therefore at the surface there is 159 more miles of land at the top of the crust than there is at the bottom. What do you think happens to the land at the surface if you were to start flattening that structure?
Well, that would depend on whether or not it was also being stretched. I think that you're neglecting the very force that is causing the flattening -- expansion -- which produces tensile stress, not compressive stress. I think that it's a more complicated problem than you realize, and only if you do the geometry will you know for sure whether the surface is getting pushed together, or pulled apart, given the amount of expansion, and the amount of flattening. As an analogy, consider a ceramic cereal bowl. If we turn it over and lay it down on the kitchen table (like this: /\ ), and press down on it hard enough to fracture it, and if we examine the fractures, we'll find that we exerted compressive stress on the outer surface of the bowl, and tensile stress on the inside. Cool. For our next thought experiment, let's put clamps on the edges of a bowl and pull it apart. Again we find that tensile force was delivered to the inside of the bowl, and compressive force to the outside. Ah, but for our last experiment, let's rig up some hydraulic pistons to press on the inside surface of the bowl, at as many different points as possible all at once. Now what are the forces? In that scenario, the lateral forces are all tensile. Interestingly, the case of the crust getting flattened due to an expanding Earth is a scenario that is somewhere in-between those other cases. But just like the defenseless cereal bowls in our thought experiments, granite is much better at handling compressive stress than tensile stress, so even in the first case (of pressing inward on the bowl to make it fail) we'll see a lot of tensile strain, and very little compressive strain.
Aardwolf wrote: Initially the major rifts, now mainly in oceans, would have split under pressure.
Do you mean "under tensile stress"?
Aardwolf wrote: What are the unexplained details? As far as I can remember I've answered every query apart from the cause of expansion.
Aside from the issues raised above, you haven't answered for why you think that the fossil record favors global expansion, and not simply a supercontinent that has since split apart. I can ask more...
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica. But that doesn't prove the EEH -- it could be simply that Pangaea is still rifting.
So are you arguing all the other continents are heading North?
Yes, that's what it looks like to me.
Aardwolf wrote: Marsupial history cannot be joined across Pangea. Only a cross-Pacfic linking is possible.
Please explain.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:52 pm
CFDL SOLAR MODEL
Lloyd wrote: But the amount of detail that the model provided seemed too limited. Charles was able to answer questions much more thoroughly than anyone supporting the EU model did. So I had to go with the most thorough model.
And anybody who has been following this board over the last 6 years knows that Lloyd never cut me any slack. I don't think that he ever will. And if you were paying really close attention, you know that 3/4 of the models that I have proposed met the garbage can, because they didn't stand up to further scrutiny. But the CFDL model has been stable for over 2 years now, and it explains so many things that it has emerged as a paradigm. So it isn't like I came in here with an epiphany, and I've been doing consensus-building ever since. Rather, I've been pursuing the truth the whole time. I have no way of knowing if the CFDL model will stand the test of time. But at this point, I'm starting to think that it's the one to beat. It solves otherwise intractable problems in solar physics, in a plausible manner, and it generalizes nicely into geophysics, explaining stuff like volcanoes and earthquakes. So this is starting to look like a basic principle of how celestial objects get organized. The measure of a paradigm is not how well it explains one thing. Rather, a paradigm has to explain so many things that it's worth learning to think differently about the problem domain. More critically, a decent paradigm has to continue to bear new fruit, and promise to keep at it. The CFDL model scores well in those regards. I know that few people understand it, and many think that I'm a mainstreamer, which as Lloyd correctly pointed out, is just not true. Yes, I'm doing conventional physics, but no, that doesn't make me a mainstreamer, since they aren't doing conventional physics, and therefore, they think that I'm a crackpot. But if any of you are wondering about the degree of specificity currently supported in the CFDL model, as concerns stellar and planetary theory, just ask.
INTERSTELLAR FILAMENTS
Lloyd wrote: Galactic Filaments
EU supposes that galactic filaments are like lightning. Charles, would you like to explain your understanding of galactic filaments? Do they exist in all regions of the galaxy? Are they different in different regions? In the giant molecular clouds do they act at all like lightning? Are there filaments in thunderstorms that form lightning bolts?
Filaments are everywhere, but to think that they are carrying electric currents has yet to be demonstrated. I agree that there isn't any mainstream explanation for them. Gravity doesn't prefer them, and hydrostatics hates them. So there isn't any Newtonian reason for them. But I'm not convinced that they're electrodynamic -- my working hypothesis is that they're electrostatic. In other words, they're kinda like huge polymer chains that formed because the particles got polarized in an electric field, and then all fell in line. Alignments like this happen all of the time in nature, so it should be no surprise when we see them happening at the galactic scale. Just remember that all of the particles in a polymer are net neutral, and the force that binds them together into filaments is polarization of charges, not net charges nor electric currents.