MOST THOROUGH MODEL-2
HOTSPOTS, BASALT, QUASAR, METEOR, PLATE, ROOTS, HIMALAYAS, CME's, MOHO, SUBCONTINENT, EXPANDING, COMETS, ENERGY, ATMOSPHERES, CFDL, SATURN, CIRCULARIZATION, MYTHS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Supervolcanoes)
CONTENTS
{Underlined terms are clickable.}
CEU PREDICTED METEOR BEHAVIOR — YELLOWSTONE HOTSPOTS — WASHINGTON FLOOD BASALT — SUPERVOLCANIC ERUPTION FROM IMPACT — TREMOR SWARMS — QUASAR SIZES — METEOR VEINS — QUASAR AXIS ALIGNMENT — VOLCANOES OVERLIE FRACTURES — PLATE MOVEMENTS — CONTINENTAL ROOTS — FORMATION OF THE HIMALAYAS — RATCHETING PLATES — SOLAR CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS — MOHO HEAT — SUBCONTINENTAL BASALT — EXPANDING EARTH — COMETS CHARGE — ENERGY STORED IN BODIES — SOURCES OF PLANETS’ ATMOSPHERES — POSSIBLE CFDL EARTH EXPANSION — SUPERCONTINENT FORMATION — SATURN SYSTEM BREAKUP — PLANETS’ STELLAR PHASE & ATMOSPHERE — ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION — PLANETS FROM STARS? — ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION 2 — SOURCE OF MYTHS — PLANETS FROM STARS 2
CEU PREDICTED METEOR BEHAVIOR
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:37 pm
D_Archer wrote: CFDL? - ad hoc jibber jabber, this thread is called most thorough model, and CFDL is supposed to be a paradigm?
D_Archer wrote: Why would you call it a paradigm?
Ummm... it explains a lot more stuff than the other things that you're calling paradigms, and to a far higher degree of specificity.
D_Archer wrote: Has it ever predicted anything?
One month before the bolide exploded over Chelyabinsk, I described how bolides might start spinning if they enter the Earth's atmosphere at a shallow angle, resulting in a dynamo that will direct electric currents toward the poles of the magnetic field, producing bipolar EDM on the bolide's surface. Bolides had never been observed doing this, so it wasn't a postdiction. And it wasn't just a vague notion that something strange might happen -- I identified the underlying forces, and said what those forces would do. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=120#p76229
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10634
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:03 pm
YELLOWSTONE HOTSPOTS
Lloyd wrote: Charles, I think your earthquake prevention idea is probably sound, but I don't think a Yellowstone eruption is at all likely.
I guess you mean my "volcano prevention idea", since I don't have an earthquake prevention idea. Anyway, I guess that if Yellowstone was going to erupt, we'd probably have warning signs years in advance, as the magma chamber pressurized. But we don't know how long that period would be. If we had the technology ready to go (i.e., if we knew exactly how & where to drill boreholes to shunt the electric current), perhaps we could wait until we saw the distinctive warning signs, assuming that we knew exactly what they are. But I think that we should develop the technology now. The way to go would be to see if we can redirect a smaller volcano. But if my model is correct, once there is a liquid magma channel connecting the Moho to the surface, that's going to be the conduit for electric currents (and thus it will get all of the ohmic heating), and the chance to redirect the heating elsewhere by drilling a borehole will have already passed.
Lloyd wrote: The calderas lie over a hotspot [] [that] appears to move across terrain in the east-northeast direction, but in fact the hotspot is much deeper than terrain and remains stationary while the North American Plate moves west-southwest over it.
The whole "hotspot" idea just doesn't work thermodynamically. Hot, high-pressure magma is a good thermal conductor, and hotspots don't happen in good thermal conductors, for the same reason that discrepancies in charge densities don't happen in good electrical conductors (all other factors being the same). The "hotspots" are actually electrical conduits connecting the surface to the Moho. They occur at plate boundaries because crustal deformation creates cracks that are much better conductors than solid rock. As the electric currents start flowing through these cracks, they melt the rock, which makes it an even better conductor. Thus it is a winner-take-all situation, with the currents and magmas following well-defined channels, unlike "thermal hotspots" which should diffuse radially.
WASHINGTON FLOOD BASALT
Lloyd wrote: ...the Columbia Basalt flows appeared at the same approximate time...
Note that most stratovolcanoes produce felsic eruptions, which is igneous granite, and which would be melted continental crust (not a mantle plume). Basaltic flows indicate melted oceanic crust, which is slipping under the continental crust. But remember that thermal bubbles don't convect through solid rock. Only if an electric current opens up a conduit could magma make it all of the way through the thickest part of the continental crust under a mountain range.
Lloyd wrote: Conventional dating is useless, so those ancient datings are meaningless. Don't you think the eruptions are much more likely to have occurred when the North American plate over-rode the Pacific plate during the Shock Dynamics event? That's when the Columbia basalt flows likely also occurred. That was 4,500 years or so ago.
I haven't studied dating methods, so I don't know. It would make a lot of sense for the Rockies to get thrown up in a catastrophic event that sent the North American plate sliding over the Pacific plate, and for the same event to create a puddle of basalts under the leading edge of the N.A. plate, which would soon cause flood eruptions in the Cascades. So I agree with the sequence of events, even if I'm unsure of the date ranges.
Lloyd wrote: I don't think ratcheting would have been able to move the N. Amer. plate over the Rise. To do that the plate had to have the momentum from the impact force.
I agree.
SUPERVOLCANIC ERUPTION FROM IMPACT
Lloyd wrote: Is a supervolcano more likely to occur during a major impact event, or during quiet times thousands of years later?
Not knowing if there is any correlation between supervolcanoes and impacts, I'd say that yes, a large impact would increase the chance. Waves in the crust propagating away from the impact would raise and lower the crust, driving electric currents as the underlying rock is alternately ionized and de-ionized by the pressure. This sudden increase in ohmic heating could cause a runaway pressurization in an existing magma chamber, resulting in a supervolcanic eruption. And I guess that after the first eruption, you'd have all of the strike-slip faults to enable one later. In other words, each eruption at Yellowstone might not have been triggered by an impact -- perhaps just the first one was, and thereafter, the weakened rock was more susceptible.
TREMOR SWARMS
Lloyd wrote: Wikipedia said there have been swarms of minor earthquakes or tremors. What does your model say about such swarms?
As the ohmic heating builds up, due to electric currents being driven by crustal deformation, the differential expansion within the plates will create a wide variety of seismic events. If it was just one plate sliding over another, and if the plates were perfectly rigid, there would only be one event at a time, which would affect the entire region. But if the overlying plate is expanding because it is warming up, and if the heat sources are irregularly distributed throughout the plate (wherever the electric conduits are), the expansion will be irregular. The heating is well-known, and is one of the warning signs of an impending earthquake. Likewise, after a major quake, there is a swarm of aftershocks, as the plates cool down, with differential motion on the mating surfaces, producing a wide variety of events.
QUASAR SIZES
Lloyd wrote: There are several quasars near galaxy M82. If the quasars are near the galaxy, as the EU & CEU models propose, then we can perhaps estimate the size of the quasars, by comparing them with the size of M82.
I thought that quasars were all point sources. Anyway, I explain quasars as "exotic stars", which are "natural tokamaks" (i.e., toroidal plasmoids). I'm thinking that the toroids are a lot bigger around than main sequence stars, which are spheres. Perhaps they have a major radius like the orbital radius of Jupiter or Saturn. The model requires a large radius, because maintaining relativistic angular velocities begs the question of how much degree of curvature could be tolerated. The bigger the radius, the smaller the degree of curvature, and the less problematic the centrifugal force will be. But there is also going to be some sort of upper limit, for how big a toroidal plasmoid can be, and still call itself an organized system. I truly have no idea what these limits would actually be, but I'm thinking that the exotics are bigger than the Sun, and smaller than the solar system.
Lloyd wrote: Could quasars not be seeds of future galaxies, maybe as AGNs, active galactic nuclei?
I don't think that quasars are seeds -- I think that they're just stars.
METEOR VEINS
Lloyd wrote: Charles, do you think the veins of shocked minerals could be produced by the high temperatures and pressures of the meteor's movement through Earth's atmosphere? If not, then would you agree with the article that the veins are evidence of collision previously?
I don't really see how a collision between two meteoroids out in space would create veins. That takes a molten interior under pressure. Maybe a collision created the fractures, but you still need a way of heating the rock from the inside out, to get the intrusions. That's the kind of thing that I think can only happen in the "rolling bolide regime", where there is an electric current flowing into the magnetic poles of the meteor.
QUASAR AXIS ALIGNMENT
Lloyd wrote: I'm interested to see if the CEU model explains why "some quasar spin axes are aligned with the Large Scale Structure" as per the TPOD at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/12/02/artistic-spin
I have developed the idea that quasars are aligned to the minor axis of elliptical galaxies. I actually believe that any main sequence star on a highly elliptical orbit through the center of a galaxy, following the galactic lines of magnetic force, is a candidate for conversion into a toroidal plasmoid. The reason is that moving along the magnetic lines of force induces rotation which could spin up a natural tokamak, starting with a spherical main sequence star. But I haven't studied the "Large Scale Structure". Are the quasars aligned to magnetic fields in the LSS?
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Dec 12, 2014 9:37 pm
VOLCANOES OVERLIE FRACTURES
Lloyd wrote: How would the western volcanoes have linked to the Moho with the Pacific plate in between vertically? The Pacific plate would have had to fracture too. Wouldn't it? In order to get vulcanism started? Oh, wait. You said those basalt volcanoes are from melting of the Pacific plate, which is basalt. Would that have been a different kind of vulcanism that did not connect to the Moho? Or would electrical conduits to the Moho have been needed for those basalt flows too?
Yes, I believe that all lava flows originate as magma in the Moho, and that they follow conduits opened up by electric currents. So for there to be a basaltic flow at a continental margin, the overlying continental plate has to be fractured, and the underlying oceanic plate also has to get fractured, such that electric currents can get started. Under the circumstances, we'd expect both plates to be heavily fractured.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Dec 15, 2014 8:07 pm
PLATE MOVEMENTS
Aardwolf wrote: {Re: CharlesChandler wrote: The other continents are definitely moving away from Antarctica.} Interesting. Therefore, considering the Eurasian and North American plate boundary is increasing through the North Pole, would you also argue that these 2 plates are both heading south?
No, the North American plate is twisting. BTW, in my model, the Moho is a supercritical fluid that presents a frictionless boundary on which the plates can slide around. This makes plate motion possible just under tidal forcing, and without the need for mantle plumes, which are problematic for a lot of reasons. Anyway, tidal forcing suggests why the continents are moving generally northward, away from Antarctica, and why so much of the Earth's land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere already. If the continents are just floating on a frictionless boundary, they're behaving like inflatable toys in a swimming pool -- all other factors being the same, wave action will push them away from the source of the waves. And tidal forces are the greatest when the Earth is nearest to the Sun, and this is also when the Southern Hemisphere is more directly facing the Sun. Thus the tidal wave action is stronger in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern. Consequently, the continents are drifting away from the most intense waves, which prescribes a northerly drift. They left Antarctica behind, because it straddles the South Pole, and therefore can't figure out which way to fall.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:27 pm
CONTINENTAL ROOTS
Lloyd wrote: Charles, what do you make of continental roots?
I think that continental roots are a condition in the mantle, not a chemical difference, nor an isobar. When one plate rides over the other, the "subducted" plate has to deform. The oceanic crust is only roughly 6 km deep, while the continental crust averages 35 km deep, and can go over 80 km deep under mountain ranges. Thus the advance of the continent causes deformation in the oceanic plate, and in the mantle. The effects of plate convergence aren't going to be felt just at 6 km, or 35 km, or even 80 km -- the convergence will cause shear stress far deeper than that. Most significantly, the deformation will fracture the rock. The fractures slow down seismic waves. If the fractures are mainly vertical, due to the plate being bent downward at the convergent margin, this will affect horizontal seismic waves differently from vertical waves. Homogeneous rock shows no such differentiation in vertical/horizontal wave transmission speeds. The fractures are also conduits for electric currents, which is what causes earthquakes in subduction zones, including deep focus quakes (as deep as 750 km). So the matter in a continental root doesn't move with the continent -- the effect that the continent has on the mantle moves with the continent, while the mantle stays where it is.
FORMATION OF THE HIMALAYAS
GaryN wrote: If there is a frictionless boundary, how does the lateral force that supposedly pushed the India plate under the Eurasian plate, lifting up the Himalayas in the process, come about?
In the Shock Dynamics model, all of that force came from an impact at the NW end of Madagascar. Mike Fischer believes that it was all over and done in 26 hours. I agree that such is a good explanation for what threw up mountain ranges such as the Himalayas. If the rest of what we know about hydrostatic equilibria is correct, as applied throughout the discipline of geophysics, there isn't any force to hoist that much matter to that kind of elevation. The standard model doesn't even identify the force -- it just says that cooler oceanic crust sinks because it is heavier (even though it is actually warmer, and thus should be lighter). That would have the over-riding plate sucked forward by the void left by the sunken oceanic crust, which probably wouldn't throw up mountain ranges. So some other force had to be involved. Fischer made a detailed study of ALL of the plate motions, and demonstrated that it all makes sense if there was an impact between Madagascar and Africa.
RATCHETING PLATES
IMO, that explains how mountain ranges could have gotten thrown up, but it doesn't explain the ongoing plate motions. So I think that the force that sustains plate convergence is tectonic ratcheting. Essentially, when there is an earthquake, the plates in the subduction zone get hot. (There is pre-heating, and then there is the friction from the quake itself.) After the quake, when traction is restored between the plates, the cooling generates a tensile force that pulls the plates together. This creates the momentum for the next quake. Of course, that tensile force isn't greater than the compressive force that builds up, after the cooling is done, and when the momentum overshoots the equilibrium. But the cooling phase is long, while the quake phase is short. If the tensile force acts over a long period of time, while the equal-but-opposite compressive force only acts over a short period, the net force is tensile, and overall, this force will pull the continents together, even if there are brief episodes of compression.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:50 pm
SOLAR CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS
Lloyd wrote: CMEs: Do you think you understand them well enough yet to understand how the outline would go nearly all the way around the Sun?
The "ballooning" of CMEs is relatively common, and entirely outside of Newtonian mechanics, since the outward expansion is way beyond the speed of sound at that temperature, which is the maximum that a gas can expand into a pure vacuum. I consider this to be proof that the plasma is charged, and is expanding due to the Coulomb force. In my model, the top layer of the Sun (actually the topmost 20 Mm) is positively charged, and it's clinging tightly to a negative layer that goes from 20 Mm down to 125 Mm. An explosion within the top layer will break the matter away from that underlying negative layer. Then it is no longer being kept compact by its attraction to the negative layer, since it's too far away, and the electric force obeys the inverse square law. So the internal repulsion takes over, and the matter balloons outward.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:32 am
MOHO HEAT
Lloyd wrote: Moho Layer: Here's CC's paper on the Moho: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/11093.html. Charles, Wikipedia says "The Moho is characterized by a transition zone of up to 500 m thick.[6] Ancient Moho zones are exposed above-ground in numerous ophiolites around the world." Do you agree that the thickness is about 500 m? And what about the ancient Moho zones with ophiolites? If those are really ancient Moho zones, they should tell you what the present Moho layer is likely to consist of. Don't you think? Or could it vary? I'm looking to see if you mention in the paper what chemical/s the Moho consists of.
I recently calculated that the fluctuation in tidal forces raises and lowers the isobars within the Earth only about 1 m. The significance for the CFDL model is that whenever the pressure is relaxed, and thus the isobars shift downward, matter on the threshold for electron degeneracy pressure (EDP) can re-uptake electrons, since it is no longer forcibly ionized. Likewise, when the pressure is restored, the matter is re-ionized. Either way, whether electrons are flowing back into the matter, or flowing out, that's an electric current. And the matter that is between the upper & lower limits gets subjected to this current 4 times a day (2 ebbs and 2 flows). So the ohmic heating will build up. So this 1 m layer is likely the most accurate description of the Moho. I actually think that it has gotten so hot that it has become a supercritical fluid. As concerns the Moho being 500 m thick, I can see how some of that heat radiates into the surrounding rock, creating a somewhat thicker high-temperature zone. After all, the heat is fully contained, without any heat sinks, except for volcanoes. So it isn't going to be just 1 m of super-hot magma right next to ice cold solid rock -- the temperature will relax gradually moving away from the heat source. But the heat itself is all coming from that 1 m layer. I don't know what to make of ophiolites.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:55 pm
SUBCONTINENTAL BASALT
Lloyd wrote: Moho and Basalt Layers: The illustration in Figure 1 in your Moho paper led me to wonder if there is basalt under the granite continents. Do you think that's likely? Since the seafloors are mainly basalt, it seems likely that the entire Earth's surface or subsurface was basalt before the lunar impact produced the supercontinent. I suppose the basalt in the central area of the impact under the supercontinent was likely transformed chemically by the impact, but I'm guessing that most of the rest of the basalt under the supercontinent would have remained intact. Right?
Yes, I agree. The mantle is basaltic. So the basaltic oceanic crust is just the frozen outer layer of the mantle, while the continental granites float on top of the basalts in the mantle, and ride over oceanic crusts if there is a plate collision. The oceanic crust doesn't "subduct" because it is cooler, because it isn't -- it's actually warmer, but it's still heavier, because it's a different chemical that is more dense.
EXPANDING EARTH
Aardwolf wrote: {Expanding Earth formed Mountains.}
… Anyway, in consideration of the fact that rock has a much higher compression strength than tensile strength, if it's going to fraction due to a reduction in the degree of curvature, the crust will rift on the bottom, but without getting scrunched into mountains at the surface. So I'm still not convinced that expansion would cause mountain-building. Sorry.
Aardwolf wrote: Why did no marsupials from SA cross the massive shared border with Africa nor the AUS marsupials cross the massive shared border with Asia?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe the climate favored their existence only at the very tip of South America, on Antarctica, and into Australia. As a general rule, it's tough to prove things by an absence of evidence against, and this is especially true when the evidence is hard to get anyway. For example, does a missing link between apes and man prove that man was created ex nihilo? Hardly. Does an absence of marsupial fossils in Africa prove that marsupials could only have gotten to Australia by the Pacific route? No. It might just prove that we haven't dug up enough of Africa to know for sure.
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: No, the North American plate is twisting.
Firstly, where did you get that information?
Wikipedia. Look it up for yourself. (If you're going to tell me to go look up the information supporting your arguments, I'll do the same to you back-atcha.)
Aardwolf wrote: Secondly the Gakkel Ridge is clearly divergent.
Actually, as an extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the general scheme is that "subduction" in the Pacific is pulling Asia and the Americas toward each other, with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (including the Gakkel Ridge) opening up as a consequence. Your conclusion that everything is moving northward relative to the South Pole, and southward relative to the North Pole, is unsupported.
Aardwolf wrote: Your other serious problem is that evidence suggests the continents in the northern hemisphere are actually heading south and there isn't nearly enough subduction to hide all this supposedly converging crust.
Another thing that you should consider is that divergence, in the (supposed) absence of sufficient convergence, might be evidence of crustal shrinkage due to cooling.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Dec 19, 2014 6:20 pm
COMETS CHARGE
Lloyd wrote: Comets
Here's a post about comets: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15443&start=60#p102766. Comet jets are discussed briefly. Charles, you say comets have induced double layers, negative on the solid surface and positive in the center, I think. Would jets likely be the result of electric discharge currents between the layers?
You're one step ahead of me. Viscount Aero pointed out that there is no evidence that the jets emanate from the interior of the comet, which leaves surface discharges as the only reasonable explanation. As the boundary layer gets charged up by frictional charge separation, perhaps it is sucking electrons from within the comet?
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:02 am
ENERGY STORED IN BODIES
Lloyd wrote: I've been trying to get MM and his supporters to see that it's likely absurd to suppose that the energy {in stars & planets} isn't stored. All it should take to realize that is that the Sun puts out way more radiation than it receives.
I agree. The solar radiation at 1 AU is 1367 watts per square meter, with 1050 watts per square meter making it all of the way through the atmosphere to hit the surface of the Earth. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight) And this is coming {from} the Sun, which produces 63 million watts per square {meter}, as you said. That has to come from somewhere. Brant is brewing an idea that the Sun is a huge antenna, which picks up waves that we cannot detect, because we don't have anything big enough. Then, the EM energy is thermalized, producing the heat & light that we get. It's an interesting idea, but I still think that we have to fully investigate the things that we can see, before we postulate the existence of things we can't.
Lloyd wrote: If we can show that way more radiation is emitted by the Sun than is received by it, it should be easy to prove that most of the Sun's energy is stored. Do you agree? And if we prove that, I think it would be almost incumbent on them to study your model of accretion for explaining how energy is likely stored in stars and planets during formation.
There will never be a way to prove that no energy is being received from external sources, especially if there is some reason why it isn't detectable by normal instrumentation. For that matter, there is no way to prove that cold dark matter doesn't exist, if it is defined as being something that defies detection by ordinary instrumentation. But we can tally up the effects of the known forces, and that might leave very little on the table for CDM proponents to explain. Likewise, for external energy sources to the Sun, IMO we should first make a thorough investigation of the known forces. If that makes a full accounting of the solar energy budget, then we never disproved any alternate theses, but we will have focused attention on what produces the lion's share of the energy.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:49 pm
Lloyd wrote: How much Energy Stored in DLs?
Are you able to calculate how much potential energy there is between the double layers in the Sun or the Earth?
I calculated that a total of 6.67 × 1046 J went into the Sun originally, mainly as energy stored in the momentum of the implosion. The fact that the matter didn't bounce off of itself means that the kinetic energy was converted to electrostatic potential.
Lloyd wrote: If a planetoid did not experience tidal forces, would the stored energy in its double layers be able to be released some other way? Wouldn't such a planetoid be able to remain a planetoid indefinitely, as long as it doesn't get hit by too large an impactor?
Yes, the energy can stay trapped inside a dead star/planet, until/if/when there is a collision sufficient to blow it apart, and release all of the potential. And of course that collision will happen sooner or later. Then the whole cycle repeats.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:33 am
SOURCES OF PLANETS’ ATMOSPHERES
Lloyd wrote: Is outgassing by a planetoid likely the source of its atmosphere?
The atmosphere could have simply been left over from the stellar phase. Also, at least some of it could have been scavenged from the solar wind.
Lloyd wrote: What would cause the outgassing?
I don't know. We know that magma can contain lighter elements, which sometimes come out of solution explosively when the magma reaches the surface, and the pressure that was keeping everything liquid is removed. In other words, explosive eruptions are sometimes the consequence just of steam pressure getting released. So why didn't the water just bubble up through the magma? The answer is that the magma is too thick for buoyancy to drive mass separation. And deeper inside the Earth, the magma is thicker still. So I don't go with the conventional concept of outgassing, as just buoyancy.
Lloyd wrote: Would you agree that Earth and Mars must have lost a lot of their atmospheres, since the megafauna and megaflora on Earth needed thicker air; and Mars, as you said, likely had torrential rains, which filled an ocean, when the air was thicker there, I presume?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: Aren't the existing atmospheres then likely an indication that Venus, Mars and Earth were also satellites of Saturn, like Titan still is?
I don't see the correlation. Saturn certainly still has a lot of atmosphere. I agree that Mars and Earth used to have a lot more than they have now. But that doesn't necessitate that the rocky planets were once satellites of Saturn.
POSSIBLE CFDL EARTH EXPANSION
Lloyd wrote: When you say weakening electric forces in the past would have allowed Earth to expand, how much expansion and what electric forces are you talking about? Do you mean the electric forces between the Double Layers in the Earth?
Yes -- there is a force feedback loop that starts with momentum (from the planet-forming implosion) and gravitational loading, and includes electron degeneracy pressure. The result is current-free double-layers, and the electric force between them binds them together. Relax the gravitational loading and the whole force feedback loop relaxes, including a reduction in the electric force that is pulling the layers together. But I truly have no idea how much expansion could have occurred.
SUPERCONTINENT FORMATION
Lloyd wrote: Do you think the impact that gave Earth its supercontinent would have weakened the DL electric forces?
I don't know -- I don't see why it would.
SATURN SYSTEM BREAKUP
Lloyd wrote: ...can you think of anything that could very plausibly have caused those planetoids to separate from the Saturn system and move to their present orbits?
Such planets "could have been" captured from the interstellar space, but then they'd be in highly elliptical orbits. To achieve a more circular orbit, there would have to be a near perfect collision, to alter the momentum. For this to happen to one of them would be a very, very rare occurrence, but hey, the Universe is a big place, so there's room for rare occurrences somewhere in there. For this to happen to two planets would be a near impossibility, statistically speaking. For this to happen to all of them would require unknown forces.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:29 am
PLANETS’ STELLAR PHASE & ATMOSPHERE
Lloyd wrote: I thought you said planetoids as small as the Moon and smaller could have accreted in the electric GMC implosion. If so, most such planetoids would not have had a stellar phase.
No, they all would have had a stellar phase. In fact, in a sense, they're still in it, if you consider a dark brown dwarf or a black dwarf to still be a star. So what I meant by "stellar phase" was when it had active discharges visible at the surface. The Earth still discharges continuously, and like the other planets, its internal heat sources keep it hotter than it would have a right just from solar radiation. But the discharges are under the crust, in the Moho, and thus do not produce any radiation directly -- only the infrared radiation from the heat so produced is visible from space. So we call the Earth a planet and not a star. Anyway, the Earth would have been much larger, perhaps a gas giant, early in its life, while all that we have left is the heavy-element core of the star, and a little bit of the atmosphere. Hence the nitrogen and oxygen didn't necessarily come out of the rocky interior -- they might have been there the whole time.
Lloyd wrote: Looks to me like a stellar atmosphere or stellar wind would only leave hydrogen.
92 different elements have been detected on the surface of the Sun, with most of it being hydrogen and helium, but with traces of just about everything else. I believe that deeper inside the Sun, the ratio of heavy-to-light elements gets greater. So if the Sun could no longer hold onto its hydrogen/helium outer atmosphere, it would reveal the next deeper layer, which is carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.
ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION
Lloyd wrote: Do you deny that it's possible for planets to move linearly through space like the SL9 comet fragments moved linearly through space? If so, why?
The planets could have moved through interstellar space, and they could have been captured by the Sun. If they were in highly elliptical orbits, that would answer all of the questions. But to be in nearly circular orbits, force would have to be applied, to alter the momentum. This force could not have been delivered instantaneously, in a collision, because that would have blown the planet apart. So it had to be a powerful force, acting over a long period of time. (That would seem to rule out the possibility of all of this happening very recently.) So what is that force, that could alter a highly elliptical orbit into a nearly circular one? Was it a force that is no longer being exerted, and thus it doesn't show up on any instrument? Or was it some other kind of force that hasn't been discovered yet? All that I'm saying here is that there are a lot of unknowns.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:50 pm
PLANETS FROM STARS?
Lloyd wrote: Crowded Star Systems? Charles, how could the solar system have been filled with hundreds or thousands of stars that mostly decayed into planetoids? Where's evidence that there are any star systems with so many stars in such close proximity to each other?
An implosion of a perfectly homogeneous dusty plasma would have produced one star, and no planets. But irregularities in the plasma would have resulted in multiple centroids, which could have formed multiple stars. How many stars could form this way? I dunno. We know of plenty of binary and even trinary stellar systems. The fact that we don't know of systems with higher numbers of stars isn't terribly surprising -- if every planet in our solar system was a star, it would still look like just a point source to our nearest stellar neighbor. So it's possible that systems with dozens of stars have formed out of the same imploding dusty plasma -- we just don't have telescopes that can resolve such systems. I don't know about hundreds of stars though. Maybe there's a limit to the number of stars that could be packed into something the size of our solar system.
ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION 2
Lloyd wrote: Circularized Orbits? Could not the Saturn system have been on a slowly decaying spiraling orbit around the Sun, till the system approached the orbit of Saturn at nearly a circular orbit? And could not the 4 bodies have peeled off one by one, starting with Earth and Moon, then Mars and then Venus? Could not the 4 have had their orbits circularized within 1,000 years, which is about the length of time of the ice age after the Great Flood and the Shock Dynamics event? Wouldn't electric forces behind Bode's Law have helped circularize the orbits? Wouldn't space debris and the solar wind have helped circularize the orbits as well?
I'm brewing an idea about Bode's Law that might help here, because I do think that there is a force that coerces planets into circular orbits. I don't know if it would do the job on your time-frame, but then again, I'm not even sure that it's real -- it's just an idea. Anyway, my calculations with dusty plasmas showed that charged particles with atmospheres actually repel each other, since the bodies are negatively charged, and the atmospheres are positively charged, and this means that the nearest aspects of two bodies will be the positively charged atmospheres, which repel each other. (The atmospheres have to be stripped off to get a net attraction.) So perhaps the planets repel each other, meaning that you'll get a finite number of them in any given space. So how does that account for Bode's Law? Well, in the inner solar system, the Sun's gravity is a bigger factor, so the electrostatic repulsion has less of an effect relative to gravity, and there can be more planets packed into a tighter space. Further away from the Sun, gravity is less of a factor, so electrostatics becomes more influential, and you'll get fewer planets per volume. And at what rate does the Sun's gravity fall off? That would be the inverse of the square of the radius. And at what rate do the orbits increase in Bode's Law? That's a doubling function, so it's a logarithmic increase, just as you get a logarithmic decrease in gravity. I haven't run the numbers, but there is at least a possibility that the balance between gravity and electrostatics defines the number of planets allowed in any given volume. (Does that make sense?)
Anyway, with that as the forcing mechanism, you'll get the fixed distribution that we see now. And it wouldn't matter whether than star/planets all formed at the same time, from the same imploding dusty plasma, or some were captured after the fact -- you get a certain number of slots to fill. So that does leave open the possibility that one or more planets were captured, and that their highly elliptical orbits were coerced into circular orbits by a "mystery force" that might turn out to be electrostatic repulsion between planets. Still, I'm having a hard time believing that it could have happened in just decades or centuries. I think that all of the planets achieved their present orbits before Theia impacted with Ceres, creating the asteroid belt, and setting the stage for the Late Heavy Bombardment, before going on to impact the Earth. Those events were definitely not within human memory, nor any other life form on Earth, because nothing survived.
SOURCE OF MYTHS
Lloyd wrote: And why are you so dismissive of the EU team's findings about ancient myths, which suggest such a scenario?
As I've said before, I agree that the ancient myths are evidence that something happened. I'm just not sure that they have the right event. I like the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, for something that happened within human memory, that humans could have survived.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:50 am
PLANETS FROM STARS 2
nick c wrote: ...a star system composed of 20 or 30 stars all contained in the volume of a sphere with a radius comparable to Pluto's distance would be easily detected. Visual/telescopic identification is only one of several techniques used to detect multiple star systems, in fact most known multiple star systems were discovered through non visual methods.
Let's have a look at that -- if it bears out, it definitely spells trouble for the "stellar cluster" concept, but I'm not sure that the data can definitively rule out stellar clusters with 20~30 members. In optical binaries, the stars are far enough apart that they can be resolved by telescopes, but they have to be very far apart, with orbital periods of decades or centuries. Jupiter's orbital period is 12 years, making it relatively close to its companion (i.e., the Sun) and difficult to resolve optically from a distance. So consider Betelgeuse, whose radius is greater than the orbit of Jupiter -- are we really sure that all of its light is coming from "one star" and not a cluster? Another method of detecting binaries is with Doppler shifts, where one component of the spectrum gets blue-shifted when a companion is coming toward us, and red-shifted when it is moving away. Detecting such binaries requires that they be extremely close to each other and extremely massive, such that the orbital period is extremely small, producing the extreme velocities necessary for detectable Doppler shifts. None of the planets in our solar system have the required velocities. Another method is observing gravitational wobbles, by which the presence of a dead companion can be inferred. But that requires that the extinct star be massive enough to cause a wobble big enough to be detected in the period of time since we've been making high-precision measurements. And it's an odd configuration, in which the more massive companion has already burned out. In the case of the Sun versus Jupiter, the primary star is still burning, and the companion does generate a gravitational wobble on the primary, where the Sun moves a distance greater than its own diameter through the cycle, but that's a small wobble when viewed from Betelgeuse. My take is that such methods can, in some cases, reveal that something that was previously considered to be a point source is actually a binary (or trinary, etc.), but if none of these methods can resolve companions, it doesn't prove that there is just one star.
Also, we have to test Stellar Metamorphosis with its own definitions, not with somebody else's. If you acknowledge that half of the stars in the Universe have been shown to have more than one point source, and that some trinary systems have been detected, but very few systems with more than three stars have been detected, while far more systems have been shown to host exoplanets, whose definition of "planet" are you using? You might be assuming the conclusion. If the definition of a planet is that it is something that inexplicably produces more heat than it receives from its nearby star, StelMeta calls it a dark brown dwarf star, and we already have plenty of evidence in hand for stellar clusters with more than 3 components. And we should also acknowledge that IF the planets in our solar system were once more active, they didn't last long. Jupiter, with less than 1% of the Sun's mass, perhaps burned out 100 times faster. So if we're looking for similar systems elsewhere, we need to look for systems that are very early in their development -- after the star-forming implosion, and before the smaller components burned out, where the components were far enough apart to be resolved optically, or rotating fast enough to be identified with Doppler shifts, or massive enough to be detected by gravitational wobbles, and close enough to us for high-precision measurements. My conclusion is that it isn't time to start ruling out possibilities.
nick c wrote: Anyway, if Jupiter and it's moons, Saturn and it's moons, Uranus and it's moons, Neptune and it's moons, Venus, Mercury, Earth, Moon, Mars, and maybe a few asteroids were all stars they would have shined as stars at different periods with perhaps millions of years separating their reigns (as suns). How did they get to orbit the youngest (the Sun) member of the group? Which probably had not even formed when any of the planets were stars.
I "think" that Jeffrey & I disagree on this -- I'm saying that everything in our solar system formed at the same time, from the same imploding dusty plasma, and that the smaller companions burned out faster. I "think" that Jeffrey has different components forming at different times, so stars might have more-or-less the same lifespan, and young ones are still burning, while old ones have already burned out, and are now dark brown dwarfs. But this begs questions concerning the forces necessary for star formation. In my model, it takes a lot of extra energy, stored in the momentum of the imploding dusty plasma, to fuse the matter into a star. So stars don't slowly accrete matter until they reach the critical threshold for ignition -- the matter has to be slammed together with a lot of force, and that would have happened only once for any given system.
nick c wrote: Maybe you better go with Jeffrey's explanation .... capture. But that seems slightly ad hoc. Sure capture is a real phenomenon but using it to explain the present order of the solar system seems to require an unrealistic length of time.
I agree, and that, along with your comment about the ecliptic plane, are problematic for the Saturnian Theory as well. So while I allow the possibility of capture, I favor the single implosion concept.
Aardwolf wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: Maybe there's a limit to the number of stars that could be packed into something the size of our solar system.
There certainly is, and I would say it's roughly 1.
More than half of the known stars have binary companions. Nobody told them that we prefer fairly ordered stellar systems.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:04 am
nick c wrote: However, it is quite a large leap to go from one or two undetected companion stars to placing 20 or 30 stars in a sphere with a radius of 40 AU. Given current techniques any such configuration would be easily detected if it were anywhere in our galactic neighborhood (and our neighborhood encompasses hundreds if not thousands of stars).
By what current techniques would a tight cluster of 30 stars necessarily be detectable?
nick c wrote: There could be an unseen companion or two, but a cluster...no. Betelgeuse has been resolved as a disc.
Well of course -- all stars, including binaries & trinaries, started out looking like point sources -- until the resolution was improved, and then the discrete components could be identified. So just because it looks like a disc doesn't mean that it IS one -- it just means that at that resolution, nothing smaller can be resolved.