MOST THOROUGH MODEL-3
STARS, SUPERCRITICAL, GERMAN, DUST, FILAMENTS, SATURN, RAIN, CAPTURE, SQUASHED, Z-PINCH 2, COMET, ORBIT, RADIATION, ARMS, S-WAVES, DWARF, ATMOSPHERE, IMPLOSION, COLLISION, DISCHARGE, WIND, DESTINY
CONTENTS
STAR SYSTEMS FORMATION -- SUPERCRITICAL FLUID PLASMA -- GERMAN FORUM DISCUSSION -- DUST GRAINS TO INTERSTELLAR FILAMENTS -- FILAMENT TO SATURN SYSTEM -- RAIN MAKING -- WAS SATURN SYSTEM CAPTURED? -- Z-PINCH -- PLANET CAPTURE 2 -- SQUASHED STAR V. SUN -- Z-PINCH 2 -- ORIGIN OF METEORS -- PLANE OF THE PLANETS -- PLANETS CAPTURE 3 -- HALLEY’S COMET ELLIPTICAL ORBIT -- PLANETS CAPTURE 4 -- Z-PINCH 3 -- PLANETS CAPTURE 5 -- STELLAR RADIATION -- GALACTIC SPIRAL ARMS -- SOLAR S-WAVES -- PLANETS CAPTURE 6 -- BROWN DWARF STAR ATMOSPHERE -- GAS CLOUD IMPLOSION -- STARS FORM FROM FILAMENTS -- REPULSION V. COLLISION -- ELECTRIC DISCHARGE MACHINING -- SOLAR WIND DESTINY -- SUN’S DESTINY
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:31 pm
STAR SYSTEMS FORMATION
Lloyd wrote: I think the star systems where exoplanets have been found have not shown more than 2 or 3 stars within them, so I doubt still that star systems would start out crowded, as you contend.
There again, it depends on how you define a star versus a planet. If those exoplanets are just stars that have already burned out, or never quite got to the ignition pressure, then we already have evidence of "stellar systems" with many more members than just 2 or 3.
Lloyd wrote: B- 3. Supernova electric shock waves knock the sheaths off the grains, leading to filamentation and a powerful implosion.
If each Debye cell is a negative dust grain surrounded by a positive sheath, multiple Debye cells actually repel each other, because the positive sheaths are like-charged, and they are the nearest aspects of neighboring cells, so the inverse square law dictates that the repulsion between the like-charged sheaths will dominate. With only 1 charged particle in 1016 neutrals, the net electrostatic repulsion is 5 times greater than the net gravitational attraction. But if something, such as a gas cloud collision, or the ejecta from a supernova, blows the sheaths off of the dust grains, the electrostatic configuration changes.
Before (net repulsion):
PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP
After (net attraction):
NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN
With the positive sheaths repositioned to the space between the negative dust grains, all of the dust grains are attracted to the positively charged space between them, yielding a net attractive body force over 1000 times more powerful than gravity. And since gas cloud collisions have a directionality to them, the electric lines of force will be aligned to the vector of the collision, causing the plasma to collapse parallel to the vector of the collision (i.e., in filaments). I can go into more detail on that if you want.
Lloyd wrote: A-C 5. Further layers may be induced or accreted, forming a planet or star, containing several CFDLs, or current-free double-layers.
Lloyd wrote: And regarding the fifth point, if you contend that the smallest body formed in accretion is a star, I question exactly what it is that would prevent smaller CFDL bodies from accreting directly within various parts of GMCs {giant molecular clouds}.
I no longer think in terms of "accretion", as in vapor deposition, or gravitational collapses, because I don't think that gravity is strong enough, and the hydrostatic pressure should preclude it. And if it's an ionized gas (i.e., plasma), electrostatic repulsion between Debye cells will definitely preclude it. But I definitely think that smaller CFDL bodies can form, perhaps down to the size of the larger moons in our solar system. It just depends on how homogeneous the implosion is. If it all implodes on precisely the same point, you get one star, and no planets or moons. Then again, irregularities in the imploding plasma might result in multiple centroids, and thus multiple objects getting formed. Now, how many of those are stars, versus planets or moons? That depends on your definition of stars, planets, and moons.
I agree with Jeffrey that there is not a difference in kind between these. But I could say that if the object is large enough that charge recombination produces visible radiation, it's what most people would call a star. If it's like the Earth, with charged double-layers but where there aren't any sustained discharges at the surface, it's what most people would call a planet. So my "crowded stellar systems" are what others would call just a single/double/triple stellar system crowded with planets. Still, if gravity is insufficient to build aggregates, that means that it can't build stars OR planets OR moons, and we have to look elsewhere for a mechanism up to the task. That's where the imploding dusty plasma comes into play, because it can overshoot the hydrostatic equilibrium, and ram the plasma together forcefully enough to separate charges via electron degeneracy pressure, and thus create CFDLs that cling together, preventing the hydrostatic rebound.
Lloyd wrote: A- 6. The CFDLs explain most features of the Sun and several features of planets.
Yep.
SUPERCRITICAL FLUID PLASMA
Lloyd wrote: Charles, do you happen to know of any images of supercritical plasma in a lab, like that in the photosphere, that shows a distinct surface in double layers? I'd like to have images to show the difference between a distinct electric plasma surface and a fuzzy gravitational atmosphere.
In the laboratory, the only way to get supercritical fluids is with pressure supplied from all sides, so you're not going to get a "surface" like there is on the Sun. The closest that you can come to this effect is just to show double-layers that build up around any charged object. For instance, if you apply a couple thousand volts to a needle grid, you'll get a corona in the air surrounding it, possibly visible as a glow discharge. That's a charged double-layer. But it's nowhere near supercritical. Inside the Sun, supercriticality is only achieved when you get down to 4 Mm below the surface, where the combined electric and gravitational loading have accumulated to the point that the pressure is sufficient. (In the standard model, gravity alone does the work, and supercriticality isn't achieved until you get down to 125 Mm below the surface.) But I could try to scare up some images of coronas -- I'll look for images in hydrogen, which should produce a more distinct "surface" due to its high ionization energy.
GERMAN FORUM DISCUSSION
Bomb20 wrote: For the purpose of information:
In a thread about Pulsars on this German forum about the Plasmauniverse I (Hannes) mentioned ideas of the Thunderbolts and Mr Charles Chandler in mid-October 2014. Some lines of CC came under heavy criticism by a member named "Bambi" (18 Oct 2014, 15:48), another participant (wl01) of the discussion felt his own ideas/model supported by CC´s ideas.
See: http://viaveto.yooco.de/forum/show_thread.html?id=1135689&p=3
Can you briefly summarize the points, for the English speaking crowd here?
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:26 pm
DUST GRAINS TO INTERSTELLAR FILAMENTS
Lloyd wrote: {GMC} Dust Grains & Sheaths. Does the line of "PNNP"s mean a line of N's surrounded by P's, where N is Negative dust grain and P is Positive sheath?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: Does the line of "NN --P--P--"s that forms after the "PNNP"s get hit mean that the N's, or dust grains, clump together, while the P's, or sheaths, repel each other between the grains?
Yes -- the dust grains ("NN") still stick together, but the sheaths around them get shifted off of the nuclei, and they were never sticking together anyway, so I'm showing them as "--P--P--". Since I have covered this in greater detail elsewhere, I thought I could get away with being terse. Anyway, the result is that the negative nuclei are attracted to the shared positive charge between them, creating a net body force that causes the implosion of the dusty plasma.
Lloyd wrote: Have you calculated approximately all of the major forces and energies involved from beginning to end of a GMC formation and implosion all the way to the formation of star systems? Like how much energy is involved in the ionization of dust grains and sheaths phase, in the supernova shockwave phase (or the collision phase between two GMCs, or between GMCs and something else), and in the implosion phase?
I have done most of that. At the very beginning, how much UV radiation from a supernova it would take, to get how much ionization in the Debye cells, would be a good topic for a research effort. I based all of my calculations on one charged particle in 1016 neutrals, because that's all it took for the electric force to be more powerful than gravity. And that's a very small charge. You have more of a surface charge than that with respect to the air surrounding your skin right now, and you're (probably) not sitting under a UV lamp.
Anyway, the next missing piece is how much friction in a gas cloud collision would cause how much separation between the sheaths and the nuclei. This would be tough to calculate to any degree of precision. Slight variations in the velocities and trajectories of the gas clouds could have dramatic effects on the friction. And of course any randomization would be chaotic turbulence. This brings to mind a famous quote:
Horace Lamb wrote: I am an old man now, and when I die and go to heaven there are two matters on which I hope for enlightenment. One is quantum electrodynamics, and the other is the turbulent motion of fluids. And about the former I am rather optimistic.
Another issue that I'm knocking around is whether or not the Debye nuclei would form into lines -- I think that they would. Imagine two armies marching through each other, without friction, as long as the rank & file of the one can slip through the rank & file of the other. I "think" that the electrostatic forces would favor this in a collision of two masses comprised of Debye cells. If so, the sheaths would get stretched into comas, and the comas would be pointing right at the next nuclei in the line. As such, the body force would be linear, running parallel to the vector of the collision. This would make for a linear collapse. In other words, if each soldier was surrounded by an insulating halo, filling up the space between each soldier, when the two armies march through each other, these halos will get streamlined down the files of soldiers going in each direction. And if the halos are providing the mutual attraction between the soldiers, the files will collapse length-wise, not width-wise. So this is what I mean by the gas cloud collision favoring filaments that collapse, instead of spheres that collapse.
Unfortunately, simulating this would take a supercomputer. So I was satisfied just with having identified a force far more powerful than gravity, and which only required one charged particle in 1016 neutrals. Then I ran out the numbers for how fast the plasma would actually get going, which turned out to be 86% of the speed of light! We know that EM forces can do this, since speeds above 99% of the speed of light have been achieved in particle accelerators using EM forces, and that's in a much shorter period of time. Anyway, from there, the energy budget works out just fine, having double-checked it several different ways. So I'm satisfied that the general paradigm is correct, and I "think" that the next step will be simply to start putting more attention into the presentation of these ideas, with better writing and illustration.
FILAMENT TO SATURN SYSTEM
Lloyd wrote: And with the directionality of the filaments, would it be possible for several planets/stars to form and then travel in a line until they get captured by a star system, as per the Saturn Theory?
Theoretically, yes. It's possible that a filament collapsed, while some of the stuff made it through the implosion without actually hitting anything substantial, and came zipping out the other side. Interestingly, there would even be reason to believe that a collection of them would have formed into a single file. If my idea about "Debye sheath comas" is correct, then any body with an oppositely charged atmosphere will get that atmosphere stretched into a coma if there is any friction at all, and a cluster of bodies traveling in the same direction would tend to form into a single file, because there would be less friction that way, and because each body would be attracted to the coma of the body in front of it, which would keep it from straying. In time, the bodies would space themselves out in this single file, since they would be attracted to the positive charge between them, in the comas, but they would repel each other, favoring a specific distance between them.
Now, how do you get the Sun to capture this single file "planet parade" and convert the highly elliptical orbits into near circular orbits? This is when you have to start talking about attractive and repulsive forces, that set up distributions, which will result in each planet falling into a discrete orbit. The electrostatic forces in my model have that property -- the bodies are only attracted to each other up to a point, but if they get too close, the attraction turns into repulsion. If you were allowing gazillions of years for this, I'd say "maybe".
Lloyd wrote: Planetoids. Have you determined that all stars/planets that form in the implosion would start out with thick atmospheres, which would make the small planetoids appear initially much larger than the solid central objects?
I'm not sure.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:47 am
RAIN MAKING
Lloyd wrote: Rain and Snow Making. In your other thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15230&p=103266#p103238 you explained that water molecules in the air need dust in order to condense, because of its opposite charge. I assume that's how cloud seeding works then. They used to seed them with silver iodide crystals, if I remember right (and judging by a cursory web search, that's right). That seems expensive. Can you think of any cheap ways to seed clouds to make rain or snow etc?
Cloud seeding with silver iodide has been done operationally since the late 1940s in the US, and I suppose that they have already tried different chemicals, finding that silver iodide still works the best. Seeding a cloud only takes 10–50 grams of it, so I suppose that the plane & pilot cost more than the chemicals, and they're not looking for a cheaper chemical. (?) The basic idea was developed by Irving Langmuir and Vincent Schaefer, who used dry ice, while Bernard Vonnegut was the one who realized that silver iodide would work better. This is because it has a hexagonal crystal similar to water ice, while if I'm right, it also has to do with how easily silver accepts free electrons, thus producing a negative ion that will attract positively ionized water vapor. BTW, Vonnegut was the one who went on to be the primary proponent of electric tornado theory for 40 years, and who collected the data that lays the foundation for all of my work on the topic.
Lloyd wrote: Water molecules supposedly have positive and negative poles. So why wouldn't they attract each other's opposite poles?
If those were all point charges, they would. But the electrons, with their high velocities, act as space charges (i.e., distributed charges) surrounding the atoms. So in my model, the "atmosphere" of negative charge surrounding the positively charged atomic nuclei produces the Debye cell repulsion (due to the inverse square law) that accounts for why water molecules don't spontaneously nucleate, and rather require the presence of an existing solid (because it can become a negative ion that attracts +ions).
Lloyd wrote: Would a laser help precipitation by ionizing molecules? Or are normal air molecules too small?
Ionization is a necessary part of the process, since you need the dust grain to get negatively charged from free electrons, in order to attract the +ions that gave up those electrons. At the top of the cloud, there is plenty of UV radiation from the Sun to ionize the molecules. Inside the cloud, the UV has already been blocked, being easily absorbed by aerosols above it. Ground-based UV emitters would work the same way, but would have the same problem -- the ionizing radiation would get absorbed by any raindrops below the target altitude. So you'd really need to get the UV emitter up inside the cloud.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:49 am
WAS SATURN SYSTEM CAPTURED?
Lloyd wrote: The image here https://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/help/images/helio3.gif shows that Halley's Comet is out of the plane of the ecliptic quite a bit, so it looks to me like that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized. Don't you agree?
What would the ecliptic have to do with it?
Lloyd wrote:
At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-balloon-goes-up-over-lightning Thornhill said: Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.
Is that the planetary coma you were talking about?
Yes. It would be interesting to see if there are any associated "gravitational anomalies".
Thornhill wrote: Extrasolar planets [] have strange, highly elliptical orbits. They are also far closer to their stars than equivalent planets in our Solar System [] most at a distance of less than 2 astronomical units. [] In terms of mass, the new planets are similar to Jupiter, weighing between one-tenth and ten times as much — the majority fall between 0.75 and 3.0 Jovian masses.
It might just be that very massive planets in highly elliptical orbits are easier to detect, so they dominate the statistics.
Thornhill wrote: At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/assembling-the-solar-system he said: At the 39th annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas, Kevin McKeegan (UCLA) announced that the Sun has proportionately far more oxygen-16, relative to oxygen-17 and -18, than is present in terrestrial seawater. There’s a serious mismatch. Instead, the solar ratios follow the same trend seen in primitive meteorites. Suddenly, Earth is the odd planet out.
That's interesting, but it doesn't prove capture. It might just be evidence that the Earth was once a star, and that all that is left is the core, and it has heavier isotopes than are found at the surface of the Sun, which is still an active star. Maybe there are greater abundances of the heavier isotopes deeper inside the Sun. So solar and terrestrial abundances might be an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Z-PINCH
Thornhill wrote: 1988 I wrote that chondritic meteorites show all of the features to be expected of material that has been subjected to flash heating, acceleration, collision and ion implantation in a spatially restricted and compressed plasma stream, followed by sudden cooling. Isotopic modification by neutron bombardment and intense radiation are simply explained as the effects of a z-pinch plasma discharge.
Do solids rain down on the Earth after a lightning strike? If not, why not? That's definitely a z-pinched discharge. The bare-faced fact is that although the discharge does have an inward force (i.e., the z-pinch), as soon as the discharge stops, the inward force goes away. That leaves the superheated plasma free to expand. That's the opposite of condensation.
PLANET CAPTURE 2
Lloyd wrote: Are the inclinations good evidence that the planets were captured by the Sun and not formed with the Sun?
I would sooner conclude that the planetary preference for the ecliptic favors in situ evolution instead of capture, though I don't consider it to be proof.
Lloyd wrote: So, if all of the planets were in a line and entered the solar system close to the Sun's equatorial plane, and if they took 5,000 to 15,000 years or so to spiral in toward the Sun, could they not have arrived at their present circular orbits due to electric attraction and repulsion during each orbital conjunction? Or wouldn't spiraling in be possible?
What was the braking mechanism? Any object approaching the Sun from outside the solar system will surely be subject to the Sun's gravity. But just as surely, without any friction, it will exit the solar system with precisely the momentum that it had on entering. In other words, it will do a fly-by. To actually get captured, you need more than just gravity -- you need to eliminate some of the momentum. And the interplanetary medium appears to be virtually frictionless.
SQUASHED STAR V. SUN
Lloyd wrote: At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/squashed-star-flattens-solar-theory Thornhill discussed findings about a squashed star. Can the CFDL model accommodate squashed stars in which the equatorial diameter is say twice the polar diameter?
The CFDL model, all by itself, rather goes the other way, providing the additional inward force to eliminate oblateness, and therefore explains the Sun's lack of it. But I have another model for a totally different type of star, which has properties that do not intersect with main sequence stars: the "exotics" rotate very rapidly, producing extremely powerful magnetic fields, and they sometimes produce detectable bipolar jets. IMO, the "exotics" can only be explained as toroidal plasmoids. If we could resolve the forms of such stars, they wouldn't be spheres like the main sequence stars -- they'd be toroids. I'm considering the possibility that main sequence stars can get spun up into toroidal plasmoids, if something (such as passing through an external magnetic field) was accelerating the rotation. Perhaps the squashed star is in that transition.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:15 am
Z-PINCH 2
starbiter wrote: If the air was choked with dust and a huge positive lightning strike occurred rocks might rain from the sky. Think z pinch.
Ummm... no, I don't think that rocks would have rained from the sky, no matter how dusty the atmosphere. The temperature inside lightning is over 2,500 degrees Celsius. Not much is solid at that temperature. As soon as the discharge stops, the lightning channel collapses. The imploding ambient air actually creates a much greater density than the z-pinch, which would be a likelier source of solids, except for the fact that the heat is consolidated at the axis of the collapsed channel, and the temperature shoots up to 25,000 degrees Celsius. And absolutely nothing is solid at that temperature. Far from being a condenser, the extreme temperature inside the collapsed lightning channel causes it to expand supersonically, which is what causes thunder. The people who convinced you that z-pinches can form solids just aren't familiar with the properties of arc discharges (or if they are, and they're deliberately misrepresenting them). Think z-pinch all you want, but only a vivid imagination can get electric discharges to consolidate matter -- in the physical world, this doesn't happen. Ironically, another central piece of EU theory is that electric discharges can vaporize matter, in a process known as EDM, which stands for electrical discharge machining, where "machining" is the removal of material. That much is actually true, and well understood, considering the practical applications. So think about that for a second -- if an arc discharge is hot enough to vaporize matter, how does the same arc discharge condense matter? Well, it doesn't.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 11, 2015 2:32 pm
Hannes Alfvén wrote: That parallel currents attract each other was known already at the times of Ampere. It is easy to understand that in a plasma, currents should have a tendency to collect to filaments. In 1934, it was explicitly stated by Bennett that this should lead to the formation of a pinch. The problem which led him to the discovery was that the magnetic storm producing medium (solar wind with present terminology) was not flowing out uniformly from the Sun. Hence, it was a problem in cosmic physics which led to the introduction of the pinch effect…
Right. I'm not questioning the z-pinch effect, in the lab or in space, nor am I questioning Marklund convection. I'm questioning whether or not the z-pinch effect, in any of its forms, can be responsible for condensed matter, such as in star formation. What you don't realize is that you're going straight from the observation of filaments in space to the conclusion that the z-pinch is compressing the matter into stars, without bothering to look at the actual properties of a z-pinch. Show me a diagram that explicitly identifies all of the forces in a z-pinch, and I'll show you why those forces preclude condensation.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:43 am
ORIGIN OF METEORS
Lloyd wrote:
Thornhill wrote: In 1988 I wrote that chondritic meteorites show all of the features to be expected of material that has been subjected to flash heating, acceleration, collision and ion implantation in a spatially restricted and compressed plasma stream, followed by sudden cooling. Isotopic modification by neutron bombardment and intense radiation are simply explained as the effects of a z-pinch plasma discharge.
I wanted to see if you could say if the effects Thornhill mentioned there could be explained by your model. What about that?
I think that most meteorites are debris from the Theia~Ceres collision. The effects of flash heating, acceleration, collision, and ion implantation, following by sudden cooling, are therefore quite expected. The low densities of comets are also expected, if they were from deeper within Theia or Ceres, and were magma that cooled, forming pumice.
PLANE OF THE PLANETS
Lloyd wrote: Since the plane of the planets is about 6 degrees off from the solar equatorial plane, wouldn't that be more likely explained by all of the planets having come in from off of the Sun's plane? Or would your model say 6 degrees off is to be expected? If so, would it be expected for all of the planets? What would be the maximum discrepancy expected?
Well, there is no preference for 6 degrees -- all of the inclinations are different. So while the forces that defined the ecliptic dominated, there were still irregularities.
PLANETS CAPTURE 3
Lloyd wrote: You said the electric force between planets may be 5 times as great as the gravitational force. Right? So, if the Sun was attractive to the string of planets, wouldn't that overcome momentum? Wouldn't it act like friction?
No -- gravity and the electric force both are capable of accelerating objects, where potential gets converted to kinetic energy (i.e., momentum). But then the total kinetic energy of a foreign object is by definition in excess of the escape energy, because it had its original momentum, plus whatever it picked up from the attraction. In a non-lossy environment, capture doesn't happen.
HALLEY’S COMET ELLIPTICAL ORBIT
Lloyd wrote: The comas of the planets are in the plane of the planets, so, since Halley's Comet bypasses the planetary comas for the most part, that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized in over 2,000 years. Could it not?
Oh, I see what you mean now. Hmmm...
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:48 pm
PLANETS CAPTURE 4
Lloyd wrote: Could the Sun have had a disk of dust around it that would have captured a string of planets? Or could the string of planets have been captured after encountering Jupiter?
For capture to have occurred, the foreign objects had to have encountered friction. Yes, a dense atmosphere around the Sun could have done that, but if you're still talking about something that happened during human memory, now you have to figure out what happened to all of that dust.
Z-PINCH 3
Lloyd wrote: Do you know of any formula that tells how much pressure a z-pinch could put on a body?
First we have to understand the principles...
Lloyd wrote: On the left is an aluminum can pinched around the "waist" by the 2 kJ z-pinch and on the right a piece of copper tubing, I think, used as a lightning rod, which is shown pinched by the lightning apparently. Can you explain to EU supporters why that evidence fails? It's not easy for me to see how smashing hollow metal with a z-pinch would prove that a z-pinch in space would concentrate scattered dust into a ball of plasma.
Those two examples are totally different. The aluminum can experiment uses wire wrapped around the waist of the can, which induces an opposite current in the can, and which therefore generates an opposing magnetic field. Thus the can is crushed by the same force that drives electric motors -- magnetic pressure between opposing currents, and it isn't an example of the z-pinch. The hollow lightning rod IS an example of a z-pinch. The current flowed through the pipe, and the surrounding magnetic field tried to consolidate the current into a narrower charge stream. Ah but there wasn't a conductor running through the void inside the pipe, so the only way that the current could be consolidated was to narrow the radius of the pipe. This was easy to do since the pipe was heated, and didn't have its normal strength.
So what's the significance of this? Nobody is question{ing} that electric currents produce magnetic fields. Large currents produce large fields. 10,000 amps flowing through a pipe is a lot of current, and the magnetic field was very strong -- strong enough to cause the collapse of molten steel. So what? The question is whether or not a z-pinch can produce condensed matter. That's a question not addressed by high-voltage, short-duration discharges. When I have "tried" to get people to consider the issues pertaining to z-pinches condensing matter, I didn't succeed. But just to mention one of the issues that precludes condensation, a z-pinch in plasma will consolidate matter selectively, wherein the more highly ionized matter encounters more of a pinch, since it is generating a stronger magnetic field. But you're not going to form condensed matter out of highly ionized matter -- the electrostatic repulsion precludes it. You can get tighter-packed plasma, but you can't get condensed matter. I don't see a way around that.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:52 pm
PLANETS CAPTURE 5
Lloyd wrote: More on Saturn System Capture. Charles, you said thick dust in the solar system could have enabled capture of the Saturn system. Gary Gilligan says the ancient Egyptians and maybe others portrayed the Sun and the planets as red and he figured the color was due to a lot of dust in the inner solar system at that time. He said the dust seems to have settled out by about 2,000 years ago. If the planets initially had more elliptical orbits, they would have swept up the dust more quickly than with circular orbits, I presume. If there were more comets at that time, I think they would have swept up dust too. Do you agree?
It would have taken a LOT of dust to slow down planets. Remember that ionized gases have a very low viscosity, and plasma is frictionless. So to get the amount of friction that would be needed to slow down planets, making them candidates for capture, the interplanetary medium would have needed to be very thick, like the Earth's atmosphere.
Lloyd wrote: Source of Dust
When a star is formed, do you think it would likely have a lot of dust around it, as well as atmosphere?
No, I think that most of the matter gets compacted into the star. The mass of the interplanetary medium is almost nothing compared to the mass of the Sun and the planets. The gravitational collapse model has a thick accretion disc, but the electrostatic implosion model has everything reaching the centroid at pretty much the same time, and clanking together into one or more stars, leaving little left for atmospheres.
STELLAR RADIATION
Lloyd wrote: Stellar Radiation. Charles, would a star have to have one or more planets or companions in order to radiate energy and be visible? You say tidal forces produce waves on the inner solar boundary layer that allows charge recombination and radiation, I think. So the Sun would have had one or more planets, if it were visible. Wouldn't it? Cardona says the Sun became visible when the Saturn system entered the heliosphere. He also says Saturn was very dim before that too. I'm wondering if tidal forces began to affect both the Sun and Saturn at that point. Does that seem plausible? Or would the tidal forces on both have at least increased there? I guess the heliopause is about 120 AUs from the Sun. Any idea how quickly (electric) tidal forces would be transmitted between them?
Interesting question. Yes, tidal forces drive electric currents, inside the Earth, and inside the Sun as well. Sunspots are more numerous and more active when the planets exert their greatest forces on the Sun. But I don't think that this is the prime mover inside the Sun. There appear to be s-waves at a depth of 125 Mm inside the Sun, which are not related to tidal forces, and which are responsible for the heat that motivates supergranules. The surface effects are more complex, but the bottom line is that I don't think that tidal forces "ignited" the Sun.
Lloyd wrote: Solar Planets. If the Saturn system came from outside the solar system in a string, i.e. collapsed filament, is it likely that all of the planets came with it, since they're all pretty close to a common plane? Or might it be more likely that one or more were already circling the Sun, which would have allowed the Sun to radiate and be visible and that the Saturn string happened to enter into the same plane? And if there were one or more planets orbiting the Sun, would it have helped or hindered capture of the Saturn string? Do you have ideas how the Uranus system got its tilt, how Triton got its retrograde orbit, how Jupiter got its Great Red Spot and how Neptune got its Dark Spot?
I don't know the answer to any of those questions.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Jan 14, 2015 5:45 pm
GALACTIC SPIRAL ARMS
Lloyd wrote: It looks like O and B stars can only exist in higher density areas of a galaxy, i.e. in spiral arms. When they leave those areas, they explode as supernovae. If you accept that data, do you have an idea why they would do that? And, if they do explode, what form would they likely take after the explosion?
"Density waves" are astrobabble for "we can't explain spiral arms, so here's a pseudo-physical way of thinking about it that seems to make the phenomena more accessible". But the reality is that "density waves" as conceived don't obey the principles of wave propagation and dispersion, and therefore shouldn't exist. In my model, spiral arms are "whipper snappers" (referring to the practice of people forming in a line and holding hands and turning a circle, where the people on the end get accelerated).
This would only be possible if there is a force that gets stronger in filaments. Gravity does not, so it ain't that. That leaves the electric and magnetic forces. I think that it's the electric force. Positive and negative charges tend to fall into a linear form, because the like charges repel each other, while the opposites attract. This means that if they all line up in an alternating sequence of positives and negatives, there will be a lot more tensile strength in the line, because all of the like charges are shielded from each other by intervening opposites. In that sense, it's kinda like square dancing -- as long as there is a chick between you and the next guy, there probably isn't going to be a fight, but take the chick out of the picture, and the thing that happens is beer bottles are flying everywhere. So it's that mutual attraction to a shared opposite that is the organizing principle, which binds atoms together into molecules, farmers into dancing fools, solitary celestial bodies into stellar/planetary systems, and stellar/planetary systems into galactic spiral arms. The reason for the star formation on the leading edge of the spiral arms, producing the O and B stars (the brightest, bluest star types) is because the whipper snappers are plowing through the galactic medium, and the matter is getting compressed on the leading edge, forming stars. The O and B stars don't blow up -- they age into the older, yellower stars on the trailing edge of the spiral arm. Scientists don't really have a concept of stellar evolution, and they think that stars live and die precisely at the same point on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, but it's more reasonable to think that as the stars continue to radiate heat, they cool down, and thus they slide down the star types, starting at O, and slowly transitioning through B, A, F, G, ... This doesn't make sense in the mainstream model, in which the matter is just sitting there, and a "density wave" passes through it, but if the entire spiral arm is swinging around through the plasma, it makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense that the outer reaches of the arm are moving 5 times faster than they have a right. Their centrifugal force should cause them to fly off into intergalactic space. But if there is a tensile force there, which cannot be explained by gravity, but which can be explained by the electric force, it makes nothing but sense.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:26 pm
Lloyd wrote: One site said the spiral arms are only 5% denser than the disk between the arms. Does your galaxies paper explain that?
This isn't a critical issue in my model -- I'm just saying that "if" stars can get organized into a linear arrangement, there will be more electrostatic tensile force running through the line. The converse is that if the galaxy is rotating, the centrifugal force will stretch the stars into a linear form. Eventually, the spiral arms will vacuum up all of the matter between them as they swing through the plasma, but where in this evolution a particular galaxy might be is not a theoretical issue.
Lloyd wrote: Do you agree that the arms capture gas clouds and compress them to help start star formation in the clouds?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: I'm trying to understand if the Sun may have been in the spiral arm to begin with and if the Saturn string of planets may have formed from gas clouds that got swept up by the spiral arm and then entered the solar system. If so, I guess that would mean the Sun formed from an earlier gas cloud implosion.
Sorting that out would probably take more information than we have.
SOLAR S-WAVES
Lloyd wrote: Do you say the Sun would have radiated just about as much energy even if it had no planets, because of the S-waves at the 125 Mm depth?
I don't know how to weight the factors. The planets accentuate the solar cycle, which varies 0.1% is total power output. But I don't know how much of that 0.1% comes from the planets.
Lloyd wrote: What causes those waves? Resonance?
I suppose that just about any irregularity could have initiated them. Thereafter, the waves in the equatorial band found an harmonic frequency, being some multiple of the circumference of the Sun. The waves would accelerate, except for the fact that this would introduce destructive interference when the wavelengths got out of the harmonic frequency. So they are self-regulating.
Lloyd wrote: And the solar wind would have been almost as strong without planets too?
I "think" so.
PLANETS CAPTURE 6
Lloyd wrote: If the present solar system planets formed with the Sun, should the Sun not have greater angular momentum?
Why?
Lloyd wrote: For the theoretical Saturn string of planets to lose enough momentum after entering the solar system to get captured, they had to lose momentum somehow. What are the possible things they could have encountered in order to reduce their momentum?
1. a thick gas or dust cloud or solar atmosphere?
2. a strong solar wind?
3. one or more planets/planetoids or their atmospheres?
4. the Kuiper Belt or dust clouds there?
Can you rule any of those out as extremely improbable or impossible?
Within the relevant time frame, I think that they are all impossible, because I don't think that any of them were thick enough to do the job, at least not recently enough, if ever. Also, if there was any substantial amount of kinetic energy that needed to be thermalized, the incoming objects would have turned into fireballs. It would have taken a long time for the planets to cool down such that life would become possible.
BROWN DWARF STAR ATMOSPHERE
Lloyd wrote: Do you know of any way to determine the likely depths of Jupiter's and Saturn's atmospheres?
I haven't studied them in sufficient detail.
Lloyd wrote: Wouldn't a brown dwarf star have a large atmosphere?
A decaying star might have a big atmosphere. And I guess that any star could. The model that I'm using has all of the imploding dusty plasma reaching the center at pretty much the same time, like the way a stretched rubber band all reaches the center when it is let go. So in star formation, all of the matter is available for compression into the star itself. At least with our solar system, it seems that the Sun got the lion's share of it. It's at least theoretically possible that irregularities in the dusty plasma would have resulted in "late arrivals" that didn't contribute to the star formation itself, in which case the matter would form at atmosphere.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:34 pm
GAS CLOUD IMPLOSION
Lloyd wrote: Gas Cloud Implosion. Charles, you said a couple days or so ago that you could explain gas cloud implosions (leading to star formation) in more detail, if desired. I desire that. You say supernova effects or gas cloud collisions cause Debye cells in the clouds to line up linearly into filaments. Then what? Do the filaments contract/implode lengthwise? Or do adjacent filaments coalesce? If filaments each have PNPNPNPN charge arrangements, I don't see where there's room for contraction lengthwise, but I can see that adjacent filaments should snap together, like two strings of magnets aligned similarly by poles: NSNSNSNS.
The body force causing the collapse follows the electric lines of force. So if you had this...
P - N - P - N - P - N - P - N
...you'd get this...
P-N-P-N-P-N-P-N
...and eventually...
PNPNPNPN
In the case of a jet embedding itself in another gas cloud (such as the Pillars of Creation), the friction will be around the outsides of the jet. So that's where the Debye sheath stripping will occur, and the direction of the stripping will be parallel to the direction of the jet. Thus the general form of the collapse will be that the cylindrical boundary between the jet and the ambient cloud will collapse lengthwise. If it was a soda can standing upright on the road, and you ran over it with a car, that's what you'd get -- the top squashed down to the bottom, along the axis of the cylinder. This might resolve into stars as so many "beads on a string", such as those formed by SN 1987A. So if you had a section of a cylinder, parallel to the axis, you'd have two lines for where the section intersected with the walls of the cylinder...
wall: P - N - P - N - P - N - P - N
axis: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
wall: P - N - P - N - P - N - P - N
...which would collapse into this...
wall: P-N-P-N-P-N-P-N
axis: - - - - - - - - - - -
wall: P-N-P-N-P-N-P-N
...and then...
wall: PNPNPNPN
axis: - - - - - - -
wall: PNPNPNPN
...and eventually...
wall: star
axis: - -
wall: star
In top view (sighting along the axis of the cylinder), the stars would form a ring.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:37 am
STARS FORM FROM FILAMENTS
Lloyd wrote: Star Formation. Charles, is your axis empty? Looks to me like there should be a filament there.
If the axis is the center of a gas jet (such as the Pillars of Creation), the entire jet would have the same density, though only the outer surface of the jet, which encounters friction with the surrounding medium, would be the star forming region.
Lloyd wrote: Are your walls made of filaments?
The star forming region on the outer surface of the jet will be comprised of filaments, parallel to the axis of the jet. Imagine a row of needle bearings around a cylindrical housing. Each of those needle bearings can collapse length-wise into a roller bearing (so to say) at its center. This is where the star will form, if the entire filament collapses.
Lloyd wrote: How many filaments around each axis?
I don't see a reason for a specific number of them -- it would depend on the radius of the jet. I'm currently considering SN 1987A as a possible example of this (answering your later questions about possible examples). I count 27 beads on that ring. I suppose that a wider jet would have more.
Lloyd wrote: It seems to me that large filaments that form stars and planets must be made of several levels of sub-filaments. If you're going from molecule size to planet and star size, there must be lots of orders of magnitude.
I agree -- I'm trying to figure out which granularity actually corresponds to the star itself. Does the entire needle bearing collapse into one roller bearing in the middle? Or does the entire filament collapse into a stellar cluster? It will take a lot more research to begin to constrain the model to specific geometries at specific granularities.
REPULSION V. COLLISION
Lloyd wrote: Planetoidal Collisions. You say planets and stars should have charged comas that attract to a certain distance and below that distance they repel. So would that apply to asteroids and comets too? Would they be repelled from a planet? You have a model for meteor collisions that form thermonuclear explosion craters. Are meteors too neutral or too lowly charged to repel? I assume that bodies on close to head-on collisions might be going too fast for repulsion to prevent collision.
Yes -- an asteroid on a collision course with a planet, coming in at many kilometers per second, will go ahead and collide, despite the electrostatic repulsion (if any). With enough momentum, that's the determining factor, and if electric charges disagree, the excess charges will be sheared off, and the asteroid will continue toward the impact site.
ELECTRIC DISCHARGE MACHINING
Lloyd wrote: The EU model still relies a lot on EDM, or electric discharge machining. Do you explain in any of your papers why that's unlikely to work?
I started a folder for the various theories of crater & rille formation (though I didn't do much work on it): QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy / Comets, Asteroids, and Meteoroids / Craters & Rilles
SOLAR WIND DESTINY
Lloyd wrote: Solar Wind Destiny. You said a few weeks or more ago that you were trying to find out whether the solar wind leaves the solar system or remains within it or whether it recycles into the Sun. Have you been able to find anything out about that?
No, I haven't found anything new. The question is whether or not the interstellar wind is creating a heliospheric coma, but I haven't found any studies that went looking for it.
Lloyd wrote: Do you think one of those options is most likely? If so, which?
I'm currently entertaining the notion that all of the solar wind gets recycled. The density of the heliosphere out at the heliopause is so sparse that it almost wouldn't make much difference if there was a coma -- almost all of the mass of the heliosphere is within the first several of solar radii. So with respect to the Sun's mass budget, we really should be looking mainly at what goes on in the corona. There is "some" evidence of matter falling toward the Sun. Whether or not we could rationally say that the mass is the same as that ejected by CMEs is a different story. But I still consider it to be an open topic.
SUN’S DESTINY
Lloyd wrote: And what is the implication for finding each option to be true?
I guess the biggest difference is in the ultimate fate of the Sun. If it is losing mass, then eventually the electrostatic layers will come unglued, and the Sun will flare up as a red giant when the charged double-layers recombine. If the Sun is not losing mass, it will never come unglued, and it will simply get cooler with time.