MOST THOROUGH MODEL-4
DESTINY, CIRCUITS, FILAMENT, MARKLUND, GRB, NEBULA, CLUSTERS, STAR, GIANTS, SIZES, FLARE, CERES, MYTHS, JETS, ASTEROIDS, MIRA, CIRCULARIZATION, BOMBARDMENT, CHAOS, SYSTEM, CIVILIZATION, MANTLE, ELEMEN
CONTENTS
SUN’S DESTINY — NO ELECTRIC CIRCUITS IN SPACE — FILAMENT IMPLOSION V. MARKLUND CONVECTION — GAMMA RAY BURSTS — — CRAB NEBULA TORUS — STAR FORMING CHAIN REACTION — GLOBULAR CLUSTERS — CEU STAR FORMATION — RED GIANTS — STAR SIZES — — FLARE STARS — CERES, ORIGIN OF GRANITE — MYTHS & YOUNGER DRYAS — JETS V. GEYSERS — ASTEROIDS & METEORS — MIRA’S TAIL — ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION — LATE HEAVY BOMBARDMENT — RECENT SOLAR SYSTEM CHAOS — SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION — ANCIENT CIVILIZATION — WATER IN EARTH’S MANTLE? — HEAVY ELEMENTS IN PLANETS — ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION 2 — REPULSION BETWEEN PLANETS — ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION 3 — LATE HEAVY BOMBARDMENT — DATING CATACLYSMS — EARTH WAS A DWARF STAR — METEOR SIGHTINGS — COMETS — WATER IN EARTH’S MANTLE 2
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:48 pm
SUN’S DESTINY
Lloyd wrote: Cooling Sun. Charles, in your previous post above, you said if the Sun doesn't lose mass it will merely get cooler with time. How would it cool down?
If by no other means, the Sun will cool down simply because it is radiating energy, in the form of photons, and if the Conservation of Energy still holds, the Sun is losing energy, and get cooler in the process.
Lloyd wrote: What would happen to the outer layers as it cooled down?
As it cools, plasma becomes less capable of maintaining charge separations, and the +ions get neutralized by free electrons. With no net charge, the particles are no longer subject to compression due to electric fields in my model. This means that their density will obey just the Ideal Gas Laws, which prescribe a thinner atmosphere. As the atmosphere thins out, the gravity field gets weaker. This means less pressure on the underlying supercritical hydrogen that is producing the black-body radiation. At a lower pressure, supercritical hydrogen produces a lower frequency black-body spectrum -- it gets redder.
All in all, this sounds like the recipe for a "red giant", though I'm not sure how much of a "giant" it would actually be, and the mechanisms are very different from those in the mainstream model. Most significantly, I don't think that old main sequence stars undergo catastrophic end-of-life processes -- I think that they just keep getting cooler, and eventually just freeze over. So there, I'm in agreement with Jeffrey. I think that a lot of the stars that have been identified as red giants are not destined to become main sequence stars at all -- these are the formative stages of exotic stars, complete with supernovae and their "degenerate" remnants such as pulsars and white dwarfs.
NO ELECTRIC CIRCUITS IN SPACE
Lloyd wrote: Electric Circuits in Space. Here is my preliminary evaluation of the latest TPOD, Star Wires. y=Yes. m=Maybe. p=Probable. u=Unlikely. n=No. q=Author'sQuestion. x=Extraneous, A=VeryImportant. I'm copying here only the statements that I labeled "A" for VeryImportant. Would you like to comment on them and give your evaluation of these statements?
u,A<5) According to a recent press release, astronomers working with data provided by Herschel found evidence for electric circuits in space, although that is not how consensus astronomers label their observations.
p<6) They identified “… an intricate pattern of filaments dotted with a few compact, bright cores: the seeds of future stars.”
u,A<7) Filaments of electric charge can flow in closed circuits through plasma.
u,A<21) Electromagnetism “pinches” those channels, otherwise known as Birkeland currents, into filaments that tend to attract each other in pairs.
u,A<26) There are power-consuming loads in those circuits converting electrical energy into rotational energy. They are known as galaxies.
u,A<29) In an Electric Universe, large-scale plasma discharges form coherent filaments that exhibit electrodynamic behavior.
u,A<32) When plasma moves through a cloud of dust and gas, some of the neutral molecules in the cloud are ionized, initiating electric fields, and thereby creating magnetic fields that tend to align and constrict the charge flow.
m,A<33) Since Birkeland currents are electromagnetic, they isolate regions of opposite charge and prevent them from neutralizing.
I agree that the filaments are there, and that they form stars. I also agree that the filaments are organized by magnetic pinches. I disagree that it's an electric current flowing through the plasma that organizes the plasma. The disagreement is on several levels. First, no plausible electromotive force has been identified. Second, electric currents don't compress matter -- rather, they evacuate it. Ohmic heating causes the plasma to expand, making it thinner. And thinner plasma is a better conductor. Thus more current flows, meaning more ohmic heating, and even more thinning. So it's a runaway process, that eventually will result in a discharge channel that has absolutely nothing at all in it except for the free electrons zipping through at 99% of the speed of light. And you can't build a star out of nothing but free electrons. Third, if you could build stars like that, stars would be very different -- instead of being low velocity spherical objects, they'd be very long, very thin objects, moving very fast, and I don't know where you'd put the planets around such things, so that people could debate the nature of stars. Rather, the filaments implode into stars without any help from any sort of external current. There is an electrostatic attraction within the filament itself that gets it to implode. Once moving, the ionized matter within the filament starts generating magnetic fields, which further organize the matter within the filament. Thus electric currents don't cause filaments -- the filaments are the electric currents. And the electromotive force is entirely within the filament, where unbound opposite charges attract each other, creating a body force that gets the filament to implode.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:59 pm
FILAMENT IMPLOSION V. MARKLUND CONVECTION
Lloyd wrote: Galactic Filaments & Star Formation. By EMF, you're referring to a Voltage Drop, or Electrical Potential Difference, aren't you? That means there should be a charge level in one area and a different charge level in another area, and an electric current should be moving between the two areas, tending to even out the charge over both areas and reducing the Voltage Drop to Zero. Am I right about this?
Exactly.
Lloyd wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: Second, electric currents don't compress matter -- rather, they evacuate it. Ohmic heating causes the plasma to expand, making it thinner. And thinner plasma is a better conductor. Thus more current flows, meaning more ohmic heating, and even more thinning. So it's a runaway process, that eventually will result in a discharge channel that has absolutely nothing at all in it except for the free electrons zipping through at 99% of the speed of light. And you can't build a star out of nothing but free electrons.
EU theory often refers to Marklund Convection. Is that what you're describing?
No -- I'm talking about an electric current, in the form of free electrons, moving through a discharge channel. If there is any resistance at all, electrons do most of the moving, not +ions, since electrons have at least one order of magnitude more mobility, since they're lighter than +ions. So any time there is a voltage between two points sufficient for a discharge, the electrons go to where the +ions are, not the other way around, nor do they meet in the middle. And the electrons evacuate the discharge channel with high-energy collisions. The more evacuated the discharge channel, the greater the conductivity.
Lloyd wrote: They say Marklund Convection concentrates matter along the central axis of a filament, although the matter has to be moving along the axis in one direction at high velocity. Does Marklund Convection move positive ions along the axis?
No, you were right the first time -- Marklund Convection moves matter toward the axis, which is motion that is perpendicular to the axis. And yes, it's a concentration of +ions, where the greater the degree of ionization, the greater the effect. So the stuff that ends up nearest the axis is the stuff that has the greatest charge, which will be the matter that has the lowest ionization potential (i.e., matter that is charged the easiest).
Lloyd wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: Rather, the filaments implode into stars without any help from any sort of external current. There is an electrostatic attraction within the filament itself that gets it to implode. Once moving, the ionized matter within the filament starts generating magnetic fields, which further organize the matter within the filament. Thus electric currents don't cause filaments -- the filaments are the electric currents. And the electromotive force is entirely within the filament, where unbound opposite charges attract each other, creating a body force that gets the filament to implode.
You mean there is an electric current in Marklund Convection,
No.
Lloyd wrote: but it's an internal current, not external, and it's caused by the implosion of the filament, not by an external Voltage Drop, like between galaxies etc. Right?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: And the implosion causes the ends of each filament to move toward the midsection of the filament, where the matter piles together and forms either tokamak-like stars, or electric double layer stars. Right?
Yes.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:25 pm
GAMMA RAY BURSTS
Lloyd wrote: GRB's. Charles, at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/16754.html you have your paper on Supernovae. (You misspelled dying there at least twice.) I think you said once that GRB's, gamma ray bursts, are probably a result of star formation in nearby locations, instead of in distant locations. In this paper you say supernovae are due to star formation too. You mention gamma rays with respect to the Crab Nebula pulsar, but not with respect to supernovae. (1.) Do you think GRB's should accompany supernova explosions?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: (2.) Do you know of any supernovae that have been found where GRB's have occurred?
I think that all supernovae produce GRBs. Then there was that rare exception that you quoted, where the supernova produced ejecta like a GRB, but without the gamma rays. The simple explanation for that is that the gamma rays were absorbed by an intervening dust cloud.
CRAB NEBULA TORUS
Lloyd wrote: (3.) By the way, did you get the idea about pulsars being natural tokamaks from the x-ray image of the Crab Nebula pulsar? It certainly looks like a toroid.
I had already been working on that -- pulsars have a variety of characteristics in common with the other "exotic" star types, such as quasars and white dwarfs, which I explain as "natural tokamaks".
STAR FORMING CHAIN REACTION
Lloyd wrote: (4.) Since you say that supernovae seem to be able to stimulate star formation in molecular clouds near them, and you say supernovae are the result of star formation, do you think star formation can be a chain reaction process?
Absolutely.
GLOBULAR CLUSTERS
Lloyd wrote: Globular Clusters
(5.) Do you have any ideas about how globular clusters form and how they're able to contain thousands of stars closely packed and why they exist above and below the plane of the galaxy, but not in the plane?
I don't know.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:20 am
CEU STAR FORMATION
BTW, I just wanted to mention that recently, I did a bunch more work on my star formation model, and it now is considerably more detailed. The main points are as follows:
* Giant molecular clouds first resolve into filaments, and then the filaments collapse lengthwise into stars.
* The force that causes the collapse is the electrostatic attraction between oppositely charged ions.
* The speed of the collapse has to be above a certain threshold, for the matter to get fused into a star. (I'm still working on the calculations of what that threshold actually is, but the numbers are all running in the range of 85% the speed of light or above.)
* Just above the threshold, a "normal" star will form, like our Sun.
* In a considerably more energetic collapse, the collapse approaches the speed of light. As such, charges within the filament get separated into two distinct strands, one being positive, and the other being negative. This is because of the "magnetic push" effect. Just as like charges traveling in the same direction are brought together by the magnetic pinch effect at relativistic velocities, opposite charges are pushed away from each other, and then consolidated into strands. This is sometimes called the "twisted pair" configuration, where the opposite charges have been separated, and like charges have been consolidated, and there are two strands (+/-) to every filament.
* If the filament has resolved into strands, it won't be one collision at the center -- the positive strand coming in from one direction will collide with the negative strand coming from the other direction. So there will be two collisions, and these will form two stars -- binary companions.
* If the filament is oriented perpendicular to the galactic magnetic field, the Lorentz force will further separate the +/- strands, and orient them onto the same plane, coming in from both directions, guaranteeing that the positive strand from one direction will collide with the negative strand from the other. After the initial collision, the strands curve inwards, toward each other, and resolve into a continuous loop. In so doing, the strands have formed a toroidal plasmoid.
* The properties of a toroidal plasmoid explain exotic stars such as white dwarfs, pulsars, and quasars.
All of this appears to be fully consistent with the available data, so I'm just going to keep ratcheting up the specificity, to see what I find. I don't know of any other model that covers so much territory with realistic physics, so I'm going with it.
The full detail can be found in the following sequence of articles on my website:
Accretion
Filaments
Tokamaks
Egg Nebula
Supernovae
Let me know if you have any questions.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:37 pm
RED GIANTS
D_Archer wrote: Red stars are also flare stars, any explanation for that in your model?
I agree with Jeffrey that red giants are in the process of getting born, not in the process of dying. As a dusty plasma collapses into a star, it heats up, and then it starts to glow. As the compression continues, the temperature keeps going up, and the color shifts from red toward blue. If it has a lot of mass, it will form a blue giant. Most stars follow the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) toward the main sequence, ultimately settling into stable positions as yellow dwarfs. The brightness and color fluctuate in the migration toward the main sequence, because that's a dusty plasma that just collapsed into a star, and the reverberations haven't died down yet. So the AGB is populated by variable stars. Once on the main sequence, the star slowly cools, getting dimmer and redder as it goes, ultimately going invisible as a brown dwarf (a.k.a., a planet). So that's GTSM, in my words. Where the mainstream, Jeffrey, and I all agree is that the red giant phase might terminate with a supernova, but again, the mainstream thinks that this is at the end of the cycle, while Jeffrey & I agree that this is just the beginning. The "remnants" sometimes left behind by supernovae are embarrassingly out of place in the standard model, but are quite expected if it's a star birthing process. And a Type 1a supernova is just a star birthing process that was a little too vigorous, where the compression initiated a runaway thermonuclear explosion that annihilated everything in the vicinity. So there's an upper limit to how much matter you can ram together and still get a stable star.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:43 pm
STAR SIZES
Lloyd wrote: What do you guys mean by flare stars?
I thought that he meant "variable stars", but he can chime in if he meant something different.
Lloyd wrote: Charles, I thought you'd said that imploding galactic filaments should be able to produce all size stars and planets and moons. If that's the case, then we don't know if a body started out real big a long time ago and shrank, or if it started out more recently at a smaller size. Do we?
Well, I haven't stopped reading. And there does appear to be a preferred size for stars, at least when they first form, known as the "initial mass function". (See the references below.) My current thinking is that there isn't really anything that constrains the size of the dusty plasma filaments that implode to make the stars, so these could be big or small. But if they're too big, the implosion will be a bit too energetic, and it will graduate into a runaway thermonuclear explosion (Type 1a supernova), and that will be the end of it. And the lower limit is that if the implosion isn't vigorous enough, the filament won't get pinched into a tight enough stream, and the implosion won't develop the extreme pressures necessary to fuse the matter into a star. I'm trying to figure out how to quantify these statements.
Salpeter, E. E. (1955): The Luminosity Function and Stellar Evolution. Astrophysical Journal, 121: 161
Kroupa, P. (2002): The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems. arXiv, astro-ph: 0201098
Bastian, N.; Covey, K. R.; Meyer, M. R. (2010): A Universal Stellar Initial Mass Function? A Critical Look at Variations. arXiv, astro-ph.GA: 1001.2965
Larson, R. B. (2006): Understanding the Stellar Initial Mass Function. arXiv, astro-ph: 0602469
Lloyd wrote: Doesn't one of your papers say that most stars are about 1/3 the mass of the Sun? Aren't there a lot of red and brown dwarf stars that are likely too dim to be visible? So how do you know that most aren't moon- or planet-sized?
The "initial mass function" just speaks to the size of the stars when they first form -- it doesn't say how much matter they could subsequently scavenge. And certainly there are a lot of stray objects, such as planets, moons, asteroids, etc., that are irregular sizes.
But there is another aspect of this that is worthy of mention: the mainstream assumes that bright, blue stars are heavy, and that dim, red stars are small. This is because their energy source is nuclear fusion in the core, and to get brighter, bluer light, they need more mass, to sustain more fusion. But they neglect to say why so much more mass doesn't cause runaway fusion ending in a Type 1a supernova. So in my model, brighter and bluer doesn't necessarily mean more mass -- it might just mean a higher degree of ionization, with current-free double-layers (CFDLs) holding on more tightly.
Lloyd wrote: Also, last I heard from you about a year ago was that it's possible that the Sun's constant mass loss may recycle back onto the Sun, causing it to remain the same size much longer. And isn't it possible still for stars to increase in size if interstellar matter falls onto them?
Yes (on all counts). There really isn't any evidence of any net mass loss of the Sun into the heliosphere, so it really cannot be said that the Sun is blowing a high-pressure bubble in the interstellar medium. It rather looks more like a huge Debye sheath clinging to the charged body in the center, where the sheath is actually less dense than the surroundings, as the heliosphere (at its outer reaches) is 1/40 the density of the interstellar medium. So where is all of the matter from the solar wind going? I "think" that the answer has to be that it is all raining back down to the Sun. And energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) from the interstellar medium might be adding to the mass of the Sun. But I have no idea what the rate might be.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:28 pm
FLARE STARS
Most flare stars are dim red dwarfs, although recent research indicates that less massive brown dwarfs might also be capable of flaring
Oh, those flare stars. Well yes -- if such flares are fundamentally similar to solar flares, they are well treated in my model of main sequence stars. (See the Sunspots, CMEs, and Arcades articles for descriptions of the electrical configuration.) In the Conversions article, I provide a quantified analysis of the significance -- solar flares cause CMEs, which sustain the charge separation between the Sun and the heliosphere, which is what drives the ohmic heating responsible for the heat & light that we get. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Sun/CME_Effects.png
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jan 11, 2016 9:23 pm
CERES, ORIGIN OF GRANITE
Lloyd wrote: Charles, do you know where the data came from that the Moon is mostly granite very similar to Earth's granite?
It came from a misinterpretation on my part. Yes, there is granite in the highlands, but the mares are made of basalt. I got onto that track because I had realized that the Earth's granite had to have been extraterrestrial, and had to have arrived after the crust had solidified. If the granite had been around when the Earth was still fully molten, the granite would have settled out into a thin layer all of the way around the globe, and we wouldn't have any dry land on which to set up computer stands. I'm still of the opinion that the continents are made of ET granite. But I no longer believe that it was a donation from the Moon. Rather, I'm thinking that it was part of the debris from the break-up of Ceres, which arrived during the Late Heavy Bombardment. Perhaps the granites on the Moon, and on Mars, arrived at the same time.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:03 pm
Lloyd wrote: In your Theia paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15407 you argue that Earth's granite continents must have come from another body (like the Moon),
Another body -- yes. The Moon -- probably not. If the Moon was a fragment of Ceres, that hit the Earth as part of the Late Heavy Bombardment, it wouldn't be showing signs of the Late Heavy Bombardment itself, in the form of heavy cratering. So the Moon (and Mars for that matter) had already formed a crust. Then the granites in the LHB came crashing in, forming the continents on Earth, and perhaps the highlands on the Moon and on Mars. And the latter two got partially remelted by the heat from the impacts. I suppose the Earth would have been partially remelted too, which would have helped the impacter pancake into a supercontinent.
Lloyd wrote: because, if [the granite] had come from Earth's own substance, it would have floated to the surface during the molten phase and spread out in a thin layer, instead of forming a supercontinent. The same argument should hold for the Moon (& Mars); should it not?
Exactly. That's why I'm now thinking in terms of the lunar and martian highlands being of foreign origins (i.e., the LHB). Such crustal irregularities are not consistent with the slowly cooling, molten magma model.
Lloyd wrote: So, when the large bolides impacted what is now the near side of the Moon, the thin granite surface layer would have mostly blasted away to the outside of each crater, i.e. mare or basin. And that would have left mostly the underlying basalt to fill each crater/basin. Right?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: You say now that Earth's mostly granite supercontinent may have come from a large part of the planet that exploded to form the Asteroid belt, where Ceres is the largest remaining asteroid.
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: Isn't NASA planning a mission to Ceres? If so, do you know if they're planning to get samples from it? If so, we may soon find out if Ceres has much granite.
Not necessarily. Ceres, before the impact, would have been stratified, with lighter material on the surface, and heavier stuff deeper down. The impact would have liberated all of that stuff, but there would have been a variety of chemical compositions in the debris. As you later noted, we see a lot of variegation in the composition of asteroids, so it just depends on where the fragment came from -- the light outer layer, or one of the heavier inner layers. Ceres might be the iron/nickel core.
MYTHS & YOUNGER DRYAS
Lloyd wrote: Ancient myths seem to indicate that Venus had a cometary form a few thousand years ago and may have had a different orbit.
I think that the ancient myths refer to real objects and real events, but not necessarily objects that are still visible. The Younger-Dryas impacter would have left quite an impression on the minds of paleolithic cultures. Imagine living in Pennsylvania when it hit the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Huge chunks of asteroid and ice fly overhead, on their way to gouging out the Carolina Bays. This would have been preserved as lore of the visitation of gods, who then proceeded back out into space. Where are they now? Just look for anything in the night sky that isn't stationary, such as Venus, Mars, and Saturn. So the orbits of the planets might have been quite stable, but got attributed with the ability to get reshuffled, when they were given the credit for the Younger-Dryas event. So I agree with the premises of Talbott's work -- that the ancient myths had to have been inspired by real events, if for no other reason that for the fact that hunter gatherers simply don't make up stories like that. I know college graduates who can't locate Venus in the dawn or dusk skies, so I doubt that more primitive people, who were busy just trying to stay alive, would have noticed movements in the firmament, had they not been nervously scanning the skies for indications of another visitation. Then astronomy was born. Planets were discovered, and used as the vehicle for retelling the story of the arrival of the gods. Ten thousand years later, somebody actually believed them (i.e., Velikovsky). But I think that Richard Firestone is the one who got the physics right.
JETS V. GEYSERS
Lloyd wrote: I think your Tokamaks paper shows the star, Mira (which you say is an exotic natural tokamak toroidal star), has a comet-like tail that's extremely wide and long. So it looks like planets, like Venus, should be capable of having comet tails as well. Tails require jets, I suppose. Do you agree?
That depends on what you call a "jet". The bipolar jets from quasars are relativistic charge streams, which only the toroidal plasmoid model can explain. Random distributions of geysers on the surfaces of planets and comets are totally different phenomena.
ASTEROIDS & METEORS
Lloyd wrote: But it seems possible that the supercontinent could have come from Venus at a much earlier time. Do you suppose?
Too few data for me.
Lloyd wrote: Do you agree that meteors likely formed from the same planet or planets that was/were broken up to form the Asteroid belts?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: Do meteors seem to be fragments of a former planet with CFDLs?
Yes -- I think that the ionization that occurs at high pressure is important in the formulation of a number of the chemicals we see, in the Earth as well as in meteorites.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:21 pm
Lloyd wrote: Charles, you say Ceres might be the core of the planet that broke up to form the Asteroid belts. Since Mercury is said to be unusually dense, could Mercury have been the core of that former planet?
If Mercury had been involved in the Ceres break-up, it would be in a more elliptical orbit now.
Lloyd wrote: Your model says that the core of Sun-like stars is osmium and other platinum group elements. If planets are the remains of such stars, shouldn't there be one or more osmium/platinum core Asteroid/s, or at least meteors?
My model says that the Sun has an osmium/platinum core. I suppose that other stars of comparable size would have a similar internal structure, but the only data that we have is on the Sun. Smaller objects, such as planets and asteroids, wouldn't be as likely to be so rich in heavy elements.
Lloyd wrote: By the way, wasn't our former granite supercontinent larger than any of the present Asteroids?
The volume of the Earth's continental granite is 7.58 × 109 km3, which is 20 times more than Ceres, at 4.21 × 108 km3
MIRA’S TAIL
Lloyd wrote: Mira's tail isn't an axial jet; is it?
No -- I think that it's more like a cometary tail, or the trailing ionization behind a bolide.
Lloyd wrote: I asked on your site what you think Mira's tail consists of.
It sounds like it's mostly hydrogen. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~lmatthew/Mira_HI.pdf
EARTH’S MANTLE COMPOSITION
Lloyd wrote: Which chemicals do you think most needed the high pressure in CFDLs to form? Are there any chemicals that likely did not form in CFDLs?
Well, the Wikipedia page on the mantle (geology) says, "The mantle differs substantially from the crust in its mechanical properties which is the direct consequence of chemical composition change (expressed as different mineralogy)." I believe that the mechanical and chemical characteristics are coupled also -- I just think that the pressure expels electrons, and that this is important in the metamorphosis.
ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION
Lloyd wrote: But it's also possible that the ancients were able to observe what happened to the planets in the former sky and to see where they ended up. Isn't it?
Any thorough theory has to include a description of the driving forces. Rearranging the planets would take a lot of force. If you're saying that this happened recently, you're not talking about a little bit of force acting over a long period of time. Especially problematic is rearranging the planets without leaving them in highly elliptical orbits.
LATE HEAVY BOMBARDMENT
Lloyd wrote: Venus apparently had a beautiful feminine appearance initially; then it developed a cometary tail and looked like a dragon; then chaos and darkness reigned, with chaos hordes, like little dragons and chaotic motions of small objects in the sky, which I think was the time of the Late Heavy Bombardment of meteors; then Venus was seen to become the Morning and Evening Star.
I don't think that anything from the Late Heavy Bombardment was preserved in human memory, because I don't think that anything could have survived that period. Life on Earth came later, after the granites pancaked into the supercontinent.
RECENT SOLAR SYSTEM CHAOS
Lloyd wrote: there's quite a bit of evidence that there was recent chaos in the solar system.
I would say that the YD impact would have produced a lot of apparent chaos, but I remain unconvinced of planetary realignments in recent history.
SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION
Lloyd wrote: Do you still agree that, when the solar system formed from the implosion of a galactic filament, the planets were in a linear arrangement and their motions could have been linear along the former filament, all toward each other, like a stretched rubber band unstretching?
I think that everything in our solar system formed in more-or-less the same place, at more-or-less the same time. Most of the matter went into the Sun, but a few stray artifacts were left in the heliosphere, such as the planets (which originally were small stars).
ANCIENT CIVILIZATION
Lloyd wrote: Are you also open to the possibility that some of the ancients may have had advanced civilization, as suggested by accurate ancient maps and many high quality artifacts from ancient times?
I don't know much about that.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:55 am
WATER IN EARTH’S MANTLE?
Lloyd wrote: Water in Earth's Mantle?: Charles, do you have an idea what they're detecting in the mantle?
Just because something has the wave suppression characteristics of water doesn't mean that it's water. It could be lots of stuff.
HEAVY ELEMENTS IN PLANETS
Lloyd wrote: Heavy Elements in Planets?: Why would planets not have heavier elements within them, like stars do, if planets evolve from stars?
Planets do have heavier elements -- I'm just saying that only in large stars would you see any appreciable collection of 6th period elements in their cores. The Sun's core, BTW, is only 2% of its total volume. The same percentage, of a much smaller object such as the Earth, would be a comparatively small amount of matter. Maybe there's an osmium/platinum asteroid out there somewhere, which used to be the core of Ceres. If you find it, let me know -- we can sell it on eBay for the precious metal content. Just remember that the asteroids are simply the debris from Ceres that didn't fall into the Sun, or impact another planet, or exit the solar system. What's left is only 4% of the mass of the Moon. The chance of the osmium/platinum core being in the surviving remnants is pretty slight.
ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION 2
Lloyd wrote: Circularized Orbits: In your Titius-Bode Law paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369, you concluded that electrical repulsion between planets causes them to attain the orbits they have, [...] Why would not the same repulsive forces cause Mercury (and other planets) to settle into circular orbit rather quickly?
I'm saying that irregularly spaced objects, on mildly elliptical orbits, will be coerced into the Titius-Bode spacing, in circularized orbits, by the electrostatic repulsion between the planets. But something on a highly elliptical orbit would be cutting through all of that, getting coerced first this way and next that way. To settle into a circularized orbit, it would have to be close enough to such that it wouldn't have the momentum to cross the boundaries between stable orbits.
REPULSION BETWEEN PLANETS
Lloyd wrote: Can you determine the approximate driving forces involved [that are enforcing the Titius-Bode Law]?
That would take some work. The forces vary with the net charge of the bodies, and their atmospheres. I have the calculation engine for it -- I would just need accurate values to pump into it. That's an interesting prospect...
ORBITS CIRCULARIZATION 3
Lloyd wrote: Comets have been on highly elliptical orbits presumably for many centuries and maybe several millennia. Is it easier for small or large objects to remain longer in elliptical orbits? SL9 was on an elliptical orbit till 1992, when it encountered Jupiter and broke up into pieces, which then crashed into Jupiter single file in 1994.
Smaller objects are more subject to friction, and as you noted, gravitational perturbations. So a Mercury-sized object would be more likely to retain its original orbit.
LATE HEAVY BOMBARDMENT
Lloyd wrote: The Great Flood appears to have been accompanied by a later heavy bombardment, as Gordon has pointed out.
That would have been a later bombardment -- not the one that cratered the Moon and Mars.
DATING CATACLYSMS
Lloyd wrote: Are you locked in to the conventional dating of the Earth and solar system...
Very little of my work has specific date ranges in it yet. For example, my working numbers for the amount of time it took the dusty plasma to collapse into the Sun is 100 million years, and if it keeps releasing energy at its present rate, it can keep going for another 10 trillion years. But I don't know how to estimate how long ago the Sun formed. The planets "probably" formed at the same time, but the Earth seems to have been remelted during the Late Heavy Bombardment, and the radiocarbon dating was reset. That "seems" to be around 4 billion years ago, which matches the date of the mares on the Moon and on Mars. But is that number actually 4 billion years, or 4 million, or what? I don't think that it's 4 thousand, but I'm not familiar enough with the other dating methods to have my own opinion on the actual ranges.
EARTH WAS A DWARF STAR
Lloyd wrote: By the way, have you thought about how much atmosphere the Earth had initially? Do you think it may have had as much atmosphere as Uranus or Neptune? Or would Earth have been a dwarf star?
I think that the Earth was a dwarf star. Then its outer layers got stripped by a solar flare-up, perhaps during the Late Heavy Bombardment, when the bulk of the debris was falling into the Sun.
METEOR SIGHTINGS
Lloyd wrote: ...fireballs etc have been increasing a great deal in recent years, especially in the months of August to December. I don't suppose you know of any possible reason for that, do you?
No -- I figured that they're simply getting reported more, as the Earth's population grows, and with the proliferation of camera phones to document the sightings.
COMETS
Lloyd wrote: And speaking of comets too, have you started any papers yet on comets?
I might expand my bolide paper to include comets, as I think that their comas are related -- it isn't material getting stripped from the object, or comets would have gotten worn down to nothing a long time ago. The comas are the lingering effects of the object on the medium through which it is passing, like a vapor trail from a high-flying airplane -- that stuff didn't come out of the airplane.
WATER IN EARTH’S MANTLE 2
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:29 am
john666 wrote: What is the blue in this image if not massive amounts of water?
The blue is an artifact of the ircut filter that he used, which reduces the strength of the red colors.