MOST THOROUGH MODEL-6
METEORITE, CONTINENTS, CAPTURE, HELIOPAUSE, GRB, RING, STAR, RADIOACTIVITY, DISCHARGE, FUSION, BOMBARDMENT, IMPACTS, WATER, GRANITE, CEPHEID, REVERBERATIONS, STREAMS, FILAMENTS, QUASARS, FLAREUPS, FUS
………………………………………………..(Cepheid Stars in Milky Way)
CONTENTS
METEORITE FORMATION — AGE OF CONTINENTS — CAPTURE OF SATURN SYSTEM — HELIOPAUSE — GAMMA RAY BURSTS — NT, RING STAR, NEAR NORMAL STAR — TEMPERATURE AFFECTS RADIOACTIVE DECAY — — ORIGIN OF EARTH’S RADIOACTIVITY — DISCHARGE DURING IMPACTS — FUSION IN IMPACTS — TIME OF METEOR BOMBARDMENT — FUSION IN IMPACTS 2 — WATER IN IMPACTS — SOFT LANDING GRANITE IMPACTOR — CEPHEID STARS — IMPLOSION REVERBERATIONS — JET STREAMS — INTERGALACTIC FILAMENTS — QUASARS — NATURAL TOKAMAK FLAREUPS — FUSION ENERGY — TYPES OF EXOTIC STARS — WHITE DWARF EXOTICS — EXOTIC STAR SIZES — FUSION BYPRODUCTS NEAR EXOTICS — PLANETS BY WHITE DWARFS — WHITE DWARF FEATURES — UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC FORCE — HELIOPAUSE 2 — CRAB PULSAR — NEW MOON CAN TRIGGER EARTHQUAKES — EXOTIC & NORMAL STARS TOGETHER?
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:17 pm
METEORITE FORMATION
Lloyd wrote: Neodymium in Planets vs Meteorites: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080319-earth-mars_2.html Charles, got any comments?
That's consistent with a hotter Sun, Earth, Moon, and Mars, which is part of my model. The higher temperatures enhanced the radioactive decay rates. If this isn't taken into account, radiometric dating will falsely report much older ages for the planets & moons. But meteorites would have cooled quickly in the frigid void of interplanetary space, and thereby would get much younger radiometric dates, even if they were formed at the same time as everything else in the solar system.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:16 pm
Lloyd wrote: Nd Dating?: Charles, do you know the likely pathway for radioactive decay regarding Neodymium? If you had the data on the exact percentages of Nd on the Moon, Mars, Earth and meteorites, would you be able to find the appropriate decay rate for Nd and calculate a potential age range for each body?
No, I'm not familiar with those calcs.
Lloyd wrote: Should the smaller bodies have more Nd than the larger ones, assuming they all formed at the same time?
I'm saying that cooler bodies should seem to be younger, while hotter bodies (now or in their histories) will falsely report an older age, if the accelerated radioactive decay rate at higher temperatures isn't taken into account. But I'm not familiar with the specific decay rates.
AGE OF CONTINENTS
Lloyd wrote: Erosion Dating:
By the way, Charles, at present erosion rates of the continents, all of the continents should have eroded to at or below sea level well within 20 million years. Does that tell you something?
Yes -- I'm just not sure what it's saying. Basically, I'm not sure that it is explicitly saying that the continents have to be less than 20 million years old.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:55 pm
Lloyd wrote: Continental Erosion Dating: Do you have time to think about this a little?
It would take me a year or two to get up to speed on all of the related issues.
CAPTURE OF SATURN SYSTEM
Lloyd wrote: Capture of Saturn: Wouldn't it have had to be moving below escape velocity in order to get captured?
Assuming that there isn't any friction, an incoming body will get accelerated inward by the Sun's gravity, and it will pick up speed. If it doesn't impact the Sun, it zips on past it, and then all of that speed starts getting reconverted to gravitational potential. When that's done, it still has a little bit of speed left -- its initial incoming speed. So it exits the solar system at precisely the speed that it entered it, and the capture has not occurred. Friction can be neglected -- if it was a big factor, small objects (such as Halley's Comet) would be heavily influenced -- but they don't seem to be affected at all.
If there were two large gravity sources in the center of our solar system, the Sun would deflect the path of the incoming body, and if it happened to deflect it toward the other (hypothetical) gravity source, that source might deflect the object back toward the Sun. In this way, the incoming object could get "captured". But with just one gravity source there, and without friction, the capture doesn't happen. So you have no choice but to work it out as a 3-body problem. Maybe you could try working it out with the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn being the 3 bodies. Like suppose Jupiter deflected Saturn into a path roughly tangent to an orbit around the Sun, whereupon the Sun's gravity would take over, and turn that into an orbit. For this to happen, Saturn's incoming speed would have been quite precisely its current orbital speed. Heckuva coincidence. Then you need to get the Earth, which you have in orbit around Saturn, to get flung off of Saturn (perhaps in the sharp turn around Jupiter), and then somehow end up in its own stable orbit. IMO, no matter what you do, such a construct is going to look contrived, because without the preformed conclusion, you never would have attempted such mathematical acrobatics.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:13 pm
HELIOPAUSE
Lloyd wrote: Charles, I guess you don't consider the heliopause to exist. Do you?
The heliopause exists, but it's a near-perfect vacuum, with near-infinitesimal electric & magnetic fields. Nothing bounces off of a vacuum. Sorry.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon May 23, 2016 12:01 pm
GAMMA RAY BURSTS
Lloyd wrote: Are GRBs the first phase of all of the NT {Natural Tokamak} types?
Yes, in my model, GRBs can only be evidence of a newly-formed natural tokamak, since only a tokamak can accomplish nuclear fusion without there being anything to block the gamma rays.
NT, RING STAR, NEAR NORMAL STAR
Lloyd wrote: Could there be normal stars or planets near an NT when it disintegrates? And, if so, could they get hit by these moderately heavy elements? Would these elements normally tend to form molecular clouds?
The annular core of a natural tokamak would contain heavy elements, up to and including iron & nickel. So these elements would get flung outward. They would be gases and/or plasmas, not solids or liquids. A planet would have to be very close to be affected.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:13 pm
TEMPERATURE AFFECTS RADIOACTIVE DECAY
Lloyd wrote: Charles, is it very certain that temperature increases the decay rate of radioactive elements?
Quite certain. For example, in nuclear power plants, all they have to do in order to get net power output is to heat the uranium above the critical temperature, at which the radioactive decay rate produces enough heat to force the same amount of decay, which of course sustains the heat. Past that point, if they don't extract the heat from the core, it will go into runaway mode, resulting in a melt-down. So yes, the decay rate increases with temperature.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:51 pm
ORIGIN OF EARTH’S RADIOACTIVITY
Lloyd wrote: Or how do you think Earth's radioactivity originated?
I believe that the continental granites, as well as the water in the oceans, arrived during the Late Heavy Bombardment. The impact events could have fused heavy elements.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:11 am
DISCHARGE DURING IMPACTS
Lloyd wrote: You've stated in a few places that high velocity impacts produce thermonuclear explosions, which involve electrical discharges.
Thermonuclear explosions: yes, electrical discharges: not really, at least not in the EU sense, where there would be a potential between the impacter and the impactee that would do something. An explosion creates a lot of high velocity ions, and IMO, these get pinched into the spider ejecta that we see on the Moon. Such ion streams could be called electric currents of sorts, but that isn't in the EU model. And I'm not talking about any sort of pre-existing electric fields that do anything.
FUSION IN IMPACTS
Lloyd wrote: Have you determined how strong the discharges would need to be or what other factors are involved to fuse radioactive elements in impacts?
The fusion would occur simply because of the extreme pressures and temperatures at the point of collision. A small, high-velocity impacter might get annihilated, while a large, slow-moving impacter might simply merge with the impactee, though at the point of collision, some heavy elements might have been fused.
Lloyd wrote: Does Walter Brown's explanation above have anything potentially correct?
I couldn't really follow the entire line of reasoning, so I can't say.
TIME OF METEOR BOMBARDMENT
Lloyd wrote: When do you regard it as most likely that the bombardment occurred?
Since I'm estimating the age of the Earth (and everything else in the solar system) to be 378 million years, it would have been after that. But no, I don't have a specific number. Mars and the Moon had already formed crusts by the time the LHB occurred. But I haven't developed a method of estimating how long that would take.
FUSION IN IMPACTS 2
Lloyd wrote: I looked online for radioactivity connected with impact craters, but didn't find much.
I didn't find anything either, in a quick search, but for cratered impacts, I wouldn't really expect much. The extreme pressures & temperatures occur at the interface between the impacter and the impactee. If the impacter gets annihilated in the process, everything subjected to the extreme pressure & temperature will get dispersed. I actually think that heavy elements will not be found unless the impacter persists. The high pressures & temperatures need to be created, such that heavy elements are fused. But then they need to be cooled, while still under pressure. The reason is that radioactive elements are unstable at high temperatures. So you're not going to see much in the way of heavy elements at ground zero of a nuclear explosion -- the elements might have been fused, but shortly thereafter, they got split back apart in high energy collisions. The only way for such fragile atoms to persist is if the pressure necessary to fuse them was still present, but the temperatures at which they are unstable were removed before the pressure relaxed.
WATER IN IMPACTS
Lloyd wrote: Have you written anywhere else on how impacts delivered water to the Earth?
That's in the article called Remelted Crusts. Ceres is thought to be as much as 50% water.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:56 pm
SOFT LANDING GRANITE IMPACTOR
Lloyd wrote: I wonder if the asteroid could have made a somewhat soft landing on the far side, like what you said about another asteroid having soft-landed on Earth to form the supercontinent. In order to soft-land, would an asteroid have to be in a slowly decaying orbit around a body?
That's an interesting idea. Of course, on Earth we have a lot more data, from the surface, and from seismology. So we know a lot about the chemical differentiation between the continental granites and oceanic basalts, and between them and the mantle. IMO, this necessitates a non-terrestrial origin for the granites. And we have liquid water that needs explaining (i.e., how come it didn't all boil off). On Mars and on the Moon, we have fewer data. So while I think that I have a strong case with regards the Earth, I'm not sure that such a strong case could be made for Mars or for the Moon. But perhaps you should pursue it.
CEPHEID STARS
{LK: Wikipedia has this image of one of the brightest Cepheid in Puppis. Do you have an idea what the cloud is around the Cepheid and why it has concentric rings, which perhaps match the pulsations?}
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:15 pm
Lloyd wrote: Do you have a reasoned idea why Cepheids pulsate?
I'm favoring the idea that they're still just reverberating from the initial implosion, gradually settling down into the equilibrium. But no, I don't think that they're similar to pulsars, which are fundamentally different stars.
Lloyd wrote: One theorist figured the pulsation is due to planets that orbit these stars and cause their light to dim cyclically as they block some light when between the star and our view of it, but that wouldn't seem to explain how the luminosity is related to the period of the pulsations.
Well, an obscuring planet would affect the luminosity, but that wouldn't explain the corresponding change in color. At the bright end of the cycle, the Cepheid is bluer, and at the dim end, it's redder. A planet in transit wouldn't do that to the stellar radiation. But a compressed star would be brighter and bluer, while a less dense star would be dimmer and redder. So I think that it's just reverberations.
Lloyd wrote: Since you found a seemingly much better way to determine the ages of stars, which shows the Sun is under 400 million years old, do you think the conventional estimates of ages of Cepheids is likely to be way off as well?
Probably.
Lloyd wrote: Do you have any idea why Cepheids would exist in the galactic center, but not in the region just outside the center?
An absence of young stars in the center of a spiral galaxy isn't uncommon, so I'm not sure what the surprise would be. And the presence of some young stars along the galactic axis doesn't really contradict that, since those are well-known stellar nurseries. The cores of spirals galaxies are similar to elliptical galaxies, with their old, yellow stars, their absence of much interstellar material, and with new stars still being born on the axis, in the so-called "active galactic nuclei" (AGN).
Lloyd wrote: Do you have an idea what the cloud is around the Cepheid and why it has concentric rings, which perhaps match the pulsations?
I'm not sure, but that sounds reasonable.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:41 am
Lloyd wrote: Implosion formation reverberations sounds plausible for Cepheid luminosity pulsations. Does that mean you agree with the article that they're young stars?
Yes, I believe that red giants are stars being born, and Cepheids on the Asymptotic Giant Branch (of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram) are newly born stars that haven't stopped reverberating from the implosion. But I don't know how to constrain the estimate for how long it takes for a star to form and to settle down into a steady-state star.
Lloyd wrote: I found that the cloud around the bright Cepheid is called a circumstellar envelope and I found an interesting abstract about it. [...] Do you agree with their conclusion?
I don't know.
Lloyd wrote: I don't see any potential confirmation there of the idea that the concentric rings are produced by the Cepheid pulsations.
The more I think about it, the less convinced I am. Cepheids oscillate in periods of days or weeks, while those rings were probably formed with 100s or 1000s of years between them, at the very least. So they were more probably formed by irregularities in the infalling matter during the star's formation.
IMPLOSION REVERBERATIONS
Lloyd wrote: Do you think your reverberation model is very simple?
It is. Elsewhere, for longer-period oscillations (such as the Sun's 11.2 sunspot cycle) I explore the properties of s-waves circumnavigating the star's equator, where competing positive and negative feedback loops result in oscillations of the wave heights. "Maybe" that mechanism could produce oscillation periods as short as a couple of days. For even shorter periods, an elastic rebound model might work better.
JET STREAMS
Lloyd wrote: I looked for solar jet streams on your site and didn't find anything in your astrophysics papers. Should there be much similarity between Earth's and the Sun's jet streams? What about jet streams in other planets' atmospheres?
I "think" that what you're talking about goes by a different name inside the Sun -- "differential rotation", which is covered here.
Lloyd wrote: Should they all have them? Could jet streams or anything else likely tell us how deep an atmosphere is, so that we could determine the diameters of the gas giants beneath their atmospheres?
I don't know.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:34 am
INTERGALACTIC FILAMENTS
Lloyd wrote: Have you had any thoughts about how intergalactic filaments form? And what about globular star clusters?
I haven't studied anything above the level of the galaxy. In the article you quoted, I could just replace gravity with the electric force, and it would be no different from things that I have studied, such as the body force that causes dusty plasmas to collapse into stars, and that keeps spiral galaxies from flinging their arms out into intergalactic space. But note that it's an electrostatic model, not an electrodynamic one -- it isn't electric currents running through these filaments that constitutes the binding force -- it's just the electric force between opposite charges.
Re: Most Thorough Model: Quasars
by CharlesChandler » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:04 pm
QUASARS
Lloyd wrote: LK: I show two statements underlined above. The first says quasars seem to last about 500 million years. The second implies that the oldest existing quasars are now over 12 billion years old. If they tend to last half a billion years, then I'd say it's pretty safe to suspect that the dating of the quasars is way wrong, usually by billions of years too much. The oldest should be about half a billion years old. If they're half a billion light years away, we'd be seeing them as they were half a billion years ago. But there seems to be good reason to doubt conventional distance calculations too. Anyway, maybe Charles or anyone will come up with a way to determine the average size of a quasar, the average speed of rotation of its torus and the average amount of initial friction between the counterstreaming charges to be able to estimate the average and maybe maximum lifespan of a quasar.
I agree that conventional cosmological datings are suspect anyway, and with regards to quasars, they're especially suspect, since as Halton Arp demonstrated, the quasars are clearly associated with galaxies that have much lower redshifts. So the distance should be gauged by the parent galaxy, not the intrinsic redshift of the quasars. Then the interpretation of the galactic redshifts themselves is still open to debate. Everybody believes that redshift equates to distance, but not everybody (including me) believes that redshift is a sign of an expanding Universe -- the redshift might just be "tired light" or something similar. But I haven't studied cosmology enough to offer an alternative dating algorithm. As concerns the sizes of quasars, I'm not convinced that there is an average size. For main sequence stars, the upper limit appears to be something like 1.4 solar masses -- anything more than that and the gravitational loading will initiate a runaway thermonuclear explosion that will end in a supernova. The lower limit seems to be something like .3 solar masses. But my "natural tokamaks" don't have any gravitational loading, so going supernova isn't a problem, and I'm not sure that there is a limit to how big they can be.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:09 pm
NATURAL TOKAMAK FLAREUPS
Lloyd wrote: Charles, since a nebula is involved in this series of explosions, would you say this star is an exotic, i.e. a Natural Tokamak? Could exotics explode every few hundred years?
I consider all planetary nebulae, and for that matter, anything with bipolar outflow, to be emanating from a "natural tokamak", since only the toroidal plasmoid has a concentration of ejecta along its axis. Periodic flare-ups could happen for a wide variety of reasons, especially very early in the organization of the star.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:13 pm
Lloyd wrote: Would you tell us what you think would be some of the main causes of the flare-ups? Would matter from imploding local filaments be arriving late, every few hundred years? Or would objects like asteroids or planets falling into the toroid cause such bipolar outbursts? What else?
Yes, late arrivals would cause flare-ups. Also, in my "natural tokamak" model, there is an equilibrium between the centrifugal force that is trying to enlarge the radius of the toroid, versus the tensile force running around the axis of the annulus that is trying to shrink the radius of the toroid. So it's like a rapidly rotating rubber band, where the centrifugal force stretches it, but the tensile strength of the rubber band opposes the stretching, eventually achieving an equilibrium. There is reason to believe, from data on one star that I believe to be a "natural tokamak" (i.e., Mira), that the major radius of the toroid is similar to the orbit of Pluto around the Sun (5906 Gm), and if Mira has the same mass as the Sun, the minor radius would be roughly equal to the radius of Mars (3486 km). The competing forces that eventually arrive at the equilibrium might oscillate during star formation, producing gradual brightenings and darkenings. I guess I'd expect something like that to act over a period of tens, hundreds, or thousands of years.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:09 pm
Lloyd wrote: So Eta Carinae is a plasma torus instead of a spherical star. What provides the tensile strength of the torus? Isn't the torus just very high velocity positive ions on the inside and negative ions on the outside going in the opposite direction? The only attractive forces I can imagine there are electrical attraction between opposite charges and the "attractive" force of gravity. Is the electrical attraction the main tensile force?
Gravity won't be important -- the inward force is entirely electrical. The counterstreaming charged particles will all be pinched toward the same annular axis, so it won't be positive ions inside and negative ions outside. The tensile force will be just a function of all of the free charges (atomic nuclei and free electrons). The velocity of the implosion that created the "natural tokamak" could be a substantial fraction of the speed of light, meaning that the combined counterstreaming velocity might be above the speed of light. At such speeds, plasma is a near-perfect conductor, meaning very little resistance. So you'll have nothing but extremely high velocity, discrete charges...
-> P ---- P ---- P ---- P ---- P
<- -- N ---- N ---- N ---- N --
In that configuration, there will be a net attraction, since on average, there will always be an electron between every two protons. In linear form, you'd call this a tensile force. In annular {ring-shaped} form, the tensile force will try to shrink the major radius of the toroid.
Lloyd wrote: Once the torus forms, I don't see how internal forces would disrupt it and cause a flareup. Do you?
Not really -- I think that it would stabilize, and thereafter, only external forces could cause a flare-up.
Lloyd wrote: Would the flareup be due to some of the positive and negative charges recombining? How would they do so going in opposite directions at high speed?
I don't know how long it would take, but eventually, the electrical resistance will decelerate the combined velocity, to the point that the positive & negative charges will be near enough in velocity to enable recombination. When that starts happening, it will mean the beginning of the end for the star. Neutrally charged particles won't have any magnetic pinch effect, so the organizing principle of the toroid will go away.
Lloyd wrote: How is the magnetic field affected by the opposite directions of the two charge layers?
In counterstreaming opposite charges, the magnetic pinch from both charges is in the same direction, so the charge streams will be pinched together.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:29 pm
FUSION ENERGY
Lloyd wrote: Do you contend that fusion energy will never be practical on Earth?
I don't know about "never", but fusion takes incredible temperatures and pressures -- way outside the range of what can be contained in terrestrial devices. Magnetic confinement, as in tokamaks, keeps the plasma away from the walls, but the energy that it takes to generate the magnetic fields results in a net power loss. Thus sustained nuclear fusion, with a net power output, is a tough nut to crack.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:51 pm
TYPES OF EXOTIC STARS
Lloyd wrote: I think you say that white dwarfs are not actually spherical stars, but are toroidal exotics. Do you think all of the exotics are about the same?
They're all the same in the sense that they're all toroidal plasmoids, as opposed to spherical stars (which is my model for main sequence stars). While the exotics have overlapping property sets, they're not identical.
WHITE DWARF EXOTICS
Lloyd wrote: I think you say that exotics have bipolar jets. I don't readily see jets mentioned with white dwarfs online.
Here's somebody who seems to think that white dwarfs can also be pulsars, complete with bipolar jets: http://www.universetoday.com/74300/white-dwarf-pulsars/
Lloyd wrote: Do your papers explain why you think white dwarfs are exotics?
The extremely powerful magnetic fields (i.e., millions of gauss) just aren't possible in a spherical model -- the centrifugal force wouldn't allow it. But in a toroid, with a major radius like that of Pluto's orbit around the Sun, with relativistic particle velocities, you get extreme magnetic fields, without such enormous centrifugal forces. Then, of course, the thing that keeps the star organized has to be the magnetic fields themselves (i.e., the magnetic pinch in the toroid's annulus).
EXOTIC STAR SIZES
Lloyd wrote: Do you think exotics cover a wide range of sizes? What might be the upper and lower limits of their sizes?
I don't have anything for a size limit on "natural tokamaks". For spherical stars, I consider the limit to be 1.4 solar masses, above which the pressure would initiate a runaway thermonuclear explosion that would annihilate the star. But toroidal plasmoids don't have this problem.
Lloyd wrote: Do you think knowing their distances and magnetic field strengths might be able to determine their diameters?
No, the magnetic fields strengths are a function of the angular velocity.
FUSION BYPRODUCTS BY EXOTICS
Lloyd wrote: Scientists seem to find metals around some white dwarfs and assume that they are planets or planetary or cometary debris orbiting white dwarfs.
The metals are fusion by-products, and have been found around other exotics, such as quasars. While high energy particles ejected toward the center of the toroid can end up getting collimated into bipolar jets streaming away from the star, particles ejected on the equatorial plane undergo magnetic braking that will result in an accumulation. The mainstream considers these metal belts around stars to be part of the "accretion discs" that formed the stars, but I consider them to be "excretion discs" that were formed by the star.
PLANETS BY WHITE DWARFS
Lloyd wrote: Do you think normal planets can form from the same or nearby filaments that form white dwarfs?
I don't see why not.
WHITE DWARF FEATURES
Lloyd wrote: Do you think white dwarfs could be as small as the Earth and have the mass of the Sun?
No. The size estimates come from the mainstream's attempt to come up with force that can oppose the centrifugal force of the extreme angular velocity. So of course they use gravity, but to get a gravity field up to the task, they need extremely compact matter -- so compact that it violates atomic theory. But the "natural tokamak" model doesn't need to do this.
Lloyd wrote: Would rocky material falling into a white dwarf produce x-rays?
In the standard model, impacts don't generate x-rays, so for white dwarfs, they have to invoke mysterious processes. But counterstreaming charged particles in a toroidal plasmoid would certainly produce x-rays, and just about everything else.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:23 pm
Lloyd wrote: Do you think such white dwarfs would have formed all about the same time? Would the galactic filaments have had to be extra long or thick to produce so many white dwarfs in one cluster?
They could have formed at roughly the same time. If there was a collision of two giant molecular clouds, and if the direction of the collision was perpendicular to the galactic field, the formation of "natural tokamaks" instead of main sequence stars would have been favored.
Lloyd wrote: Do you know if 10^6 Gauss would be a maximum magnetic field strength for them?
I don't know if there would be a theoretical limit.
{Here's Charles' diagram of how jets are produced from toroidal natural tokamaks. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5738}
{The two colored circles are the cross section of a torus. The arrows indicate radiation I think. This shows that the radiation is concentrated mostly at the two polar openings of the torus, forming bipolar jets.}
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:52 am
UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC FORCE
Lloyd wrote: How Electric Force Works from Microcosm to Macrocosm
Yes, the electric force, in the "like-likes-like" configuration, appears to be the organizing principle of the Universe, and is crucial to understanding chemistry, star formation, and galaxy formation, to name just some of the scales at which the matter falls into this configuration.
HELIOPAUSE 2
Lloyd wrote: I think Charles said in another paper or maybe on this forum that there doesn't really seem to be a heliopause as the science media have been claiming, so I'm wondering if he thinks there is one, but it hasn't been found yet, or if there is no heliopause at all. If the latter, then there would be no heliosphere, because the heliopause is the boundary of a heliosphere, and without a boundary there's no definitive shape etc.
I'm saying that there isn't any termination shock at the heliopause as the mainstream has it. Instead of being under high pressure, with even more pressure at the heliopause, the heliosphere is actually less dense than the interstellar medium, and the heliopause is a near-perfect vacuum. So I'm just characterizing it very differently from what the mainstream is saying. The heliosphere is a positively charged electrostatic bubble, blown not by hydrostatic pressure, but by its electric charge. So it's like a Debye sheath.
CRAB PULSAR
{Crab Pulsar movie at this link: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0052/animations.html}
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:41 pm
Lloyd wrote: What do you make especially of the inner star and the expanding ring/s?
The inner star is the "natural tokamak". The expanding rings are from flare-ups in the NT. Once the magnetic thruster kicks in, the star is moving through its environment, in which case it is scavenging matter in its path. Inconsistencies in the density of this matter will produce flare-ups.
Re: Most Thorough Model
by CharlesChandler » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:00 pm
NEW MOON CAN TRIGGER EARTHQUAKES
Lloyd wrote: So, although New Moons increase risk for quakes, an eclipse seems hardly any different from other New Moons, which occur every month.
I "think" that I agree. I'm thinking that the only difference between a New Moon and an eclipse is that in an eclipse, there is a small region of the Earth (surface & atmosphere) that isn't getting the photo-ionization that it usually gets. So there you'll have this non-ionized hole surrounded by stuff that is at its normal degree of ionization for that time of day. Since conductivity increases with ionization, and decreases with de-ionization, the hole will be less conductive. So there won't be a stronger electric current through it -- there will be less current. So what is the significance of there being a thin resister surrounded by conductor? Quick answer: I don't know.
EXOTIC & NORMAL STARS TOGETHER?
Lloyd wrote: I just noticed this Ring around the Star Fomalhaut in a TPOD at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/13/a-ring-of-truth. Do you think that would be a Tokamak without visible jets? Or something else? Would some Tokamaks have no jets? Would jets likely fade away in all NTs? How would a star get in the center?
In my model, all stars are formed the same way, by imploding filaments. (Imagine a rubber band that has been stretched tight and then let go.) At moderate velocities, you'll get one big star in the center where all of the matter collides. At greater velocities and in stronger galactic magnetic fields, Lorentz forces deflect the imploding filaments away from a head-on collision, since stuff coming in from one direction gets deflected one way, and stuff coming in from the other direction gets deflected the other way. The result could be two binary companions instead of one big singleton. But at extreme velocities, the imploding filaments get separated into positive & negative strands, and the positive strand from one direction collides with the negative strand from the other direction, and vice versa. I then show how these split streams can resolve into a continuous ring, with positive charges going around the circle in one direction, and negative in the other. Counterstreaming annular {ring-shaped} plasma would suggest a tokamak, so that's my model for the exotic stars, such as quasars. Hence there are three possible outcomes: one big singleton, two smaller binary companions, or one really big toroidal plasmoid.
Now, are these outcomes mutually exclusive? In other words, could you get a main sequence star in the middle, with a toroidal plasmoid encircling it? In my model, there isn't any great reason why this would happen, and the chances of it would be slight. You'd have to have some of the plasma going slow enough to simply collide head-on with its counterpart coming in from the other direction, to form the single main sequence star in the middle. Then you'd also have to have some of the plasma coming in at extreme velocities, getting separated into positive & negative strands that can resolve into a toroidal plasmoid. So you have two different sets of initial conditions. Not impossible, for all of that to happen in the same place at the same time, but not likely either. More problematic would be keeping them together after the fact. There wouldn't be any reason for these things to travel together after formation. So from the theoretical perspective, this configuration would be rare2.
Of course, if we have only one known instance, out of all the stellar systems that have been cataloged, that's rare2. But I'm not saying that there is any reason for this configuration to occur -- I'm just allowing the possibility.