Thunderbolts Forum

'12-11-14, 13:38 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model OK folks, I went ahead and pulled together a number of the recent epiphanies pertaining to tectonic plates, earthquakes, and volcanoes, into a write-up on my site. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9981 Now that I have a draft in progress, additional info can be integrated into it. I'll go back through the recent posts and make sure that I got everything, and then I'll strive to keep up with new posts. If your ideas are not represented, give me a few days or so. If I still haven't included them, try to write them up in a formal style and post them here. Or just wait a few more days, to see if I get around to it. In a sense, we've wandered a good bit from the original topic, which was solar theory. But it's actually still the same idea (i.e., compressive ionization) that's being discussed. So is it a different topic, or did the same topic just explain a bunch of other stuff too? Anyway, if somebody thinks that this should be split off, just report this post to a moderator with a comment to that effect. Cheers!
'12-11-14, 16:20 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model I hope I get a chance to read your paper sometime. Contrary to what I thought before, I suppose it should be okay to leave these discussions all in the same thread, because they all deal with aspects of your astrophysics model. Since we've also discussed galaxies and quasars to some extent, it seems that splitting off each discussion might make things too disconnected. Rethink Galaxy Distances Speaking of that, I think you need to rethink the size and motion of the universe some more. I think the quasar in front of a galaxy and the other high redshift quasars with bridges of matter connected to optically nearby low redshift galaxies prove conclusively that redshift is not significantly due to distance or velocity in such cases. And the same should be true of quasars that don't have obvious connections to galaxies, since it's unlikely that such quasars are otherwise different from the former quasars. I'd like you to read the older thread, Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear, sometime starting at this post, http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1~, or the online book linked there, because you might be able to explain whether the idea has merit or not. EU Theory agrees that distant galaxies are much closer than redshift calculations indicate, but it seems to say distant galaxies are only about ten times closer than conventionally claimed.
'12-11-15, 13:46 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Subduction Charles, I just read your paper, Earth's Internal Heat Source(s), at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9981 and I see it mentions some interesting info that you haven't mentioned here yet. I guess you'll make some diagrams there to help explain some of the processes eventually. I think I understand almost all of it, but some of it not quite yet. You mention subduction a bit, but I don't think there is actual subduction into the mantle. Instead, plates move over each other, so the front edges look like "subduction", but aren't really going down into the mantle. Here's my impression. The American plates are overriding the Pacific plate, so it looks like the Pacific plate is subducting, but it's only sliding under the American plates and remaining horizontal under them. And magma under the ocean ridges is not under pressure from below and being forced upward into the ridges. Instead, the plates are pulling apart at the ridges and lower pressure there causes normal pressure magma below to fill in the gap, as diagrammed at http://newgeology.us. As it explains, an impact east of Africa seems to have split the supercontinent into pieces and to have pushed the pieces apart a few thousand years ago. The movements now seem to be just the fading momentum from the former impact. If you find otherwise, I'll be interested in your findings. Electric Discharge Features on Earth Have you seen this message about the upcoming EU Conference, called Evidence for Electrical Discharge on the Earth's Surface(?) at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/09/02/eu2013-speakers/? It says: Dr. Paul Anderson will present his current research utilizing fractal analysis in an effort to differentiate fluvial and electrical morphologies. His initial analysis revealed there to be no statistical difference between the fractal dimensions of certain geological structures and laboratory based electrical discharges. However, he found a significant difference between the fractal dimension of known fluvial erosion and known electrical discharges. Such data strongly supports the hypothesis of extreme electrical events on the earth's surface. - Dr. Anderson works as a chemist for the US Army and is leading efforts in the Thunderbolts Project community to implement statistical design of experiments [using?] (DOE) approach to experimentation. By properly utilizing modern designs, the efficiency and statistical rigor in experimentation is greatly increased. He is involved with the Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment (SAFIRE) as well as exploring methods to quantify the effects of possible planetary scale discharges on the geologic landscape. Does your model allow for the possibility of electric discharges powerful enough between planets to produce huge craters, or canyons, or remove much of the surface of a planet like Mars? I haven't read all of your new papers yet, so maybe you've already answered. But I look forward to your insight on that. Since you've mentioned the possibility of stars and planets colliding, I imagine you've thought about what effects near-collisions might have. If so, what do you think would be the maximum size and duration of electric discharge between two large bodies? EU Geology Site I hope to interest Michael Steinbacher in your model. He's putting a lot of info at his site, http://eu-geology.com. And he's scheduled to speak at the EU Conference. If he finds your model promising, maybe he'll tell people a little about it.
'12-11-15, 19:46 webolife	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model I am not a "true believer" in subduction, but the seismic evidence FOR it is that the "roots" of continental mountain ranges run deep into the mantle by 100's of kilometers. This fact leads to the studies of deep focus earthquakes there that suggest relative motion of those regions of the crust. Add to this the recognition that the continents are still in motion wtr to the ocean crust, and you have the current model for seafloor spreading at one locus and subduction at the other locus or plate boundary. Where I don't buy subduction is that the trenches appear to be more passive seafloor sites than one would imagine under this scenario. Expanding Earth theory aside [for I don't buy that [yet] either], I see trenches as simple isostatic consequences of horizontal pressure from continental drift. "The mountains go up, the valleys go down, forming a boundary which the oceans can no longer cross." A close-by supporting evidence for this is Lake Chelan in Washington State, which rests in the center of the North Cascade range, its lake surface is 1000 feet in elevation, and its floor is 600 feet below sea level, making it a veritable trench in the middle of a mountain range. I don't need "subduction" to see that the boundary ranges [with their attendant trenches] account for the seafloor spreading that clearly occurs at the mid-ocean rift zones. This does not prove subduction is false, however it suggests it to be unnecessary or insignificant. As far as the rest of Charles' model goes, however, piezoelectricity is "just what the doctor ordered" to cure geology of the ills of uniformitarianism, and as a unifying factor with a solar model makes for an added level of elegance to the EU perspective. I think if we keep the thread together, it might serve to change the title to "Compression Ionization — A Unifying EU Perspective?" or some such, so that we can go at it from multiple perspectives.
'12-11-15, 20:44 GaryN	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model @webolife the "roots" of continental mountain ranges run deep into the mantle by 100's of kilometers. This fact.. Of course you may find other 'facts' out there. The average elevation of continental crust relative to sealevel is about 1 km. Roughly speaking, how deep must the continental root extend down into the mantle to support that elevation ? Code: Select all                           (2.8 gm/cc * 1 km)                    2.8 km Depth of root =    --------------------------     =      -------------   = 5.6 km                          ( 3.3 - 2.8 ) gm/cc                        0.5 How deep is the root for a mountain range with an average elevation of 15,000 feet (about 3 miles)?                           (2.8 gm/cc * 3 miles)                8.4 miles Depth of root =    --------------------------     =      -------------   = 16.8 miles                          ( 3.3 - 2.8 ) gm/cc                        0.5 The most important point is that mountains have buoyant roots that extend downward into the mantle beneath a mountain range, and that the roots are, in general, about 5.6 times deeper than the height of the range. This result reflects the difference between the densities of average crust and mantle. http://geoscience.wisc.edu/~chuck/Class ... roots.html
'12-11-15, 22:46 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: Getting back to tornadic activity in your initial nebula, do you contend that there would be none of that at all at any point within the nebula? One of the mainstream conceptions of accretion discs is that they need the outflow in the bipolar jets to relieve the pressure at the point of convergence, otherwise, the pressure would simply continue to build up, and then stuff wouldn't flow in anymore. That's similar to the concept of a vacuum vortex pulling stuff inward, and then outward through the jets. But if we trace it all back to the primary forces, we see that gravity and the "like-likes-like" force are pulling in, while hydrostatic pressure and the centrifugal force are pushing out. So the push isn't polar — it's equatorial. And the pull isn't cylindrical — it's radial. While the cyclonic pattern in an accretion disc is visually reminiscent of the inflow to a tornado or hurricane, the centripetal force isn't a vacuum in the center, and the flow field is fundamentally different. A vacuum vortex can occur in a pressurized fluid, but it cannot occur in a vacuum. Lloyd wrote: And how do you think geodes form? Have you seen any of the TPODs on geodes, concretions etc? I don't know much about these. Lloyd wrote: Do you contend that lightning is non-tornadic? Yes, lightning is just an electrostatic discharge. A tornado is a more complex interplay between fluid dynamic and electromagnetic forces. Maol wrote: It's easy enough to extrapolate from [the piezo effect] that a sudden jolt of solar EM forces on a planet could excite expansion and contraction of all or some portion of the body and be the tipping point resulting in an earthquake. That sounds reasonable to me. I'll see if I can find any papers on this. If not, it will be up to us to find the correlations between the space weather data and the earthquake occurrences. I think that it will be probabilistic, beyond chance, but not the only factor. Maol wrote: Phenomena such as the Taos hum could be a harmonic of piezoelectric or magnetostriction activity in the local basalt. Would that be like a piezo woofer? Anyway, it's certainly possible. One of the recordings of "the hum" in Auckland NZ found the center frequency to be 56 Hz. This is interesting because of how close it is to the frequency of AC current. (NZ's standard is 50 Hz.) The pulsations of the power grid can be picked up from satellites out in space, so it's easily possible that they're detectable by the ground, which is a bit nearer the source! If this is the case, it would explain why nobody has been able to locate a source for the sounds. If it's the Earth itself, it's coming from everywhere, and low frequencies wrap around obstacles, making it difficult to detect the source. Furthermore, the current might be in one place, but the sound might become audible in another, depending on the geometry of the piezo "driver". Lloyd wrote: I think you need to rethink the size and motion of the universe some more. I have neglected this, partly because nothing in my model is dependent on absolute distances or durations. So the Universe could be big or small, old or young, but the relative distances and durations might be similar, and the same mechanisms apply. Anyway, I'm not sure when I'll get to this, but I certainly agree that it's an open topic. I created a page on my site for collecting info on the redshift controversy, in the hopes that others could add more substance to it. Lloyd wrote: I guess you'll make some diagrams there to help explain some of the processes eventually. Yes, I'm working on the diagrams right now. The transition from verbal to visual thinking is a rough process, as things that sounded good don't always look good! I also have a lot more reading to do, to ratchet up the specificity. There actually seems to be a good deal of literature related to seismic piezo-electricity, so I'm trying to get my reading list prioritized. Lloyd wrote: You mention subduction a bit, but I don't think there is actual subduction into the mantle. Instead, plates move over each other, so the front edges look like "subduction", but aren't really going down into the mantle. Here's my impression. The American plates are overriding the Pacific plate, so it looks like the Pacific plate is subducting, but it's only sliding under the American plates and remaining horizontal under them. I'm starting to agree with this. The first high-res info that I have found on "subduction" is this site. The image clearly shows the Pacific plate sliding under the Asian plate, but then running parallel to it. So the whole idea of huge folds in the Earth's crust, with the underlying plate getting shoved straight down into the mantle, seems grossly inaccurate. The crust does buckle before an earthquake, so I've still got that under consideration as an important piece, where the buckle alters the pressure beneath, and the mechanical forces induce an piezo-electric current. But "subduction" isn't looking like just one huge buckle, as the lay literature presents it, and as I was describing it. Lloyd wrote: And magma under the ocean ridges is not under pressure from below and being forced upward into the ridges. Instead, the plates are pulling apart at the ridges and lower pressure there causes normal pressure magma below to fill in the gap... I'm starting to agree with this too. I got there by a different road, by acknowledging that after a quake, the fault is actually under tensile force, pulling the plates together. This could create an aftershock at the same fault, or open up a fissure elsewhere. This at least gives a hat-tip to the obvious anomalies in the existing tectonic framework. And then... Lloyd wrote: ...as diagrammed at http://newgeology.us. As it explains, an impact east of Africa seems to have split the supercontinent into pieces and to have pushed the pieces apart a few thousand years ago. The movements now seem to be just the fading momentum from the former impact. If you find otherwise, I'll be interested in your findings. This looks really interesting!!! I'm totally not qualified to give this a crtical review, as I am new to all of this. But clearly, this guy doesn't have just a hunch — he's looking at all of the data, and seeing the big picture. This deserves a closer look. Has Web reviewed it? Lloyd wrote: Does your model allow for the possibility of electric discharges powerful enough between planets to produce huge craters, or canyons, or remove much of the surface of a planet like Mars? I truly have no idea — I'm too new at this to comment. webolife wrote: A close-by supporting evidence for this is Lake Chelan [...] a veritable trench in the middle of a mountain range. Or how about Death Valley, 85 miles from Mt. Whitney? I love it when the lay literature talks about the enormous pressures that produced the mountains, and then, sans segue, they talk about how the mountains are being pulled apart, creating this massive fissure in the Earth. Speaking of Death Valley, you might get a kick out my EM explanation of the "sliding rocks" there. (See Racetrack Playa Rocks!.) I'm basically saying that fast-moving winds in the valley are positively charged, which induces a negative charge in the Earth. The rocks sitting in the middle of a perfectly flat playa concentrate the electric field on themselves, generating an electric force that helps them slide in the high winds. webolife wrote: I think if we keep the thread together, it might serve to change the title to "Compression Ionization — A Unifying EU Perspective?" or some such, so that we can go at it from multiple perspectives. Indeed, this thing is starting to look like it has legs. I'm interested to see how this bears out in the assimilation of more data. I'm currently looking for good elevation views of actual subduction zones, and where the quakes occur relative to the "subduction". But to a large extent, I'm really just getting familiarized with the literature. So far so good...
'12-11-16, 12:57 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Nontornadic Lightning? I said: Do you contend that lightning is non-tornadic? Charles said: Yes, lightning is just an electrostatic discharge. A tornado is a more complex interplay between fluid dynamic and electromagnetic forces. Don't the magnetic field/s cause the ions to move in helical paths? That's what made me think that lightning is tornadic. I heard lightning compared to a rope that is somewhat unraveled. It all gives me the impression of it being tornado-like. Should I abandon that impression? If so, in favor of what? It is helical, isn't it? Quasars and Galaxies You said I could post stuff about this on your site, but it's easier for now to provide a link. I posted what I had previously put on this forum onto a forum of mine at http://sci2.lefora.com/2012/11/16/1-49. It was originally here (and still is): http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=6~. I have to leave for a Skype call now.
'12-11-16, 14:36 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Tectonic Ratcheting I'd like to elaborate on something that I mentioned briefly in my previous post. I agreed with Lloyd that mid-ocean ridges are not under high pressure, but rather, low pressure. On his suggestion I took a look at Mike Fischer's "Shock Dynamics" site (http://newgeology.us/), which states that the continents were blasted apart by an impact event, and still with the inertia from that, they continue to move apart, and they're sucking magma up through the mid-ocean ridges to fill the void between them. While I think that "shock dynamics" has a lot going for it, I am still brewing ideas on subduction, with interesting implications, and which are not mutually exclusive with shock dynamics. What if the impact event initiated plate motion, but then, the plate collisions themselves perpetuated the motion? How could this happen? With an initial convergence of two plates, pressure builds up at the "subduction" zone. This causes the crust to buckle. The buckling induces piezo-electricity, which rapidly heats the plates. The rapid expansion overwhelms the traction, and the plates slip (i.e., there is an earthquake). The plates slip until the pressure is fully relieved at the higher temperature. Then the quake stops, and the plates fuse back together again, re-establishing traction between them. But as the rock cools, the plates come under a tensile force. So they're actually being stretched, and a mid-ocean fissure opens up, where the low pressure pulls magma upward to fill the void. This relaxes the tensile force, enabling the plates to move toward each other. As they do, they develop convergent momentum. Eventually, the momentum overshoots the pressure equilibrium, and the plates are once again "colliding". If the hole process was fully elastic, the plates would simply rebound off of each other. But once again, the pressure at the subduction zone causes buckling, which induces piezo-electricity, which heats the crust, causing the rupture of the fault, which continues until all of the pressure has been relieved at the higher temperature. In other words, there is a positive feedback loop in the earthquake. The plate collision creates pressure. The pressure buckles the crust. In the buckles, piezo-electric currents heat the crust. The heat causes the rock to expand. The expansion increases the pressure. As a consequence of this positive feedback loop, the high-pressure phase doesn't last very long, and traction between the plates is lost (i.e., there is an earthquake). But the cooling phase doesn't have a positive feedback loop, so there isn't any runaway cooling going on, and the traction holds. If the traction holds over the longer period when the plates are being pulled together, but not in the shorter period when they are under pressure, the net force on the plates is tensile, not pressure. This drags the plates toward the "subduction" zones. Note that this isn't a "perpetual motion" machine. Only with the injection of that other energy (i.e., the piezo-electricity) is this ratchet going to work. To look at it another way, it's actually the electric current that is driving the tectonic motions, but it does it in a back-handed way. The current causes the rock to expand, and then the cooling is what drags the plates across the mantle. When that's done, piezo-electricity pumps some more energy into it. While the rock is being heated, the ratchet slips, but as it cools, the ratchet holds. Thus the prime mover is ohmic heating from an electric current. As I said, this and "shock dynamics" are not mutually exclusive. An impact event could have initiated the process. Thereafter, the way the plates pull each other together at the subduction zones perpetuates the motion. Lloyd wrote: Don't the magnetic field/s cause the ions [in lightning] to move in helical paths? That's what made me think that lightning is tornadic. Yep, the electrons in a lightning strike (or any discharge for that matter) will spiral if there is an external magnetic field. This is because of the Lorentz force. In other words, they become B-field-aligned currents (i.e., Birkeland currents). Vacuum vortexes spiral just because of the conservation of angular momentum from the cyclonic inflow. So once it gets organized, you could say that the particle motion is the same, but for very different reasons.
'12-11-17, 17:53 webolife	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model I'm pretty much in agreement with what Charles is saying in the above posts. I am also intrigued with the shock dynamics aspects of the "big" "recent" catastrophe... I've mentioned this before but it seems to bear repeating here: All the major strata have associated astroblemes, "impact" sites, whether EDMish or asteroidal in nature, over 150 known and I'm sure many more to be discovered. Standard geology would have us believe that these are all chronologically and geographically unrelated and relatively insignificant events; but when rethinking this in terms of a catastrophic episode on the earth, the astroblemes take on a completely different meaning and influence, occuring within days, weeks, months or perhaps years apart. I believe, as one example, that the Chicxulub crater was just one piece of a major "impact" event that opened up the entire Mexican basin at the beginning of the seafloor spreading associated with the Atlantic Rift Zone. At the beginning of that event the Carribean region would have been found inland of the supercontinent which was split apart by the "impact"/compressional event. I also see that the rift zones are since then regions of low pressure, with magmas filling in the gaps of the spreading crust. The high pressure regions then are found on the leading edges of the spreading continental masses. Also agreed about "Racetrack Playa". One of Gerald Pollack's [of the Univ of Wash] ideas about aerodynamics is that charges accumulate on the windy side of objects creating a field which then propels the object windward. It's a radical new take on the Bernoulli effect, and helps to explain the "low pressure" differential in many Bernoulli applications.
'12-11-19, 00:26 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Moderate and Major Problem CI at Moho? 1. Charles, when we brought up the Moho layer, I think you initially thought "the compressive ionization (CI) threshold occur[s] at the Moho layer, at a depth of 5~90 km below the surface." Then later you said: "But the Moho is deeper under the continents than under the oceans. ... The compressive ionization threshold would occur higher under the greater mass of the continents. ... [So then] the Moho is just the transition between the solid, brittle crust and the hotter, more plastic substrate." I think you may be misperceiving the matter. I believe the continents are considerably less dense than the ocean floors. In a dense substance the CI threshold should be nearer the surface and in a less dense substance it should be deeper. Wouldn't that be right? I think it's called isostacy. There's an explanation of it here: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lec~ So I think the Moho is still a good candidate for the CI threshold. Tokamak 2. An even more important issue seems to be your tokamak model. It seems to be an excellent model, except for one thing, the quasar data. Quasars are found almost always near a galaxy and the plasma gun model seems to be the best candidate for getting quasars out of galactic nuclei, but not too far away. If quasars didn't exist near galaxies, there'd be no problem, but they do so there is (I think). It seems that the tokamak needs to be redesigned as a shooter. Could there be a stage of tokamak development where it gets hyperactive and shoots out quasars? If things can explode, like novae and supernovae, and other things can zip through space, like runaway planets and stars, can't there be a connection between the two, and can't tokamaks explode or something, maybe from collisions, if nothing else?
'12-11-19, 10:35 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: So I think the Moho is still a good candidate for the compressive ionization threshold. You're right — compressive ionization isn't going to follow the top of the terrain — it's going to follow the level of equal pressure, which is a function of the amount of weight pushing down from above. If the continents are made of lighter stuff, the CI threshold under the continents will be deeper. Thanks! BTW, in my reading I've found 5 different mechanisms that "might" be responsible for the electric fields associated with seismic activity. piezoelectricity Quartz crystals under pressure get polarized, thus exhibiting electric fields. The most common objection to this is that we have no reason to believe that the crystals would all be oriented in the same direction. Hence under pressure, they'd all get polarized, but the net effect should be slight. A somewhat more substantial criticism is that even if the particles were oriented the same way, individual crystals wouldn't produce a net field. The positive field from one crystal locks into the negative field of the next crystal. This doesn't produce a net field except between the two crystals. But this is still a potential explanation for The Hum, if it's being caused by high-power electric lines near the surface. The alternating current generates time-varying magnetic fields which can then induce currents in the ground. If (somehow) the quartz crystals in the ground got oriented the same way, and if they are exposed to alternating magnetic fields, you'll still get the mechanical effect. So the "piezo woofer" explanation of The Hum is still on the table. triboelectricity Tectonic plates rubbing against each other might produce static electricity between them. Normally, triboelectricity requires friction between dissimilar materials. A fractured rock rubbing against itself shouldn't produce this effect. If it did, it would only produce static charges during the seismic event, leaving the electric fields before and after the quake unexplained. streaming potentials Ground water flowing through cracks in the rock as a consequence of changes in pressure will get ionized in a process roughly analogous to triboelectricity (i.e., static electricity). The total potentials that can be developed are limited by the conductivity of the water, and seem to be only millivolts over a distance of kilometers. positive holes One researcher showed how a surface effect, where electric currents flow better across the surface of granite, can be instantiated inside the rock if it gets fractured. Essentially, the valence bands of the crystals are much weaker where the crystals terminate at a boundary. Thus in an applied field, more current flows along the surface, or through cracks in the rock, than through the crystals themselves. This explains a reduction in resistance, but it is not a charge separation mechanism. The reduced resistance should actually reduce the net electric field, not enhance it, because less resistance makes it harder to maintain the charge separations that generate electric fields. So if this mechanism is real, the enhanced electric fields, before, during, and after seismic events, are totally unexplained. compressive ionization This is purely a function of the amount of pressure being applied, which causes the failure of outer electron shells, and thus the expulsion of the electrons, leaving positive ions behind. This works for all matter. So it is not reliant of specific crystals, such as quartz (for piezoelectricity), or silicates and oxides (for "positive holes"). It is not even reliant on the matter being in the solid state, and thus it works for molten magma as well. Everything that I've read so far states that if the Earth buckles upward, the ground gets positively charged. A substantial amount of instrumented data have been collected, so this is not anecdotal or theoretical. This is an unambiguous prediction of the CI model. The buckling will create a low pressure below it. The reduction in pressure sends the CI threshold deeper into the Earth. Rock that was ionized becomes free for de-ionization, and electrons flow down into that rock. This leaves the surface with a deficiency of electrons (i.e., positively charged). Thus CI is still on the table as the charging mechanism. And the correlation between electric fields and increased temperatures seems to be holding as well. The CI model asserts that raising and lowering of the degree of compressive ionization causes currents that cause ohmic heating, which is conjecture. But the buckling, the fields, the currents, and the heating are real, and they coincide. Lloyd wrote: An even more important issue seems to be your tokamak model. It seems to be an excellent model, except for one thing, the quasar data. Quasars are found almost always near a galaxy and the plasma gun model seems to be the best candidate for getting quasars out of galactic nuclei, but not too far away. If quasars didn't exist near galaxies, there'd be no problem, but they do so there is (I think). It seems that the tokamak needs to be redesigned as a shooter. Could there be a stage of tokamak development where it gets hyperactive and shoots out quasars? If things can explode, like novae and supernovae, and other things can zip through space, like runaway planets and stars, can't there be a connection between the two, and can't tokamaks explode or something, maybe from collisions, if nothing else? The "natural tokamak" is very definitely a shooter. If it is still feeding, because matter from an accretion disc is still being sucked in by the magnetic confinement, there will be polar jets driven by the high-energy ejecta from the fusion reactor. This could be a spray, if the inflow is steady, or it could sputter, if the fuel supply varies. It could also oscillate, where extreme temperatures in the reactor might cause the matter to expand, reducing the reaction rate, only to collapse again, producing a new round of fusion. This offers an explanation for pulsars, which produce gamma rays in phases that can last as little as 1/1000 of a second. An implosion/explosion cycle, with extreme hydrostatic pressure countered by extreme magnetic confinement, could produce oscillations at this rate. I don't know of another model that can explain this with plausible physics. I "think" that the only difference here comes down to whether or not the quasars (or whatever else) come out of the plasma gun as ready-made objects, or as fully atomized plasma, later to condense into discrete objects. The natural tokamak will produce a plasma stream, perhaps that sputters. It won't produce fully assembled planets or stars. I don't know what would. Plasma pinches and condensed matter are mutually exclusive. The magnetic fields in a z-pinch push like charges together, and opposite charges apart. This can fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, but it's still just atomic nuclei — no molecules, much less liquids or solids. As plasma, it can only stay organized by the magnetic pinch effect, wherein extreme linear velocities keep the polar jets organized, or extreme radial velocities keep toroidal plasmoids organized. The latter would seem to be the relevant case for a quasar, which is a point-like object, not a stream. So how do you get a plasma gun to shoot toroidal plasmoids? I'm thinking in nuts-n-bolts terms here, not just off-handed suggestions. I personally think that a quasar, like any star-like object, has its own accretion disc. Perhaps matter imploding toward the center of an elliptical galaxy spins off smaller accretions, sorta like the way hurricanes spin off tornadoes? Thus there would be angular momentum converging toward the AGN, and quasars forming near it and then drifting away. But that doesn't mean that the AGN plasma gun shot out the quasars.
'12-11-19, 11:35 celeste	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Charles, I don't know if you've seen the thread "Quasar Gas Clouds Found Disappearing Explainable By Arp"? Even if you don't accept the mechanism proposed in that thread, we still have the empirical data saying that quasars can blow off their surrounding gas and dust in a very short time. Does that change your mind on the probability of finding accretion disks around quasars?
'12-11-19, 12:43 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Quasar Thread That "Quasar Gas Clouds" thread that Celeste mentioned is at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3~. Maybe I'll get a chance to read through it a bit eventually. Geology Expert Charles, I think we can progress faster with getting a geology expert's comments (such as Web's) on your model, if we offer specific questions. I'm thinking of writing up some questions today, but you may have better questions, if you have time for that yet. The Quasar Data I had forgotten about the polar beams of radiation in your natural tokamak model (how about calling it nat-tokamak?). It's very encouraging that those beams might help account for the quasar data. I don't remember if you've said how much you know about Arp's and Thornhill's quasar models, though I know you're somewhat familiar with them. As I recall, Thornhill believes quasars begin as nearly massless atomic particles (mostly protons I think) which shoot out of AGNs (active galactic nuclei) at relativistic velocity (near light speed), then they gradually gain mass and lose velocity, after going a couple million lightyears or so, and come to a stop wrt the outward direction, then they evolve into galaxies. - Whether or not Wal is right about the atomic particles starting out with no mass, do you think your beams could produce quasar-sized plasmoids that could shoot out at high velocity? I don't remember in Arp's book if he showed any evidence of quasars transforming into galaxies. I know you've studied galaxy evolution, so have you come across anything that might suggest that quasars can so transform? Or is there something else that they might evolve into? I believe Arp or Wal did say he saw one or more cases of apparent pre-quasar objects within one or more AGNs. Moho Layer and CIT That will be handy then, if the Moho layer marks the area of the CIT (compressive ionization threshold). Can the CIT go up and down much over a short horizontal distance? I've seen a diagram of the Moho layer, I think under Europe and the Atlantic, in which the Moho has very high waves near the coast I think, but is fairly smooth elsewhere. I don't find the image right now.
'12-11-19, 13:45 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Earthquakes under the Moho? Charles, if the Moho layer marks the CI threshold and it goes no more than 90 km deep, how can earthquakes occur deeper than that (up to 700 km deep), within CI matter, if earthquakes require microfractures etc to produce them? Can microfractures exist within CI matter? If so, then I suppose sunquakes could occur in the Sun's CI matter. Eh?
'12-11-19, 19:42 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model celeste wrote: We still have the empirical data saying that quasars can blow off their surrounding gas and dust in a very short time. Does that change your mind on the probability of finding accretion disks around quasars? I don't know. If the dust cloud was an accretion disc, could it have disappeared just because the quasar finally gobbled it all up? (I don't know the answer to that one either. ) Lloyd wrote: As I recall, Thornhill believes quasars begin as nearly massless atomic particles (mostly protons I think) which shoot out of AGNs (active galactic nuclei) at relativistic velocity (near light speed), then they gradually gain mass and lose velocity, after going a couple million lightyears or so, and come to a stop wrt the outward direction, then they evolve into galaxies. OK... and I'm saying that the AGN is a tokamak, which explains how it can emit polar jets. So I think that we start out agreeing, if Wal's relativistic protons and my relativistic fusion by-products are actually the same thing. But how do the particles gradually gain mass? And is there any observed correlation between the location of quasars and the polar jets? I thought that quasars are just randomly scattered in the vicinity of the AGN. Lloyd wrote: Do you think your beams could produce quasar-sized plasmoids that could shoot out at high velocity? It would shoot out high velocity plasma in a collimated form. Theoretically, a collimated jet losing speed could morph into an accretion disc at the far end. Then the accretion disc could instantiate a tokamak at the point of convergence, a thus a new star would be born of the ejecta out of the polar jet from the old one. But I don't know of any evidence of there being an accretion disc (or stellar nursery of any kind) at the end of a polar jet. Lloyd wrote: I don't remember in Arp's book if he showed any evidence of quasars transforming into galaxies. I know you've studied galaxy evolution, so have you come across anything that might suggest that quasars can so transform? Or is there something else that they might evolve into? I believe Arp or Wal did say he saw one or more cases of apparent pre-quasar objects within one or more AGNs. I'm not sure how we would know the difference between a quasar transforming into a galaxy, versus a galaxy manufacturing a quasar — they'd both look the same in the snapshot, right? Personally, I think that if there is a quasar at the center of an elliptical galaxy, it's a tokamak that was spun up by the angular momentum of galactic matter converging on the center. But I haven't studied quasars outside of the context of AGNs in elliptical galaxies, so I don't know what happens to the stray quasars Arp was talking about. Lloyd wrote: Can the compressive ionization threshold go up and down much over a short horizontal distance? I've seen a diagram of the Moho layer, I think under Europe and the Atlantic, in which the Moho has very high waves near the coast I think, but is fairly smooth elsewhere. I don't find the image right now. I'm looking for information like that. A few little waves wouldn't surprise me. Big waves would probably be a big problem. Just make sure that you're not looking at a diagram that has an exaggerated vertical scale, which seems to be common in this topic. Lloyd wrote: If the Moho layer marks the CI threshold and it goes no more than 90 km deep, how can earthquakes occur deeper than that (up to 700 km deep), within CI matter, if earthquakes require microfractures etc to produce them? Can microfractures exist within CI matter? If so, then I suppose sunquakes could occur in the Sun's CI matter. Eh? This is a good question. First, compressive ionization isn't an all-or-nothing kind of thing. It depends on the elements, where heavier elements are easier to ionize, because the outer electrons are not so tightly bound. And it goes by degrees, one electron at a time. So it's not that above the threshold, nothing is ionized, while below, everything is ionized. It would be more accurate to say that ionization begins at a certain depth, and then increases with depth. Now, at what depth do what elements hit the first degree of ionization? The second? The last? I don't know how to answer these questions. I thought that it was a simple matter of calculating the Coulomb force per degree of ionization. So you could just find the weight of the rock above, and then find the electrostatic equilibrium. But I'm still researching that. It seems that atoms start repelling each other long before the electron shell conflicts occur. Some have suggested that there are magnetic conflicts between opposing electron spins the create repulsion. Anyway, I'm still working on this. I'll let you know if I make any progress. Anyway, electric currents would flow as deep as the ionization is still changing with pressure differences. Would that go all of the way down to 700 km? I don't know.