Thunderbolts Forum

'13-11-23, 18:27 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: Gravity of moonsplanets is electrostatic attraction. This varies with the amount of ionization in the core of the planet, and not directly from the mass or density. I totally agree with this, but I'm curious as to whether or not I agree for the same reasons. You never know when you might learn something, when you disagree with somebody, or even when you agree! So here's my reason for agreeing, just to see if we disagree on why we agree... Gerald Pollack (following Richard Feynman) has demonstrated that net-neutral bodies experience a paradoxical electrostatic attraction. For example, neutrally charged atoms bind together into molecules, for electrical reasons, despite their neutrality. This is because the electrons from proximal atoms are attracted to the protons in both atoms, and thus find electrostatic equilibrium between the two nuclei. And of course the nuclei are attracted by the electric force to the electrons. Once the electrons take up a position between the two nuclei, the electric force attracting the nuclei to the electrons is pulling the nuclei closer to each other, despite the repulsive force between the two positively charged nuclei. This is what Feynman called the Paradoxical Force, and what Pollack calls the Like-Likes-Like Force. The key to unraveling the paradox is remembering that the electric force obeys the inverse square law. So the nuclei are more powerfully attracted to the shared electrons between them than they are repelled from each other, resulting in a net attractive force. If this is true at the atomic level, as Feynman demonstrated, and at the molecular level, as Pollack demonstrated, it ought to be true at any level, wherever there are net-neutral bodies that nevertheless can share opposite charges. Hence Debye cells should attract each other, where a negatively charged solid body is surrounded by a positively charged sheath, and where the two negatively charged bodies are pulled toward the shared positive charges in their overlapping sheaths. This could be true for little dust grains, and for asteroids, moons, planets, and stellar systems within galaxies. No need for CDM — the "missing mass" isn't mass at all — it's just a missing force, and that force is the electric force. So that's the model I'm using, and I have developed a long list of things that can be explained this way. Is this the same sort of construct that you're using? Or do you have another reason for saying that "gravitational attraction" is actually just electrostatics?
'13-11-24, 00:16 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Yes. Planets and moons are essentially scaled up atoms experiencing a simplified molecular bonding. Funny that its an idea i had when i first learned electrostatics at college and saw that gravity and the electrostatic force were very similar. But at the time I disregarded it as a poor but fun model. If I remember right, the biggest difference in our rationals, is I'm trying to fit the expanding Earth theory into the rest of natural theory. I don't think you accept the Expanding Earth model ? The thing is, whatever mechanism is growing the Earth, can grow all space objects, from asteroids to stars. This mechanism competes with other ideas on how stars form, so old ideas that stars form nothing except collapsing gas is discredited if EE is accepted. Collapse of gas clouds due to static attraction onto galactic currents is still plausible, but I reckon they collapse onto existing nuclei, i.e. existing bodies, such as wandering planets. The biggest problem I have is the most obvious. According to growing earth proponents, the Earth is currently growing at +22mm radius per year, so where is the power coming from? It's a very hard puzzle to figure out within known physics. I've seriously considered if 'creation' is happening inside planets, though this isn't too aesthetically satisfying . A clue is that planets and moons that show major geologic activity also exhibit major electromagnetic activity, e.g. Earth, Io, Enceladus. I'm still brainstorming ideas at the moment, I haven't settled on any mechanism yet. But a few things seem more likely than others. EU theory is going to offer far more scope than gravity theory for explaining Expanding Earth, so I'm interesting in any EU based theories others have. Ionic cored stars and planets just seems the natural and simplest EU explanation of gravity, its tends to explain observations a bit better, so by Occam's razor I accept it as current base and most plausible theory. My biggest deviation from a standard ionic core model is that since I don't accept gravity as an independent force, then there's no continuous pressure build up to the centre of a starplanet. Instead, at some radius, the negative charged matter attracted radially down to the centre is met by positively charged matter attracted outwards. I can appeal to electromagnetic tricks to stop the opposite charge layers recombining, e.g. ionic layer too compressed to allow electrons, electro-dynamic double layer, or just a plain atom like model, where electrons will just tend to wander to the outer radius of the planet while ions prefer to sit in the middle. ( i.e the closer you are to the inversion radius, the weaker(!) the apparent electrostatic attractive force gets ) But the upshot is that without gravity to apply a continuous force to the core, the possibility arises for hollow stars and planets. Man, its all too theoretical and speculative. I wish for every space agency we had a 'core' agency, i.e. one that spends billions digging as far into the Earth or other bodies as possible so we can see whats going on inside. (c8= *edit* One way to argue increasing pressure all the way to the core : If we are accepting planets and stars mimic the atomic model, so that positive charge tends towards the centre and negative charge tends towards the surface, then you could by the same rational argue the same applies for nuclear forces! i.e. the ions in the core experience a slight macro scale attraction to each other due to strong nuclear force. This would explain gravity force all the way to the centre of a star planet.
'13-11-24, 02:59 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: I don't think you accept the Expanding Earth model? [...] According to growing earth proponents, the Earth is currently growing at +22mm radius per year, so where is the power coming from? If it's only +22mm per year, I'm not sure that you need a power source per se, but rather, just a force. And the force would be electrostatics. Given that the surface of the Earth is negatively charged, and the atmosphere is positively charged, there is a force between them. (I believe that this is what keeps the atmosphere bound to the planet. The standard model, which states that geomagnetism shields the planet from the solar wind, can't explain why Venus, with less gravity, almost no magnetic field, and being closer to the Sun, has a thicker atmosphere than the Earth. So I think that it's the electric force.) Anyway, positive ions coming into proximity of the Earth might get snagged by the electric force, and make a contribution to the Earth's mass. So what I'm saying is that it might be just like polymerization — it doesn't take power — it just takes polarization, and the aggregate grows. I could see +22mm per year by such a process. But I'm not convinced that this is the whole story of what formed the Earth. I'm with JeffreyW on the "planets are retired stars" hypothesis. My main reason is that I find it tough to believe that the Earth, being made of heavy elements, condensed from an interplanetary medium that is primarily hydrogen. But I don't have any problem at all imagining how a far heavier star could have fused heavier elements in electrostatic discharges over a long period of time, and how those elements could have settled to the bottom. Thus after a flare up in the Red Giant stage, there might be nothing left of the star but those heavy elements (plus little people running around in WTF mode, trying to figure out how all of this happened). meemoe_uk wrote: Collapse of gas clouds due to static attraction onto galactic currents is still plausible, but I reckon they collapse onto existing nuclei, i.e. existing bodies, such as wandering planets. The "like-likes-like" force does require a nucleus of condensation, but it could be just a grain of dust with a Debye sheath around it. So I still subscribe to the dusty plasma collapse scenario in stellar formation. I just think that the electric force is 5~20x stronger than gravity, and therefore is the causal factor. meemoe_uk wrote: A clue is that planets and moons that show major geologic activity also exhibit major electromagnetic activity, e.g. Earth, Io, Enceladus. I think that this is all just electrostatics as we have already identified. If you have a positive core and a negative surface, you have current-free double-layers. But something that disrupts the internal pressure, such as tidal forces, shifts the positive/negative boundary. The implication in that shift is that an electric current flows, either out of the core as the pressure increases and therefore is getting a higher degree of ionization, or back into the core as the pressure relaxes, enabling charge recombination. And of course the implication of electric currents flowing twice a day due to tides is ohmic heating, which will keep stirring things up. meemoe_uk wrote: My biggest deviation from a standard ionic core model is that since I don't accept gravity as an independent force, then there's no continuous pressure build up to the centre of a starplanet. I believe that gravity is still a force. If it wasn't, planets would be like snowflakes or strands of wispy polymers, but they wouldn't be densely packed spheres. meemoe_uk wrote: I can appeal to electromagnetic tricks to stop the opposite charge layers recombining, e.g. ionic layer too compressed to allow electrons... My model incorporates electron degeneracy pressure for precisely this reason. Note the EDP traditionally was only invoked to prevent the gravitational collapse of extremely dense objects (e.g., white dwarfs), but more recently, has been cited as a phenomenon even at everyday pressures, such as the reason for the incompressibility of liquids. So I think that gravity has created the pressure necessary for ionization, via EDP, creating a positive core and a negative sheath. meemoe_uk wrote: ...electro-dynamic double layer... I assume you're talking about magnetic pressure, as in a toroidal plasmoid. I use this for exotic stars (i.e., black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars/blazars, BL Lac objects, white dwarfs, and planetary nebulae). In stars like the Sun, and the planets in our solar system, we don't have the relativistic velocities to get magnetic fields strong enough to dominate. So for normal stars and planets, I go with the electrostatic layering model, and only invoke electrodynamics for exotic stars.
'13-11-24, 03:36 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity My main reason is that I find it tough to believe that the Earth, being made of heavy elements, condensed from an interplanetary medium that is primarily hydrogen. One of the new tricks from the plasma labs is that electric arcs have been shown to generate plasmoids which can house environments hot enough for nuclear fusion. This means that where ever lightning is present in the universe, there's potential for nucleo-synthesis. Earth could have made its own heavy elements with 5 billion years of lightning. This could happen subsurface too, across a dielectric medium in the Earth's internal structure. This radically different model competes with the star nuclear synthesis model. To extend this model to fit in with what we see in the solar system, it looks like there's another type of planet factory : Saturn's rings are condensing into ice moonlets and asteroids. These bodies gradually increase orbital distance and grow bigger. Electric arcing near the surface fuses the ice into new elements. This continues, forming a crust of heavy elements, and if the 'gravity' is strong enough, retaining light element 'byproducts' to make an atmosphere. And so on. No need for heavy elements formed in stars in this model. So looks like rings are moon factories. What's happening in Saturn's rings now is a bit like the conventional theory of solar system creation from gravity collapse. Except its happening 1000 times faster due to the smaller scale of Saturns rings vs the solar system, and its more electromagnetic in nature, and moonlets are ejected from the rings. Saturn's moons are special, they are the smallest spherical moons, and look the newest. Growing planet theory can also grow moons from asteroids. Asteroid look like they were created violently. Like Phobos and Deimos are thought to be ejected from mars' surface in an event.
'13-11-24, 03:49 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Oh, that last post about icy moon contradicts my 1st posts in this thread where I say I refuse to believe rocky moons have the density of ice. The reason for this is, after I posted those 1st posts I realised my base assertion - that planets and moons can't have such widely different densities, was a 2 sided argument. I was saying that since the Earth is made of solid rock, then all moons should be made of solid rock. But its works the other way. If the Moons are made of ice, then Earth's interior might be water! We get a rocky crust from 5bn years of electric arcs. Seismologists say Earth has a liquid interior. The deep crust of Earth has been found to be totally saturated in water, and hydrogen gas! It could be that rocky planet crusts are formed from nuclear fusion chains starting with water. What helped give me this idea was photos of Iaeptus. This is a moon of Saturn that looks to be possibly transitioning from an ice surface to rock surface. The NASA reports are odd, says the dark surface is only 30cm thick, but I find that hard to believe. The white surface of Iaeptus really looks like ice in the way it sits in crater edges, so this suggests the other white moons of Saturn have a thick surface layer of ice.
'13-11-24, 05:28 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: The biggest problem I have is the most obvious. According to growing earth proponents, the Earth is currently growing at +22mm radius per year, so where is the power coming from? It's a very hard puzzle to figure out within known physics. I've seriously considered if 'creation' is happening inside planets, though this isn't too aesthetically satisfying . A clue is that planets and moons that show major geologic activity also exhibit major electromagnetic activity, e.g. Earth, Io, Enceladus. There's more than enough mass ejected from the sun to expand the Earth and evidence that more protons penetrate the surface than previously theorised.
'13-11-24, 06:53 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: Earth could have made its own heavy elements with 5 billion years of lightning. I agree that lightning can fuse heavy elements, since this has been observed in terrestrial lightning. Arc discharges in the Sun are a bit more robust, and so is the fusion directly associated with the discharges. So yes, I agree that the Earth made its own heavy elements, and that this was in electrostatic discharges (not a fusion furnace in the core). But I don't believe that the Earth got big enough for its first lightning just by random molecular bonding. Hydrogen doesn't condense well, which is why we don't see hydrogen aerosols in space, even though the temperature is (just barely) low enough for them. But hydrogen makes a fine Debye sheath around a dust particle. So I'm going with dusty plasma collapse due to the like-likes-like force. Once the aggregate got big enough for charged double-layers (which I believe to be Radius > 750 km), the discharges started. meemoe_uk wrote: This could happen subsurface too, across a dielectric medium in the Earth's internal structure. If you're implying that there are insulators inside the Earth, I disagree. Only the solid granites and basalts in the crust are resistive — magmas are conductors, and I think that it's reasonable to expect everything below the lithosphere to have the same properties. I think that the charge separation mechanism is gravity and electron degeneracy pressure. Thus the charges get separated, and are kept separate indefinitely, even in the absence of any resistance whatsoever. meemoe_uk wrote: This radically different model competes with the star nuclear synthesis model. We might be talking past each other here, so just to be clear, I do not subscribe to the "fusion furnace" model of the Sun. Maybe in larger stars there is sufficient gravitational confinement for some hydrogen fusion, but as a primary energy source, I don't see it. But I can see charged double-layers clinging together to keep a star organized, and huge potentials between those layers. And I can see pressure waves causing discharges across the boundaries of those layers, as the pressure necessary for ionization comes and goes, thereby triggering discharges.
'13-11-24, 14:20 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity "We might be talking past each other here" " I'm with JeffreyW on the "planets are retired stars" hypothesis." Well I don't think the Earth is a retired star, I spose you mean the giant planets. There's no reason why rocky planets can't expand into giant planets. For the past 200 million yeasr Earth's expansion has been exponential, meaning that it would only take another 200 million years for Earth to reach the size of Jupiter if it carries on at the current accelerating rate. The rational for this is Earth has captured the lions share of the galactic current for the inner planets. Now its stuck in a positive feedback loop - the bigger it gets, the more current it attracts, the faster it grows...etc. >If you're implying that there are insulators inside the Earth, I disagree. OK, not a dielectric per say, but a boundary where a highly conductive medium meets a much less conductive medium, or at least some sort of environment which allows high build of energy and rapid discharge. Nuclear fusion by electric arcing inside the Earth seems to be happening. Sulphur is seen to be a common product of electric arc fusion of oxygen-oxygen ( see Io's surface ), and this is often emitted from Earth's volcanoes. It may be there's several alternating negative positive charge layers from the surface to the core, each of them causing high build up of electrical energy and hence electric arcs which fuse elements. Eric Lerner's experiment team are working to get nuclear fusion from arc discharges into gas, I wonder if there's any similar experiments to find electric arc induced fusion within conductors, or ionized solids, or water.
'13-11-24, 18:37 Sparky	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Gerald Pollack (following Richard Feynman) has demonstrated that net-neutral bodies experience a paradoxical electrostatic attraction. ------------------------resulting in a net attractive force. Charles, "electrostatics" may allow for hypothesis ,, but it is a superficial layer above what is really happening. Mathis uses mechanical explanations of gravity and EM, and his E/M field allows for explaining many things, from atomic to cosmic levels. http://milesmathis.com/tilt.html -charge field cause forces by bombardment. That is, particles must touch. There are no attractions and no forces at a distance, not in the gravity part of the unified field and not in the charge part of the unified field. The entire unified field is mechanical, and resolves to motion and contact. All equations are explained and underpinned, and all the math is simple and transparent. I can't really critique his math and it's logic, but it seems to work. His proof that Newton's G is a non=constant scaling function, and that the equations actually included "charge", though charge was not known at the time. Here is another link for electrostatic .. http://spiralperiodictable.com/electros ... -is-wrong/ Your hypothesis of star formation is one that I need to study more, as It makes a lot of sense... As for planet formation; could it be that planets are formed more than one way, including the jw dead star model?
'13-11-24, 20:00 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: meemoe_uk wrote: Gravity of moonsplanets is electrostatic attraction. This varies with the amount of ionization in the core of the planet, and not directly from the mass or density. I totally agree with this, but I'm curious as to whether or not I agree for the same reasons. You never know when you might learn something, when you disagree with somebody, or even when you agree! So here's my reason for agreeing, just to see if we disagree on why we agree... CharlesChandler wrote: Gerald Pollack (following Richard Feynman) has demonstrated that net-neutral bodies experience a paradoxical electrostatic attraction. For example, neutrally charged atoms bind together into molecules, for electrical reasons, despite their neutrality. This is because the electrons from proximal atoms are attracted to the protons in both atoms, and thus find electrostatic equilibrium between the two nuclei. And of course the nuclei are attracted by the electric force to the electrons. Once the electrons take up a position between the two nuclei, the electric force attracting the nuclei to the electrons is pulling the nuclei closer to each other, despite the repulsive force between the two positively charged nuclei. This is what Feynman called the Paradoxical Force, and what Pollack calls the Like-Likes-Like Force. The key to unraveling the paradox is remembering that the electric force obeys the inverse square law. So the nuclei are more powerfully attracted to the shared electrons between them than they are repelled from each other, resulting in a net attractive force. This is great. I feel like I'm going to school every time I read your posts. Very clear and situationally-aware are your posts. CharlesChandler wrote: If this is true at the atomic level, as Feynman demonstrated, and at the molecular level, as Pollack demonstrated, it ought to be true at any level, wherever there are net-neutral bodies that nevertheless can share opposite charges. I agree and have stated this same idea in another thread (which is why your post speaks to me particularly). Yet mainstream cosmology entirely avoids at all costs ever giving any credence or mention to this principle. This is why we only see the mainstream using "hot gas" to define what should be plasma--which is not gas nor does it behave like a gas. To this negligence the mainstream can then compartmentalize the electromotive/electrostatic/dynamic force to ONLY the micro and quantum scale but NEVER legitimize it up the macro scale--virtually never--unless it involves the "solar wind"--which is yet another misnomer labeled as "wind." Not even nebulae are acknowledged in the sciences as being massive regions of ionized plasma. They are instead glowing regions of "gas" which must heed, erroneously, thermodynamic behavior but never electrical behavior (one reason being that they must perpetuate so-called "nebular collapse" theory which is predicated upon thermodynamics). This cognitive dissonance of mainstream cosmology and astronomy is another unrequited paradox. But it is never mentioned officially or recognized as such. CharlesChandler wrote: Hence Debye cells should attract each other, where a negatively charged solid body is surrounded by a positively charged sheath, and where the two negatively charged bodies are pulled toward the shared positive charges in their overlapping sheaths. This could be true for little dust grains, and for asteroids, moons, planets, and stellar systems within galaxies. No need for CDM — the "missing mass" isn't mass at all — it's just a missing force, and that force is the electric force. So that's the model I'm using, and I have developed a long list of things that can be explained this way. Is this the same sort of construct that you're using? Or do you have another reason for saying that "gravitational attraction" is actually just electrostatics? Excellent. Please share your list of these things.
'13-11-24, 23:16 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: The rational for this is Earth has captured the lions share of the galactic current for the inner planets. Now its stuck in a positive feedback loop - the bigger it gets, the more current it attracts, the faster it grows...etc. How does a galactic current cause the Earth to grow in size? Sure, the arrival of ions would constitute a current of sorts, and it would add mass to the Earth. Is that what you mean? meemoe_uk wrote: Nuclear fusion by electric arcing inside the Earth seems to be happening. Sulfur is seen to be a common product of electric arc fusion of oxygen-oxygen ( see Io's surface ), and this is often emitted from Earth's volcanoes. I arrived at the conclusion that electric currents are pumping magma through volcanoes for a different set of reasons. Magma is an good conductor, while solid granites/basalts are poor conductors. Thus as tidal forces flex the Earth's crust, and the degree of ionization changes at depth, there will be currents, and once a magma channel gets established, the currents will prefer those channels, instead of the surrounding solid rock. This accounts for the sputtering of volcanic eruptions, which clearly isn't just hydrostatic pressure, which would cause a smooth flow. But if the rupture of the caldera relaxes the pressure in the magma channel, then at depth, magma can be de-ionized, meaning that there will be a current, and it will flow through the magma itself. Thus the rupture of the caldera triggers a massive amount of current, which causes a massive amount of ohmic heating, which causes the secondary eruption. This would predict that the more catastrophic the eruption, the higher the sulfur content. I'll have to look that up. We could compare the sulfur content of continuous eruptions, such as Kilauea or Etna, versus episodic eruptions such as Pinatubo or St. Helen's, which should have a higher sulfur content, if this is correct. meemoe_uk wrote: It may be there's several alternating negative positive charge layers from the surface to the core, each of them causing high build up of electrical energy and hence electric arcs which fuse elements. In the Sun, I have identified 5 layers of charge (3 positive and 2 negative). I know that there are more than 2 layers inside the Earth, since recent research has demonstrated that the core rotates at a different rate when compared to the lower mantle. Nested current-free double-layers become possible when there is a stratification of elements, all with different ionization energies. At the interface between each layer, there will be electric arcs, and I totally agree that fusion is occurring in those arcs. meemoe_uk wrote: Eric Lerner's experiment team are working to get nuclear fusion from arc discharges into gas, I wonder if there's any similar experiments to find electric arc induced fusion within conductors, or ionized solids, or water. Fusion occurs in lightning. The proof is the gamma rays, and the lingering free neutrons that have been detected. The fusion is occurring at the beginnings of the stepped leaders, where a new surge of electrons slams into stationary gas, and where the temperature and pressure are instantaneously raised above the fusion threshold (i.e., inertial confinement). Similar results in vastly larger quantities have been seen during flares on the surface of the Sun. But it takes a big arc to get fusion. So it isn't going to happen in a tabletop apparatus, at least not like that. Focus fusion is a different setup. Sparky wrote: Mathis uses mechanical explanations of gravity and EM, and his E/M field allows for explaining many things, from atomic to cosmic levels. I'll leave that stuff up to Mathis. For my purposes, basing all of my work on forces that can be quantified in the laboratory, a change in the quantum substrate isn't going to affect my work. If gravity turns out to be a special case of Mathis' E/M charge field, that isn't going to change the way it works at the macroscopic level. Both gravity and the electric force can be measured independently, and can be shown to be separate forces at the macroscopic level. Perhaps Mathis will succeed where Einstein failed, in demonstrating how all of the fundamental forces are just special cases of one single force. But for me, it doesn't matter whether a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark, or a packet of the charge field, or anything else for that matter. Hydrogen still has one of them, helium has two, etc., and the chemical properties remain the same. So I'm not going to wait for Mathis to re-write all of the physics books before I start working out the EM properties of stars and planets. Sparky wrote: As for planet formation; could it be that planets are formed more than one way, including the jw dead star model? I think that the Earth is growing by simple ion capture, but that the abundance of heavy elements, which is way out of proportion to the interplanetary medium, indicates that it has been fusing heavy elements for a long time. I find it a lot easier to believe that it was once a lot larger, and was probably much more star-like than planet-like. Thus the Earth is a stellar remnant. But how it formed in the first place, as a discrete entity, would have been by simple ion capture. And that is easier to believe if it was occurring in the context of a dusty plasma collapse, which would have brought more matter together than hydrostatics would have preferred as a resting condition. viscount aero wrote: This cognitive dissonance of mainstream cosmology and astronomy is another unrequited paradox. Indeed. viscount aero wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: No need for CDM — the "missing mass" isn't mass at all — it's just a missing force, and that force is the electric force. So that's the model I'm using, and I have developed a long list of things that can be explained this way. Excellent. Please share your list of these things. If you're just asking about the "missing force" body of theory, here's a quick overview. Dusty Plasma Collapse We know that stars form where there used to be dusty plasmas. Newton said that this is just because gravity overcomes the resting inertia to pull everything together. In the 1800s, scientists added the concept of hydrostatic pressure, and in the 1900s, Sir James Jeans heuristically derived the pseudo-scientific formulas for how much gravity, and how little hydrostatic pressure, it takes to enable the collapse. But in the 1980s, it was shown that gravity accounts for somewhere between 1/5 and 1/20 of the necessary force. Not wanting to re-work their gravity formulas, scientists invented a new form of matter (i.e., CDM) to supply the gravity, but the electric force does the job without having to invent anything new, and thus CDM doesn't survive Occam's Razor. Collapse Due to Nearby Supernova Dusty plasmas are famous for collapsing after there has been a nearby supernova. If Sir James Jeans was right, this is because the supernova either adds mass, or removes hydrostatic pressure, from the dusty plasma, thereby dropping it under the critical threshold. Absorbing the relativistic ejecta from a supernova will certainly add mass, but the thermalization of the relativistic velocities will add a lot more heat. So the Jeans Instability is bogus. The reason for the relationship is that the supernova issues huge quantities of UV radiation, which photo-ionize the matter, thereby increasing the charge separation in Debye cells, and thus increasing the like-likes-like force that will pull everything together. Collapse into Filaments, and then into Stars The whole dusty plasma doesn't converge radially into a single, central star. Rather, it resolves into filaments, which then collapse into one or more stars, sometimes creating a series of them, like beads on a string. Gravity doesn't favor filaments, and hydrostatic pressure hates them, so this is evidence of EM. I have shown elsewhere that in a linear filament, the like-likes-like force is stronger than the body force in a spherical arrangement of Debye cells. The reason is that in a filament, the positive and negative charges line up in an alternating sequence, where there are only attractive forces, as opposed to attractions and repulsions in a spherical arrangement. Thus if filaments form, they are more likely to collapse into stars. The filaments form on the edges of high-pressure jets coming from the supernova. Galactic Arms and Central Bars CDM is also invoked to explain the anomalous rotation of spiral galaxies, but there again, the electric force, in a like-likes-like configuration, does the job without inventing anything new. The stretching of a galaxy due to centrifugal force draws the matter into filaments, which have the additional attractive force necessary to keep the spiral arms from detaching. Thus the arms are like "skater's whips", where everybody holds hands and skates around in a circle, and the kid on the end has to hold on tightly. Barred Spirals can be explained in the same way. Stellar Organization Once matter is pressed together into large enough clumps, if gravity is sufficient to ionize the matter, charged double-layers will form. Since the electric force between these layers will be a lot more powerful than gravity, the layers will get pulled together more forcefully, resulting in a more compact object. This increases the density of the gravitational field, which increases the ionization, which increases the electric force, etc. Thus a force feedback loop is formed, and this is what can hold together a clump of superheated plasma in space, despite the wimpy gravitational force, and enormous hydrostatic pressure at such temperatures. And that's just the beginning but it lays a broad, solid foundation for a more detailed analysis of things going on in the Sun (differential rotation, torsional oscillation, magnetic field inversions, sunspots, coronal loops, granules, helmet streamers, the heliospheric current sheet, etc.) and in the Earth (volcanoes, earthquakes, Seneca Guns, tornadoes, dust devils, etc.).
'13-11-25, 01:23 JeffreyW	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: The conventional calculated gravity of moons and planets is correct. It's the inferred mass and density that is wrong. Yes, inferred mass and density measurements are obviously wrong. Mercury's core in proportion to its outer layers is much more voluminous as opposed to the Earth. This means Mercury is actually much denser than the Earth. Oooppps.
'13-11-25, 02:46 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity This would predict that the more catastrophic the eruption, the higher the sulfur content. Only if the eruption was in proportion to the electric discharge. I think eruptions depend on non electric factors, such as the amount of neutral mass and its structural strength that has to be breached for the magma to reach the surface. Ijen in Indonesia is a steady output caldera that produces a lot of sulphur. It's hard to figure that more powerful electric current favours production of a certain element. I would guess higher power arcs would produce heavier elements all the way up to uranium. >How does a galactic current cause the Earth to grow in size? I don't know, and i'm not settled on a favourite theory yet. Still looking. The current might not get into the Earth. It may just be it creates the magnetic field and the electro-magnetic activity around the Earth. This then stirs the Earth's interior. This is opposite cause and effect theory to the conventional model which says its the Earth's interior causing the external magnetic field. Electromagnetism has a nice cause and effect symmetry. Until we look inside the Earth, its only convention that prevents us from considering the external magnetic field as the cause and the internal dynamics are effects. Although its likely cause and effect both ways, at the moment I don't see any other way for the galactic current to dump a lot of energy inside the Earth. i.e. there's not enough lightning to explain the vast amount of mass-energy created at the rate necessary to explain the rate of growth of the Earth. An alternative theory I have is of creation ( i.e. planet growth is a rival to the Big Bang story of creation ]. Here I have to appeal to an unknown mechanism, maybe involving the 1912 Einstein de-Sitter equation, with its much ignored potential as an non-conserved (infinite) eneny source. A long reach but I'm convinced planets grow, and without any other massive power source I'm having to resort to exotic ideas! If the Earth's density is 5.5g/cm^3, then a 22mm/year increase in Earth radius due to new matter equates to a power input of 40% of the sun's TSI.
'13-11-25, 02:52 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity JeffreyW wrote: meemoe_uk wrote: The conventional calculated gravity of moons and planets is correct. It's the inferred mass and density that is wrong. Yes, inferred mass and density measurements are obviously wrong. Mercury's core in proportion to its outer layers is much more voluminous as opposed to the Earth. This means Mercury is actually much denser than the Earth. Oooppps. Are these your charts or mainstream charts? To my knowledge, mainstream theory has molten cores for planets, not solid.
'13-11-25, 03:37 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity they are mainstream. the outer cores are liquid rocks due to heat, while the inner core the high pressure is spose to squash the liquid back to a solid despite the heat.