Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: So according to Charles the whole issue of internal crushing (gravitic) pressure becomes irrelevant the farther down you go... things get "lighter."
The pressure continues to increase, all of the way to the very center, as the sum of the gravitational forces from above. It's just that there is less and less additional pressure. As an analogy, if 100 people were all trying to force their way into a nightclub from out in the street, and if the people furthest from the door were pushing the hardest, but the people nearest the door weren't pushing at all, because they can see that they're just not going to get let in, they still have all of that force behind them, even if they're not pushing, and it's the force of all of the people behind them, which might add up to a lot. Similarly, gravity affects the outer layers of the sphere the most, because most of the mass is in one direction, while in the center, the force is equal in all directions, so there is no net force. But the pressure increases all of the way to the core.
meemoe_uk wrote: I wish thunderbolts would put up a stellar and planet model on the website, all we've got is the essential guide for plasma and electricity in free space. Poor show if after around 100 years of EU theory starting with Birkeland we haven't agreed on any basic model on the sun and Earth. Anyone can say 'haha your wrong' when a star does something odd, but while the youtube vids on conventional science scratching there heads at every observation are fun we should really have a EU page for a solar + planets model offering a simple explanation to point to every time.
There is an EU model for stars and planets, but it isn't very detailed, nor has it matured any in the last 10 years. Arguably, it's little more than a false dichotomy and an epiphany — the standard model is wrong, so here's my idea... And that's the extent of it. Intractable problems have been identified, but they haven't been acknowledged, much less fixed. When a model goes that long, with as much interest as there has been in it, without showing any progress, it starts to suggest that it's fatally flawed. Unfortunately, the EU stance is, "This is our story and we're sticking with it." So no, you're not going to see any detailed explanations of stars and planets coming out of the EU.
The Universe is very definitely electric, as I have demonstrated in many ways with the current-free double-layer model. The EU starts with electrodynamics, without ever identifying the charge separation mechanism driving the currents. Then they try to get the currents to do all kinds of stuff that currents just can't do. (To a hammer, everything is a nail, and to the EU, everything is a Birkeland current.) But I asked the question of what separates the charges, and the answer is proving to be an excellent platform for further inquiry. As I said in a previous post, the current-free double-layer model has enabled detailed explanations of a wide range of stellar and planetary phenomena. Combined with the toroidal plasmoid model of exotic stars, I haven't found anything that can't be explained, at least in terms that are considerably more specific than anything in the EU. And no intractable problems have been identified.
When a theoretical framework performs that well, it's time to consider the possibility that there is something right about it that enables the next level of understanding, so it becomes the one to study, and the one to beat if you're trying to go the next step. Forget about bashing the standard model — we all know it's busted, and we all know that the mainstream scientific community doesn't care. So forget about them — they'll only take note when they see us pulling out in front of them, and not caring about them... Similarly, forget about electrodynamics as a starting point. We all know that the Universe is electric, but it takes a charge separation to get electrostatic potentials, so all of that has to be taken into account first. Then you can get currents, which are more complicated, but which become understandable within a realistic electrostatic context.
Ozelo wrote: Are there planets with almost no magnetic field? If yes, are there any weird difference on its rotation when compared (related) to planets with huge magnetic fields?
Venus has almost no magnetic field, and it is the only planet with retrograde rotation (i.e., opposite from the Sun and the other planets and most of the moons), and it rotates the slowest of all of the planets, and its rotation rate is slowing down dramatically. So yes, it's the exception that proves the rule, that planetary magnetic fields are tied directly to the rotation of the planets.
JeffreyW
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote:
I wish thunderbolts would put up a stellar and planet model on the website, all we've got is the essential guide for plasma and electricity in free space. Poor show if after around 100 years of EU theory starting with Birkeland we haven't agreed on any basic model on the sun and Earth. Anyone can say 'haha your wrong' when a star does something odd, but while the youtube vids on conventional science scratching there heads at every observation are fun we should really have a EU page for a solar + planets model offering a simple explanation to point to every time.
Maybe there's a war going on with every top EU person having their own stellar model so any one theory endorsed by thunderbolts will have to snub 10 others.
Publish a survey of the stellar evolution/planet formation models as long as they include plasma and the importance of electromagnetic interaction.
They should give a time frame of 3 months for the individual to publish their paper on one page. Nothing very detailed, but a simple straightforward representation of their theory. The EU can state that the views do not necessarily represent EU.
I've learned the problem with trying to appear professional is that regardless of how correct the understanding might be and how amazing it is, it will still like some uneducated fool wrote it to people who have been conditioned otherwise to ignore plasma/electricity in outer space.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: So according to Charles the whole issue of internal crushing (gravitic) pressure becomes irrelevant the farther down you go... things get "lighter."
The pressure continues to increase, all of the way to the very center, as the sum of the gravitational forces from above. It's just that there is less and less additional pressure. As an analogy, if 100 people were all trying to force their way into a nightclub from out in the street, and if the people furthest from the door were pushing the hardest, but the people nearest the door weren't pushing at all, because they can see that they're just not going to get let in, they still have all of that force behind them, even if they're not pushing, and it's the force of all of the people behind them, which might add up to a lot. Similarly, gravity affects the outer layers of the sphere the most, because most of the mass is in one direction, while in the center, the force is equal in all directions, so there is no net force. But the pressure increases all of the way to the core.
I think I mostly follow that. So what you're talking about is indeed thermodynamic pressure at the core moving outwards towards the Earth's mantle, a pressure that is moving against the gravity exerted upon the crust? So we have 2 main forces: 1) gravity from the surface and crust 2) thermodynamic pressure from the core--and actually a 3rd) centripetal force of the rotating Earth (?)
CharlesChandler wrote:
meemoe_uk wrote: I wish thunderbolts would put up a stellar and planet model on the website, all we've got is the essential guide for plasma and electricity in free space. Poor show if after around 100 years of EU theory starting with Birkeland we haven't agreed on any basic model on the sun and Earth. Anyone can say 'haha your wrong' when a star does something odd, but while the youtube vids on conventional science scratching there heads at every observation are fun we should really have a EU page for a solar + planets model offering a simple explanation to point to every time.
There is an EU model for stars and planets, but it isn't very detailed, nor has it matured any in the last 10 years. Arguably, it's little more than a false dichotomy and an epiphany — the standard model is wrong, so here's my idea... And that's the extent of it. Intractable problems have been identified, but they haven't been acknowledged, much less fixed. When a model goes that long, with as much interest as there has been in it, without showing any progress, it starts to suggest that it's fatally flawed. Unfortunately, the EU stance is, "This is our story and we're sticking with it." So no, you're not going to see any detailed explanations of stars and planets coming out of the EU.
That's quite lame.
CharlesChandler wrote: The Universe is very definitely electric, as I have demonstrated in many ways with the current-free double-layer model. The EU starts with electrodynamics, without ever identifying the charge separation mechanism driving the currents. Then they try to get the currents to do all kinds of stuff that currents just can't do. (To a hammer, everything is a nail, and to the EU, everything is a Birkeland current.) But I asked the question of what separates the charges, and the answer is proving to be an excellent platform for further inquiry. As I said in a previous post, the current-free double-layer model has enabled detailed explanations of a wide range of stellar and planetary phenomena. Combined with the toroidal plasmoid model of exotic stars, I haven't found anything that can't be explained, at least in terms that are considerably more specific than anything in the EU. And no intractable problems have been identified.
Yes I've noticed the very tunnel-visioned manner of EU theory, ie, that everything must be due to a Birkeland current, including all geological forms, oceans, everything. There is no such thing as erosion in EU theory. All "erosion" is suspicious and probably due to some form of lightning or thunder. Water cannot flow anywhere for any reason. Liquid doesn't exist anywhere for EU theory. Nothing is wet. There is no weather anywhere. Rain is electrical. Your physiology is due to a Birkeland current and a z-pinch, your sense of smell is really a Birkeland current, etc... It is as if the EU doesn't recognize traditional physical mechanics. I find that highly ludicrous.
This very mode of thought is often evidenced in the "Picture of the Day" articles. Although very informative and intriguing, there is far too much reliance and conclusion drawn at the end of every article to everything having an electrical causation. It is as if physics doesn't exist. This is probably why EU doesn't really deal well with planetary formation because it probably involves actual physics and geometry--much to the horror of EU pupils.
CharlesChandler
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
JeffreyW wrote: Publish a survey of the stellar evolution/planet formation models as long as they include plasma and the importance of electromagnetic interaction.
I'm currently maintaining lists of the various stellar and solar models, and adding more material to each, time permitting. The difference between stellar and solar models is that in stellar modeling, we have a little bit of information on a lot of stars, and in solar modeling, we have a lot of information on just one star. Both studies can certainly inform each other, but insofar as the data only partially overlap, the topics are distinct. So stellar modeling focuses on the general questions of how stars are born, what changes they go through during their lifetimes, and how they die. Solar modeling is concerned with the current state of one star in particular (i.e., ours).
Of course, I only fully agree with my theories. But you never know where you're going to learn something new, and I think that it's useful for a variety of reasons to see all of the different schools of thought laid out, so you can look at the strengths and weaknesses of each. I don't know of anywhere else on the Internet where anybody is maintaining as good of a list of stellar/solar models.
If anybody has information that should be added to these lists, please let me know.
meemoe_uk
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
>I'm currently maintaining lists of the various stellar and solar models
Wow good work. People usually only maintain media on their own theory. This is definitely a higher level of dedication and professionalism and will be useful in future, when data arrives there's a lot assessment work to do what with so much potential for theory and so little evidence at hand.
I'll look at your web pages and consider submitting to you any relevant material I have. I'll be on the growingexpanding Earth team, looking to ally these 2 great theories of the 21st century.
Btw Charles, are you an EU boss? Do you have direct lines to Scott, Thornhill and Johnson?
CharlesChandler
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
meemoe_uk wrote: Are you an EU boss? Do you have direct lines to Scott, Thornhill and Johnson?
I have corresponded with them, but I have yet to convince them that they should expand the scope of the Thunderbolts Project to include theories not based entirely on Birkeland currents. So I guess you could say that I'm on the fringe of the EU community.
JeffreyW
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote:
Yes I've noticed the very tunnel-visioned manner of EU theory, ie, that everything must be due to a Birkeland current, including all geological forms, oceans, everything. There is no such thing as erosion in EU theory. All "erosion" is suspicious and probably due to some form of lightning or thunder. Water cannot flow anywhere for any reason. Liquid doesn't exist anywhere for EU theory. Nothing is wet. There is no weather anywhere. Rain is electrical. Your physiology is due to a Birkeland current and a z-pinch, your sense of smell is really a Birkeland current, etc... It is as if the EU doesn't recognize traditional physical mechanics. I find that highly ludicrous.
This very mode of thought is often evidenced in the "Picture of the Day" articles. Although very informative and intriguing, there is far too much reliance and conclusion drawn at the end of every article to everything having an electrical causation. It is as if physics doesn't exist. This is probably why EU doesn't really deal well with planetary formation because it probably involves actual physics and geometry--much to the horror of EU pupils.
OMG. This sums up the beef I have with EU. Incredible. Thank you Viscount.
In EU plasma doesn't recombine into gas, yet it is a basic thermodynamic phase transition. A star that is mostly plasma will become a star that is mostly gas. Horrifying! Gas giants are older stars! As well in EU gas can never become solids/liquids, even though gas deposition and condensation are basic thermodynamic phase transitions as well. Gas giants become rocky worlds with oceans on top! Blasphemy! Thus Star>gas giant>rocky world.
Sparky
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
aero:
So we have 2 main forces: 1) gravity from the surface and crust 2) thermodynamic pressure from the core--and actually a 3rd) centripetal force of the rotating Earth (?)
Erosion is discussed several places. And why make a big deal of erosion if the point of the theory is to explain electrical effects? Erosion comes to play after the electrical discharge has radically modified the geography!
That is why they are looking at relative dry planets and moons!
***************************
jw
In EU plasma doesn't recombine into gas, yet it is a basic thermodynamic phase transition. A star that is mostly plasma will become a star that is mostly gas. Horrifying! Gas giants are older stars! As well in EU gas can never become solids/liquids, even though gas deposition and condensation are basic thermodynamic phase transitions as well. Gas giants become rocky worlds with oceans on top! Blasphemy! Thus Star>gas giant>rocky world.
Nonsense! More straw men produced by ignorance and fanaticism! Jeffrey, you continue to emotionally rant instead of thinking. Do you have any integrity at all.? There is no need to make up stuff, even if you put scientific sounding terms with it? You are not scientific!!
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Yes I've noticed the very tunnel-visioned manner of EU theory, ie, that everything must be due to a Birkeland current, including all geological forms, oceans, everything. There is no such thing as erosion in EU theory. All "erosion" is suspicious and probably due to some form of lightning or thunder. Water cannot flow anywhere for any reason. Liquid doesn't exist anywhere for EU theory. Nothing is wet. There is no weather anywhere. Rain is electrical. Your physiology is due to a Birkeland current and a z-pinch, your sense of smell is really a Birkeland current, etc... It is as if the EU doesn't recognize traditional physical mechanics. I find that highly ludicrous.
This very mode of thought is often evidenced in the "Picture of the Day" articles. Although very informative and intriguing, there is far too much reliance and conclusion drawn at the end of every article to everything having an electrical causation. It is as if physics doesn't exist. This is probably why EU doesn't really deal well with planetary formation because it probably involves actual physics and geometry--much to the horror of EU pupils.
OMG. This sums up the beef I have with EU. Incredible. Thank you Viscount.
In EU plasma doesn't recombine into gas, yet it is a basic thermodynamic phase transition. A star that is mostly plasma will become a star that is mostly gas. Horrifying!Gas giants are older stars! As well in EU gas can never become solids/liquids, even though gas deposition and condensation are basic thermodynamic phase transitions as well. Gas giants become rocky worlds with oceans on top! Blasphemy! Thus Star>gas giant>rocky world.
Thank you for acknowledging the above. At best EU is vague on phase transitions of matter, not only plasma but all matter. EU doesn't totally deny phase transitions but it attempts to create transitions (and phenomena) that would maybe not actually occur. This is, for me too, a big point of disagreement in EU theory despite how it is much more comprehensive a theory than the standard model.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Sparky wrote: aero:
So we have 2 main forces: 1) gravity from the surface and crust 2) thermodynamic pressure from the core--and actually a 3rd) centripetal force of the rotating Earth (?)
Erosion is discussed several places. And why make a big deal of erosion if the point of the theory is to explain electrical effects? Erosion comes to play after the electrical discharge has radically modified the geography!
That is why they are looking at relative dry planets and moons!
It seems that liquids and fluvial action don't exist in EU theory at any level, Sparky. At least they are deemed virtually irrelevant and of negligible value.
Unfortunately, EU treats the issue of geological processes, particularly surface erosion, like Superman holding Kryptonite. EU hates the idea of erosion unless it comes from some kind of thunder or lightning. In other words, water is a verboten substance and accounts for virtually NOTHING in EU theory. Same with wind. Wind is verboten, doesn't exist, nor bears any influence upon anything geological. EU takes this to the point of comedy. Everything to EU, including fluids flowing down hillsides, simply cannot exist. For example, nothing on Mars' surface is due to physical or mechanical erosion. Nothing. It is all "machined."
After reading up on this forum for the past few years this has finally dawned on me: Make one mention that water (or liquid in general) or atmospheric wind has eroded a planetary surface and you are shown the door in EU theory.The only planet allowed to have water, to show signs of erosion due to water or fluvial action or wind, is Earth. And even on Earth fluvial behavior is looked at with skepticism. Otherwise to EU no other planet in all of the cosmos can have erosion this way. None.
CharlesChandler
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
viscount aero wrote: So we have 2 main forces: 1) gravity from the surface and crust 2) thermodynamic pressure from the core--and actually a 3rd) centripetal force of the rotating Earth (?)
Yep. And of course these Newtonian forces cannot possibly be responsible for condensing plasma into solids. If you go out in space and open up a canister of liquid hydrogen, what happens? It evaporates and disperses. It does not undergo gravitational collapse into hydrogen droplets. It takes a much more powerful force to condense matter in space. Are there any other forces operative at the macroscopic level? Well, there's EM, which is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful. Maybe that's it. But it isn't electrodynamics, because electric currents don't cause the condensation of matter. Rather, they vaporize matter. Here it's ironic that the EU uses electric currents to do everything, from etching features into planets, to causing the condensation of matter into planets in the first place. Oops, they're using a vaporization tool to condense matter. This is the kind of mistake that people can make when they trip out on their favorite hypothesis. Gravity, electrostatics, and electrodynamics all have to be taken into account.
Sparky wrote:
There is no such thing as erosion in EU theory.
Nonsense! Another strawman accusation. Erosion is discussed several places. And why make a big deal of erosion if the point of the theory is to explain electrical effects? Erosion comes to play after the electrical discharge has radically modified the geography!
Somewhere between the polarized protagonists and antagonists here, there is still a legitimate point. Indeed, it would be reasonable to let the EU just focus on the effects of EM. But that would only be reasonable if it were to take for granted the rest of conventional science, which it does not. It discards all things mainstream, but then it doesn't replace them with a complete theory. This means that the EU is engaging in the same sort of narrow-mindedness as the mainstream! So in this corner, in the green trunks, there are people who think that gravity is the only force at astronomical scales. In the other corner, wearing blue trunks, there are people who only identify electric currents (without even bothering to establish the electrostatic pretext for those currents). Nobody is going to win that fight, because that's all it is — it's just a fight.
But true science isn't like this. Mother Nature always splits the differences amongst all of the forces present, and I have never seen anything accurately described just with the identification of one single factor. It's always multiple factors. Religious fanatics can repeat their mantras over and over again, but the legitimacy of science is not that it gives fanatics a singularity to worship. The accurate description of natural phenomenon helps us work with the forces of nature for the benefit humankind. In the real world, this requires a keen eye for the balance of forces responsible for what we see.
The moral of the story is that it's always a mistake to let opposition get you polarized into an equally unrealistic position. This is what I think has happened to the EU. They have some legitimate points. But under attack from the mainstream, they consolidated all of their points into a singular thesis (i.e., Birkeland this, Birkeland that... it's all just Birkeland currents). The singularity is the mistake, because nature just doesn't work that way.
I also think that Jeffrey is running the risk of having this happen to his position. I have been slow to criticize him for engaging in fanaticism, because in his exuberance, he has come up with a steady stream of rare insights. So he definitely has a natural gift for seeing the underlying principles. But if he lets opposition force him into a consolidated position, where he isn't open to new ideas, that's when his theories are going to stop progressing.
For my part, I'm running a site that encourages competing opinions. As a matter of fact, I disagree with most of the stuff that people have posted on my site. But I have no intention of turning the site into just another one-sided diatribe. I have even been criticized for having material on there that some people consider to be non-scientific, but my attitude is that I'm not the one to judge what in the end will turn out to be accurate, and you never know what a decent idea is going to look like when it first emerges. Historically, they generally just sound crazy, but time sorts them out, so I don't have to. And IMO, such methods are the reason for the emergence of more complete theories on my site. In my work, you'll see that I got all of my ideas from other people (especially Lloyd Kinder, Brant Callahan, and Michael Mozina). And I'm still getting new ideas from other people (such as Jeffrey) because I'm still open to new ideas. So that's the way to be.
Let me know who wins the fight, between diametrically opposed singularities. Meanwhile, I'm building something.
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: So we have 2 main forces: 1) gravity from the surface and crust 2) thermodynamic pressure from the core--and actually a 3rd) centripetal force of the rotating Earth (?)
Yep. And of course these Newtonian forces cannot possibly be responsible for condensing plasma into solids. If you go out in space and open up a canister of liquid hydrogen, what happens? It evaporates and disperses. It does not undergo gravitational collapse into hydrogen droplets. It takes a much more powerful force to condense matter in space. Are there any other forces operative at the macroscopic level? Well, there's EM, which is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful. Maybe that's it. But it isn't electrodynamics, because electric currents don't cause the condensation of matter. Rather, they vaporize matter. Here it's ironic that the EU uses electric currents to do everything, from etching features into planets, to causing the condensation of matter into planets in the first place. Oops, they're using a vaporization tool to condense matter. :? This is the kind of mistake that people can make when they trip out on their favorite hypothesis. Gravity, electrostatics, and electrodynamics all have to be taken into account.
+1000 Yes. You speak too logically for many EU fans to allow such talk to enter their brains If everything is explainable by plasma physics then does this not summarily deny the existence of solid, liquid, and gas? Alas, some things may be caused by the behavior of liquids or gases! Oh the horror! Off with his head!
Sparky wrote:
viscount aero wrote: There is no such thing as erosion in EU theory.
Nonsense! Another strawman accusation. Erosion is discussed several places. And why make a big deal of erosion if the point of the theory is to explain electrical effects? Erosion comes to play after the electrical discharge has radically modified the geography!
CharlesChandler wrote: Somewhere between the polarized protagonists and antagonists here, there is still a legitimate point. Indeed, it would be reasonable to let the EU just focus on the effects of EM. But that would only be reasonable if it were to take for granted the rest of conventional science, which it does not. It discards all things mainstream, but then it doesn't replace them with a complete theory. This means that the EU is engaging in the same sort of narrow-mindedness as the mainstream!So in this corner, in the green trunks, there are people who think that gravity is the only force at astronomical scales. In the other corner, wearing blue trunks, there are people who only identify electric currents (without even bothering to establish the electrostatic pretext for those currents). Nobody is going to win that fight, because that's all it is — it's just a fight.
But true science isn't like this. Mother Nature always splits the differences amongst all of the forces present, and I have never seen [i]anything accurately described just with the identification of one single factor. It's always multiple factors. Religious fanatics can repeat their mantras over and over again, but the legitimacy of science is not that it gives fanatics a singularity to worship. [/i]The accurate description of natural phenomenon helps us work with the forces of nature for the benefit humankind. In the real world, this requires a keen eye for the balance of forces responsible for what we see.
Unfortunately, Charles, you're too balanced and grounded of a thinker for general EU theory as it stands today. You're unelectable as a candidate--even as an independent. You don't have a chance! One of the biggest downsides to EU theory, in its hardest core sense, is that it kowtows to Velikovsky at all costs. And if you're not "all in" then you are shown the door!
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy this site. But I seldom reveal my true beliefs about EU theory as I am now. Indeed, I do believe in much of it--if not most of it. For example, I don't believe in the big bang or inflation. I think most of the explanations of the mainstream (in cosmology) are laughably incorrect. In EU I find a lot of good ideas--but I just don't swallow the whole torpedo! In other words, there's no way that EVERYTHING is due to plasma physics! That would mean that one would have to make themselves believe that there is no such thing as water or wind! There would be no applied physics! The EU community, if it had its way, would deny that all industrial applications of physics actually exist!
CharlesChandler wrote: The moral of the story is that it's always a mistake to let opposition get you polarized into an equally unrealistic position. This is what I think has happened to the EU. They have some legitimate points. But under attack from the mainstream, they consolidated all of their points into a singular thesis (i.e., Birkeland this, Birkeland that... it's all just Birkeland currents).The singularity is the mistake, because nature just doesn't work that way.
Yes, you see it for what it really is Even though you are unelectable I have voted for you.
CharlesChandler wrote: I also think that Jeffrey is running the risk of having this happen to his position. I have been slow to criticize him for engaging in fanaticism, because in his exuberance, he has come up with a steady stream of rare insights. So he definitely has a natural gift for seeing the underlying principles. But if he lets opposition force him into a consolidated position, where he isn't open to new ideas, that's when his theories are going to stop progressing.
Agree again. Jeffrey is interesting and I have learned from him. His perspective is actually needed. He does tend to become a bit rigid and overly protective of "stelmeta" theory however. It is better to remain semi-permeable to allow for intellectual osmosis
CharlesChandler wrote: For my part, I'm running a site that encourages competing opinions. As a matter of fact, I disagree with most of the stuff that people have posted on my site. But I have no intention of turning the site into just another one-sided diatribe. I have even been criticized for having material on there that some people consider to be non-scientific, but my attitude is that I'm not the one to judge what in the end will turn out to be accurate, and you never know what a decent idea is going to look like when it first emerges. Historically, they generally just sound crazy, but time sorts them out, so I don't have to. And IMO, such methods are the reason for the emergence of more complete theories on my site. In my work, you'll see that I got all of my ideas from other people (especially Lloyd Kinder, Brant Callahan, and Michael Mozina). And I'm still getting new ideas from other people (such as Jeffrey) because I'm still open to new ideas. So that's the way to be.
Let me know who wins the fight, between diametrically opposed singularities. Meanwhile, I'm building something.
+1000 agree
Sparky
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Who is representing EU?
What is EU?
Generalizing the EU perspective, since there is no consensus, is a straw man!
Standard theory has been working on it's consensus for hundreds of years, and it is still far off on some things. EU really has only been consolidating data and hypothesis, by a very small number of people, for a few decades. And you expect a comprehensive theory from that?!
Most people that come here have been corrupted by what they were taught, and that is difficult to fix. This site has it's fair share of nutjob theories, which, for the most part, are allowed. And unappreciated by the nutjobs.!
meemoe_uk
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
So we have 2 main forces: 1) gravity from the surface and crust 2) thermodynamic pressure from the core--and actually a 3rd) centripetal force of the rotating Earth (?)
No, only in Charles' model. 1.) gravity is too correlated in strength to magnetic fields of rocky planets to be trusted, also it gives wildly different densities of so called rocky moons and planets, its says the giant planets are less dense than water. Also modern measurements of big G show its an anomalously slippery constant to pin down, It's probably wrong. Surface attraction is more likely electro-static. 2. Thermodynamics in itself plays a minor causal role at most in creating forces and making planets and stars into spheres with force fields. It's better described as an effect and whatever effects it has are secondary. 3.) The centripetal force is negligible on Earth. The sun defies conventional theory as it's spherical shape seems to ignore centripetal force completely. Only the giant planets have notable reactionary bulge in their shape, but even for them, centripetal forces are minor. edit cut : ( oops got charles mixed up with someone else ! )
viscount aero
Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity
Sparky wrote: Who is representing EU?
What is EU?
Generalizing the EU perspective, since there is no consensus, is a straw man!
There is a general EU perspective as I stated above. EU is hydrophobic. EU doesn't accept that erosion exists unless it is specifically and primarily "electrical machining." EU denies fluvial and gaseous phenomena in nearly everything. EU is Superman holding Kryptonite when confronted with water or wind erosion or anything to do with gases. EU (in its present form) takes a good idea then runs off a cliff with it. If the Earth had no water then water would be all but irrelevant as a change agent for anything in the cosmos. H20 doesn't exist in large part in EU theory. It only exists on the Earth and is barely accountable for anything important. This is one big reason why EU theorists are laughed out of mainstream acceptance. EU puts itself there.
Sparky wrote: Standard theory has been working on it's consensus for hundreds of years, and it is still far off on some things. EU really has only been consolidating data and hypothesis, by a very small number of people, for a few decades. And you expect a comprehensive theory from that?!
I expect realism and logic, not fascist adherence to erroneous conclusions. This goes for the entire domain of science.
Sparky wrote: Most people that come here have been corrupted by what they were taught, and that is difficult to fix. This site has it's fair share of nutjob theories, which, for the most part, are allowed. And unappreciated by the nutjobs.!
Similarly, forget about electrodynamics as a starting point. We all know that the Universe is electric, but it takes a charge separation to get electrostatic potentials, so all of that has to be taken into account first. Then you can get currents, which are more complicated, but which become understandable within a realistic electrostatic context.
Ozelo wrote:Venus has almost no magnetic field, and it is the only planet with retrograde rotation (i.e., opposite from the Sun and the other planets and most of the moons), and it rotates the slowest of all of the planets, and its rotation rate is slowing down dramatically. So yes, it's the exception that proves the rule, that planetary magnetic fields are tied directly to the rotation of the planets.But you never know where you're going to learn something new, and I think that it's useful for a variety of reasons to see all of the different schools of thought laid out, so you can look at the strengths and weaknesses of each. I don't know of anywhere else on the Internet where anybody is maintaining as good of a list of stellar/solar models.
This is the kind of mistake that people can make when they trip out on their favorite hypothesis. Gravity, electrostatics, and electrodynamics all have to be taken into account.
Sparky wrote:Somewhere between the polarized protagonists and antagonists here, there is still a legitimate point. Indeed, it would be reasonable to let the EU just focus on the effects of EM. But that would only be reasonable if it were to take for granted the rest of conventional science, which it does not. It discards all things mainstream, but then it doesn't replace them with a complete theory. This means that the EU is engaging in the same sort of narrow-mindedness as the mainstream! So in this corner, in the green trunks, there are people who think that gravity is the only force at astronomical scales. In the other corner, wearing blue trunks, there are people who only identify electric currents (without even bothering to establish the electrostatic pretext for those currents). Nobody is going to win that fight, because that's all it is — it's just a fight.If everything is explainable by plasma physics then does this not summarily deny the existence of solid, liquid, and gas?
Alas, some things may be caused by the behavior of liquids or gases! Oh the horror! Off with his head!
Sparky wrote:
)
