Lloyd wrote: Have you managed to take a look at Fisher's model?
Briefly. It has some fatal flaws as far as I can tell.
1) It needs to rely on the myth of subduction. 2) If a force struck the Earth strong enough to shift continents why is the Earth a relatively perfectly smooth sphere. 3) Why are all the Earths ridges still measurably increasing.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Re: Fisher's model
Aardwolf said: Briefly. It has some fatal flaws as far as I can tell. 1) It needs to rely on the myth of subduction. 2) If a force struck the Earth strong enough to shift continents why is the Earth a relatively perfectly smooth sphere. 3) Why are all the Earths ridges still measurably increasing.
1. Fisher explains that subduction is false and that the trenches were carved by the sliding continents, as I recall. Where the plates slid over each other is mistaken as subduction.
2. Cardona's findings are the same as Fisher's, as far as the continents having slid over the plasma Moho layer. He just thinks it happened numerous times, instead of just once and he thinks electric forces from Saturn flareups caused Earth to stop rotating, while the continents then had momentum to keep moving. But Fisher's model is simpler and more straightforward.
The supercontinent was setting atop the plasma Moho layer, which is almost frictionless, like magnetic levitation. If a large impact hit the supercontinent off of east Africa, he calculated that a sizable impact would be enough to break up the supercontinent and move the continents on a nearly frictionless layer. He gives the example of breaking up a slab of ice with one blow on an ice-covered pond.
Any body over 200 or so miles in diameter has enough gravitational force to make it spherical, which is why no objects larger than about that size are non-spherical.
3. Charles Chandler explained why the continents are still moving. The tides cause the continents to ratchet apart, which also makes the ocean ridges wider. See the OP for a link to his model. I can provide the exact link or exact details, if desired.
Aardwolf
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: Re: Fisher's model
Aardwolf said: Briefly. It has some fatal flaws as far as I can tell. 1) It needs to rely on the myth of subduction. 2) If a force struck the Earth strong enough to shift continents why is the Earth a relatively perfectly smooth sphere. 3) Why are all the Earths ridges still measurably increasing.
1. Fisher explains that subduction is false and that the trenches were carved by the sliding continents, as I recall. Where the plates slid over each other is mistaken as subduction.
I don't follow. He disputes subduction then describes subduction. You can't call it something else. The fact is there is no evidence any part of the earths surface is moving over any other part. And the land either side of the ridges is measured to moving away from each other not sliding.
Lloyd wrote: 2. Cardona's findings are the same as Fisher's, as far as the continents having slid over the plasma Moho layer. He just thinks it happened numerous times, instead of just once and he thinks electric forces from Saturn flareups caused Earth to stop rotating, while the continents then had momentum to keep moving. But Fisher's model is simpler and more straightforward.
The supercontinent was setting atop the plasma Moho layer, which is almost frictionless, like magnetic levitation. If a large impact hit the supercontinent off of east Africa, he calculated that a sizable impact would be enough to break up the supercontinent and move the continents on a nearly frictionless layer. He gives the example of breaking up a slab of ice with one blow on an ice-covered pond.
Any body over 200 or so miles in diameter has enough gravitational force to make it spherical, which is why no objects larger than about that size are non-spherical.
If it were the case the continents kept moving after impact stopped earth rotating they would all be moving in the same direction not moving apart in multiple directions. If an object hit the earth enough to shift entire continents it is ludicrous to believe this wouldn't leave massive destruction. That we have an almost perfectly smooth planet disputes such an event.
Lloyd wrote: 3. Charles Chandler explained why the continents are still moving. The tides cause the continents to ratchet apart, which also makes the ocean ridges wider. See the OP for a link to his model. I can provide the exact link or exact details, if desired.
Does it explain exactly where the oceans are pushing Antarctica? It is completely surrounded by separating ridges. Is it being pushed into space? Also what ocean is creating the East African ridge separation inland?
moonkoon
Re: Most Thorough Model
Aardwolf: Does it explain exactly where the oceans are pushing Antarctica?
This is S. Warren Carey's take on the problem.
... Africa and Antarctica are ringed by expanding rifts and each should have post-Palaeozoic subduction zones to swallow more than 3,000 km of crust. These do not exist. This dilemma could be side-stepped by fixlng one continent to its mantle, but escape is impossible with two such continents.
The Permian equator now lies 37° north of the equator in North America, 40° north in Europe, and 17° north in Siberia, which is impossible on an earth of constant radius without at least 6,000km of post-Palaeozoic subduction within the Arctic. ... The Expanding Earth -an Essay Review
Chromium6
Re: Most Thorough Model
This video preview has a few insights worth checking out:
If you're already committed to one theory, you may not be open-minded about alternatives.
Ralph Juergens had a good method for comparing theories, by listing the various features of a phenomenon and then estimating how well each theory accounts for each feature.
I can show you his method from his paper, Of the Moon and Mars, if anyone's interested.
Also, we could try that method here if you like. Juergens used the method to compare theories about the rilles on the Moon and it was easy to see from the resulting table he made that electric discharge explained all of the features well, while the other theories were only compatible with some of the features and were contradicted by many features.
Filaments or Dislodged Halos? In an earlier post here on Star Formation at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374#p101119 I mentioned that CC has two somewhat different explanations of how implosions occur in galactic molecular clouds to form stars and planets. In his paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5972.html he said plasma Debye cells in space form into filaments and the filaments then implode. On this forum recently at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15340&p=100395#p100371 he said shock waves, I think, knock the halos off the dust grains, and I think halos means positive plasma Debye sheaths. The charge separation then leads to implosion.
Lloyd wrote: It's not real clear to me how galactic molecular cloud implosions result in CFDLs within the stars and planets that are formed from the implosions.
[CC replied:] On implosion, the pressure (mainly from momentum, and merely augmented by gravity) becomes sufficient for charge separation, due to electron degeneracy pressure. The role played by the gravity field is that it makes the pressure highest in the core, such that it gets ionized first, leaving the core positive, surrounded by a negative layer containing the electrons that were expelled from the core. Thus the first two charged layers are established. Then the electric force between them holds them together, preventing the hydrostatic rebound, and further concentrating the gravity field, which further increases the pressure, thereby making the charge separation more robust.
Questions That helps a little, but doesn't quite clarify how filaments, or dislodged halos, lead to implosion. The halos post comes close to explaining by saying that the attractive force between charges after the halos are dislodged becomes enormous. But that still leaves me wondering about details. Like does it set up a chain reaction implosion? Do dislodged halos combine with dust grains into filaments during implosion? How long does a molecular cloud implosion take? Or how long does it take for the halos and grains, or filaments, at the outer edges to reach the center? Do they accelerate? What max velocity do they attain? Is the center where the core forms? How long does it take to form the core? How much pressure does it take to expel electrons from the center? How long does it take the core to transform into a positive center with a negative layer over it? What elements will the core end up with and how will each element be built up? How about if we get an animation of the process to help clarify?
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
More on Objective Method
CC started work on comparing Sun theories at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8751, but I consider it a little insufficient. He provided good explanations of each theory etc, but what's needed for readers to see first, I think, is a rating table, like Juergens', where just the rating for each theory for each feature is listed. The explanations should then be linked to from the table for each rating.
Model Abbreviations and Descriptions GF: Gravity-Accretion-Fusion (Mainstream) ZP: Z-pinch-Circuit Plasma (Scott/Thornhill) SN: Supernova-Iron-Neutronium (Manuel/Mozina) IS: Z-pinch-Circuit Iron (Callahan) EC: Electric-Accretion-CFDLs (Chandler) (First part of model descriptions refers to manner of star formation; second part refers to primary solar content.)
I don't claim that my Ys and Ns are accurate. They're just guesses.
Instead of using Y or N, it may be better to do like Juergens did and use A, B, C, O, or X, where O means irrelevant and X means contradictory, i.e. precluding or disproving the theory.
Each Y or N or other rating should then be clickable to link to a page showing detailed explanations for each rating.
Here's a more thorough list of solar features that should be compared in the above manner. Sun Features:
Magnetic Field Streamers Corona Chromosphere Equatorial Torus
Very Thorough! It will speed up the posting by making a form where we can just check off those things we believe in. No more typing out long, seldom read ideas.
Aardwolf
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: Objective Method
If you're already committed to one theory, you may not be open-minded about alternatives.
Ralph Juergens had a good method for comparing theories, by listing the various features of a phenomenon and then estimating how well each theory accounts for each feature.
I can show you his method from his paper, Of the Moon and Mars, if anyone's interested.
Also, we could try that method here if you like. Juergens used the method to compare theories about the rilles on the Moon and it was easy to see from the resulting table he made that electric discharge explained all of the features well, while the other theories were only compatible with some of the features and were contradicted by many features.
Science and facts cant be decided by weighted averages. No matter how much supporting evidence anyone may have for a theory a single observation can falsity it. At that point it should be abandoned. Isn't that what we a re trying to point out to mainstream physics regarding EU issues. Lack of any subduction and no explanation where Antarctic plate is heading or the actual direction of the African plate is enough to dispute plate tectonics. These are not minor inconveniences, they are a fundamental problem. On the other hand no observations falsify expanding earth, just a failure to identify the mechanism. EU can provide that mechanism.
I favour the most scientific explanation not one based on averages or opinions.
D_Archer
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd >
This thread is for discussing anything in Charles Chandler's alternative EU model.
CC does not have an EU model. He has some wishy washy internally powered fire in sky model build on loose foundations* and self misderived understandings of physics to tie it all together in a big jumbled mess. Unintelligible in the end really; for any academic or lay person and that is the reason why it is ignored.
*by ignoring data even when presented to him multiple times and then handwaiving it away or ignoring what people say completely, and jumping onto his own preferred interjection point and than rattling away again.
Regards, Daniel
ps. I apologize in advance if this is too harsh, just a little rant, i got mad at Charles in the conduction thread by again just not accepting the corrections to what space is and is not by several posters and just rambling on again. Conduction and resistance can only be spoken of wrt to matter, non-matter is a nothing and can not conduct or resist.
Sparky
Re: Most Thorough Model
i got mad at Charles in the conduction thread
Questioning a belief system can do that.
CC does not have an EU model. He has some wishy washy internally powered fire in sky model build on loose foundations* and self misderived understandings of physics to tie it all together in a big jumbled mess. Unintelligible in the end really; for any academic or lay person and that is the reason why it is ignored.
Daniel, play nice. .......
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
I apologize for the long-winded post, but I'm committed to answering questions, and this gets me caught up on this thread.
Lloyd wrote: Origin of the Continents
I've read elsewhere that the sediments on the seafloors and continental shelves can only be a few thousand years old, if the erosion rate on the continents has been about the same as now. That would conform with Cardona's findings about the Saturn flareup and Mike Fisher's findings about a major impact having caused the supercontinent to break up, leaving the continents as they are now after sliding apart on the Moho layer.
I don't know much about seafloor sediments, nor dating methods. None of my work relies on a specific timescale — it could have all happened fast, or slow. I agree with Fischer's Shock Dynamics model, except that I don't think that the hole thing was over in just 26 hours — I think that the impact set the continents in motion, and then other factors (such as tectonic ratcheting) helped keep them in motion. Whether this played out over 250 million years, or 250 thousand, or whatever, the same processes would be at work. But I think that tidal forcing keeps the whole thing in motion, constantly kneading the crust, and enabling stresses to be relieved by plate motion.
Thinking along these lines, I had an idea concerning why 68% of the land mass on Earth is in the northern hemisphere. Tidal forcing from the Moon is the same all year long, but the distance of the Earth to the Sun varies, reaching a minimum during the winter (in the northern hemisphere). This makes summers hotter in the southern hemisphere, and winters colder. It also means that the solar component of tidal forcing is stronger. So that hemisphere is getting more of the "kneading" than up north. This might cause the continents to drift northward.
Analogously, if you throw an inner tube into a pool, and then you do something to create a continuous supply of waves in the pool, eventually, the inner tube will drift as far as it can from the source of the waves. So I'm thinking that the continents drifted into the northern hemisphere due to the slightly more dramatic tidal waves in the southern hemisphere. I have only just begun researching this.
The old version just left it up to the imagination as to how the "like-likes-like" force causes the collapse of dusty plasmas, while the new version shows all of the math.
Lloyd wrote: What I meant in the above post is that CC's accretion model says Debye cells in space form filaments, I think, and the filaments then snap together in an implosion that forms stars, but in the second part from a post of his, he found that if halos are stripped from dust grains by shock waves calculations show that the charge separation would lead to a powerful implosion. So it looks like he needs to tie the halo stripping and filaments together.
Yes — I'm still working on that part.
Lloyd wrote: Also, someone pointed out elsewhere that he doesn't seem to explain where the dust grains would come from. Or maybe it's mentioned in a different paper, or maybe I overlooked it. I assume they'd come from supernova explosions, or something similar.
Yes, and interestingly, it's the same principle, but on two very different scales. My number crunching with dusty plasmas revealed that net neutral Debye cells at rest actually repel each other, and only if the sheaths are stripped off is there a net attraction, so that's a necessary step in the dusty plasma collapse. To be thorough, I then discussed (in the page mentioned above) how we should go back and update Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle, since Debye cells in space are electrically similar to atomic nuclei surrounded by electron clouds. So net neutral atoms with stable electron clouds should actually repel each other, and only if the electrons are unbound from the nuclei will there be a net attraction. So if the atoms are getting ionized, they will start to form molecules, and ultimately, dust grains. Then, to be really thorough, I came full circle, and applied that back to the study of dusty plasmas. To go from a giant molecular cloud (GMC), comprised mainly of diatomic hydrogen, to a dusty plasma, something has to ionize the GMC, to invoke the "like-likes-like" force, such that larger aggregates will begin to form into dust grains. And what could ionize the GMC? A supernova! So the UV radiation from a supernova ionizes the GMC, enabling the formation of dust grains surrounded by Debye sheaths, and once that has happened, arriving somewhat later are all of the particulate ejecta from the supernova, invoking the "like-likes-like" force between the Debye cells. Hence supernovae just happen to supply both of the necessary ingredients for star formation, first converting a GMC into a dusty plasma, and then converting a dusty plasma into a star.
Sparky wrote: This would suggest that CC's ocean floor age is off... The continents are much older.
So the ET Continental Granite idea is inconsistent with old continental crust and young oceanic crust — is that the objection? One of these days, I'll have to start studying dating methods, but I see your point. The Expanding Earth Hypothesis has a nice answer for this: the oceanic crust was exposed as the Earth expanded. But that doesn't explain subduction. And as Lloyd noted in a subsequent post, expansion doesn't explain mountain building, while Shock Dynamics does. Anyway, I'll keep studying...
Lloyd wrote: That helps a little, but doesn't quite clarify how filaments, or dislodged halos, lead to implosion. The halos post comes close to explaining by saying that the attractive force between charges after the halos are dislodged becomes enormous. But that still leaves me wondering about details. Like does it set up a chain reaction implosion?
I'm still studying filaments in space, but my working idea is that a gas cloud collision resolves into organized jets burrowing their way through, as can be easily demonstrated in terrestrial fluid dynamic simulations. These jets are the embryonic filaments. I'm working on the quantitative proof that the electrostatic forces are stronger in filaments than in spheres. In the meantime, what I'm saying is that the filaments then collapse, like a stretched rubber band imploding on its centroid when released. A spherical implosion is still possible, but a filament implosion is more likely, because the forces are stronger.
Lloyd wrote: Do dislodged halos combine with dust grains into filaments during implosion?
In a rectangular array of dust grains, if the halos were swept into comas by friction in a gas cloud collision, the tails of the comas would be pointing right at the next dust grain. Since the dust grains are negative and the halos are positive, now you have little electrostatic threads pulling the dust grains together by their mutual attraction to the oppositely charged halos.
Can we expect all of the dust grains to be in these neat little rectangular arrays? Actually, that might not be far from the truth, since friction from the gas cloud collision will prefer for dust grains (with their comas) to fall into the lee of other dust grains. So yes, they're all going to line up, and the comas will produce a longitudinal tensile force pulling the filament together, in a direction parallel to the direction of the collision.
Lloyd wrote: How long does a molecular cloud implosion take? Or how long does it take for the halos and grains, or filaments, at the outer edges to reach the center? Do they accelerate? What max velocity do they attain?
My calculations show that the energy stored in the Sun could only have come from an explosion that had reached 86% of the speed of light. That sounds like a Really Big Number, but yes, the electric force is capable of accelerating particles to such speeds. And yes, the force increases during the implosion, starting at something like 1,000 times more powerful than gravity, and asymptotically approaching something like 2,000 times the gravity before the dust grains melt due to heat in the implosion. So the implosion accelerates rapidly near the end, to its final relativistic velocity. I haven't calculated the average velocity of the implosion, so I don't know how long the whole thing takes — I think that the conventional answer is something like 1 million years.
Lloyd wrote: Is the center where the core forms?
Yes — the center of the length of the filament.
Lloyd wrote: How long does it take to form the core?
I'm thinking that the final phase of the implosion is actually very brief — perhaps something like a couple of weeks or months. In fact, I think that this is what is going on in a supernova — the dusty plasma imploded, and when everything got to the center, it overheated and started radiating. Note that the body force acting on the dusty plasma will have little effect on the stuff that was already at the center, and a lot of effect on the stuff that was the furthest away. As with a stretched rubber band, if you let it go, the center doesn't move — the highest velocities are achieved by the far ends getting pulled inwards. As a consequence, everything meets in the middle at the same time.
Lloyd wrote: How much pressure does it take to expel electrons from the center?
That depends on the ionization potential of the elements. For hydrogen it's very high; for heavier elements, it's a lot lower. But there aren't any calculated numbers for this — it's all theoretical. I "might" be able to derive my predictions for the thresholds, but I don't know how I would confirm or corroborate them.
Lloyd wrote: How long does it take the core to transform into a positive center with a negative layer over it?
The initial charge separation would occur within the same timeframe as the final stage of the implosion — a couple of weeks or months. Whatever matter implodes and doesn't get captured by the CFDLs will bounce off. In our solar system, since the overwhelming majority of the matter is in the Sun itself, it looks like the Sun captured just about everything involved in the implosion, except for a few planets, which I believe to have once been stars in their own right.
Lloyd wrote: What elements will the core end up with and how will each element be built up?
That depends on what elements were in the original dusty plasma, and on how much fusion occurred during the implosion.
Lloyd wrote: How about if we get an animation of the process to help clarify?
I'm still crunching numbers — only when you have quantitative proof are you sure that you're on the right track. Some pieces I can already prove — other pieces are still in progress. I think that somebody else is gonna have to do the videos.
Lloyd wrote: More on Objective Method
CC started work on comparing Sun theories at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8751, but I consider it a little insufficient. He provided good explanations of each theory etc, but what's needed for readers to see first, I think, is a rating table, like Juergens', where just the rating for each theory for each feature is listed.
I liked Juergens' table, but for the level of granularity in your list of topics, that just isn't going to work. His ratings were:
A. predictable on basis of theory B. permissible in terms of theory C. permissible, but difficult to explain O. apparently irrelevant in terms of theory X. evidence precludes theory
That kind of analysis really only applies to one discrete set of observations, to compare theories that explicitly address them. But the things that you listed contains LOTS of different observations. Each of these would have to be broken out into a separate line item. So you can't just say that a complex cluster of observations (e.g., sunspots, or granules, or helmet streamers) could be certified as predictable/permissible/irrelevant/precluded. You'd have to itemize things like the sunspot umbra, penumbra, toroidal B-field, etc. The hierarchical structure in QDL enables coarse topics to be broken down into finer grain topics, where the issues can be debated at that kind of level. But then all of the debates are buried deep in sub-folders, and it's hard to get an overview.
One thing that seemed reasonable was to enable QDL's rating feature in folders containing multiple hypotheses, such that users could vote for which explanations they considered to be the best, and hypotheses that nobody liked would be forced to the bottom of the list.
To evaluate the overall performance of models, at the level of granularity of your list of features, I then created a rating summary table.
Now you can go through and rate each hypothesis, and it will automatically update the table.
Sparky wrote: Very Thorough! It will speed up the posting by making a form where we can just check off those things we believe in. No more typing out long, seldom read ideas.
The topical organization in QDL enables people to go straight to areas of interest, and precludes the redundancies inherent in forum discussions. It also supports questionnaires, so that people can get a sense of who believes what. Do you know of anybody who might like to try out that kind of workflow?
Aardwolf wrote: I favour the most scientific explanation not one based on averages or opinions.
Just take opinions (including summaries) for what they are. To make progress, we have to express opinions, so that isn't non-scientific. Settling on something just because it's somebody else's opinions is non-scientific.
D_Archer wrote: CC does not have an EU model. He has some wishy washy internally powered fire in sky model build on loose foundations* and self misderived understandings of physics to tie it all together in a big jumbled mess. Unintelligible in the end really; for any academic or lay person and that is the reason why it is ignored.
I'm sorry if you don't understand it, but it isn't wishy-washy. I have a quantified, physics-based model of star formation (by the collapse of a dusty plasma), of the internal structure of the Sun, and of the solar power output — all of which are within range to the limits of the accuracy of the data. And I'm committed to answering questions. You're right — that means that it isn't an EU model at all, because the EU models aren't quantified, and its proponents are not committed to answering questions.
Aardwolf
Re: Most Thorough Model
CharlesChandler wrote: And as Lloyd noted in a subsequent post, expansion doesn't explain mountain building, while Shock Dynamics does.
Earth expansion does explain mountains. If you take a flat piece of land at a specific curvature then flatten that curvature the top layer of land will fold like a concertina along the weakest point.
The crust of the continents is estimated at 25 miles so the cicumference of the Earth below the crust is roughly 150 miles less than the circumference at the surface. So say for a section only 1,000 miles long at current curvature, if you flatten it you have 6 miles more land on top compared to the bottom. The pressure caused by 6 miles of extra land on top causes the land to fold. This is how mountain ranges are created.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Mountain Building. I read probably over ten years ago James Maxlow"s theory of how mountains were formed from Earth expansion. That seemed plausible superficially, but looking in more detail, I think it's pretty certain that mountains were formed from horizontal compression, not by vertical slippage or the like.
CC. Thanks for the rather prompt answers to my questions. They help quite a bit. But of course there's never an end to questions and I should have time to ask more, if worthwhile, within a few more days, as I'm relocating.
Questioning a belief system can do that.
CC does not have an EU model. He has some wishy washy internally powered fire in sky model build on loose foundations* and self misderived understandings of physics to tie it all together in a big jumbled mess. Unintelligible in the end really; for any academic or lay person and that is the reason why it is ignored.
