Aardwolf wrote: How exactly are they supposed to measure absolute movement compared to its deep interior?
I don't know — especially as concerns the accuracy necessary.
Aardwolf wrote: Also, have you ever considered how its possible there is so many red lines and so few blue lines.
I don't understand what you mean. The red lines are the mid-ocean ridges, and the blue lines are the continental motions, right?
Aardwolf wrote: Shock dynamics is falsified with all the other plate tectonic theories. First you need to explain where Antarctica is heading. Second, as a theory based on Pangea, Australia and South America shared no common border yet 25% of all marsupial species are located in South America and 75% in Australia and not a single solitary species in the vast land of Africa separating them. Explanation?
Now I'm wondering if the Expanding Earth Hypothesis and the Shock Dynamics Hypothesis are mutually exclusive. Could the continents have once formed one solid global shell, while on expansion, could the shell have only rifted in one place, leaving a solitary land mass (i.e., Pangea), which was then hit by an asteroid, breaking it up into the pieces we see now?
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Expansion
CC said: Now I'm wondering if the Expanding Earth Hypothesis and the Shock Dynamics Hypothesis are mutually exclusive. Could the continents have once formed one solid global shell, while on expansion, could the shell have only rifted in one place, leaving a solitary land mass (i.e., Pangea), which was then hit by an asteroid, breaking it up into the pieces we see now?
- What do you figure might cause expansion of the Earth without causing expansion of the shell/supercontinent? - Mike Fisher/Fischer says the supercontinent formed when something collided with Earth and produced the East Pacific Rise, which North America later ran into and crossed over partly. So expansion would seem to leave that rise or ridge unaccounted for.
Exotics Does anyone have questions or comments about CC's model regarding Galaxies, Black Holes, Pulsars, or Quasars?
Like me, many get the impression at first that his model for black holes must be similar to the mainstream model. But that ain't the case. He found that if an implosion of a giant molecular cloud results in a very high rate of spin, the condensed central star that forms would be an object with a very powerful magnetic field, which apparently is the case with all of these 4 objects and one or more others, like white dwarfs.
I don't think he claims that any black holes have yet been found, but the object he calls a black hole is much different from what the mainstream calls a black hole. He uses that term only because it's appropriate for describing one of this class of objects with huge magnetic fields. The object would be black because there would be no conditions for generating light or photons. I suppose, if the object does exist, it might be surrounded by matter that does generate or reflect light, but the central body would not generate or reflect light at any wavelength, I think.
CC's models for galaxies, pulsars, and quasars is different from EU models too and much more detailed. See the opening post for links to his papers for each of those. Any questions or comments?
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: What do you figure might cause expansion of the Earth without causing expansion of the shell/supercontinent?
I'm new to this whole topic, so at this point I'm just trying to collect epiphanies. One idea that I had was that expansion is a product of cooling. I know that this is counter-intuitive, but I'm going to investigate the possibility that supercritical fluids are more compressible than liquids and solids. The reason is that the supercritical fluids don't have bound electrons. As you compress gases, eventually you compress them into liquids or solids, which are incompressible, because you get to the point that the electron shells are touching, and further compression requires the liberation of those electrons. The extra energy required to do that is what gives liquids and solids their incompressibility. But in a supercritical fluid, those electrons have already been liberated by heat, so you can compress the matter beyond the liquid/solid density. Ah, but what if you cool the matter back down? Then those electrons can bind to the atoms again. When they do, they'll require that the matter expand back out to its liquid/solid density.
I don't know if this is going to work. The real issue is not whether or not it would work in principle, but rather, in practice — how much could the Earth have been over-compacted, at what kind of core temperature? Could it account for the amount of expansion required by the Expanding Earth Hypothesis? My guess is that it ain't gonna work. But you never know until you try...
Lloyd wrote: Mike Fischer says the supercontinent formed when something collided with Earth and produced the East Pacific Rise, which North America later ran into and crossed over partly. So expansion would seem to leave that rise or ridge unaccounted for.
I don't know enough to say. Fischer has made an extremely detailed analysis. When you see somebody looking that carefully at the details, and not finding any reason to abandon the hypothesis, you have a pretty good reason to think that he's onto something.
Lloyd wrote: Like me, many get the impression at first that his model for black holes must be similar to the mainstream model. But that ain't the case.
Precisely. I have one model for all of the "exotics": black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, BL Lac objects, white dwarfs, and planetary nebulae. The reason is that all of these objects have a variety of things in common, such as bipolar jets, extremely powerful magnetic fields, non-black-body radiation, and gamma-ray emissions. Main sequence stars have none of these, which is what convinced me that there are two fundamentally different types of stars: main sequence stars, and then the "exotics". But just because I talk about black holes doesn't mean that I buy into the mainstream model for them, any more than I think that neutron stars are made of neutronium. I just have to use the existing terminology for things, even if they're misnomers in my model.
As concerns what causes the extremely high rate of rotation in the exotic stars, I'm starting to think that this is a consequence of an imploding filament. Imagine that you have stretched a rubber band tight, and you let it go. This will be analogous to a collapsing filament. Everything will be moving toward the center, while the linear form of the thing means that it's mainly motion along a straight line, though the two halves are traveling in opposite directions (i.e., toward each other). My calculations have shown that the plasma can get accelerated to a respectable percentage of the speed of light. This means that it will be generating extremely powerful magnetic fields. So what happens when the matter gets to the center? Interestingly, the two halves of the filament will generate opposing magnetic fields, because they're traveling in opposite directions. So the matter isn't going to collide — the two charge streams will glance off of each other, due to the magnetic pressure.
Analogously, imagine that you're driving a magnetized car, with the north pole facing forward, and you're playing chicken with another car that is similarly magnetized. If neither of you chicken out, are the two cars going to collide? If the magnetic fields are powerful enough, they can't collide. If their trajectories are perfectly symmetrical, they'll just bounce off of each other from the opposing magnetic forces (assuming that you're trying to ram each other in a north-to-north configuration). But if the approaches are not perfectly symmetrical, they'll glance off of each other. Then a very interesting thing happens — once your north pole gets past the north pole of the other car, your north pole is attracted to the south pole of that car, and likewise, its north pole is attracted to the south pole of your car. So after the glancing blow of the near head-on collision, the two cars will clank together, north-to-south-wise. And they will be rotating really fast, because all of the linear momentum will get converted to angular momentum when the two cars clank together. So there's the source of the angular momentum. Two colliding relativistic jets will have a combined velocity that will be incredible, and all of that will get converted to angular velocity. Now you have two relativistic jets that have merged into one annular ring, and if it's rotating fast enough, the magnetic fields will be strong enough for nuclear fusion, like in a tokamak.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Charles, in your Black Hole paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6092.html, do you claim that black holes have been observed or detected? If so, how? You don't seem to have any references about that.
You say that fusion should occur in black holes, producing heavier elements from lighter ones. Which elements do you expect are produced from which?
The end of your paper there seems to say that black holes should have electric double layers. Offhand it's sounding like the CFDL model somewhat.
I was curious what each exotic object would produce mostly. And what may become of each such object type? Is a galaxy more like an exotic object with huge magnetic fields, or more like stars?
David
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote:
Exotics Does anyone have questions or comments about CC's model regarding Galaxies, Black Holes, Pulsars, or Quasars?
Like me, many get the impression at first that his model for black holes must be similar to the mainstream model. But that ain't the case.
Yes, I have a question. Chandler has stated: "I dismiss QM, GR, and anything based on them."
If he rejects General Relativity, then what theory of gravitation is he using? Newtonian? Or does he have his own gravitational theory that can accurately predict the elliptical orbits of the planets, and the anomalous precession of Mercury?
antosarai
Re: Most Thorough Model
And while you're at it, Mr. Chandler: isn't electron degeneracy pressure (and Pauli exclusion principle) — something crucial in your model — based on QM?
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: Charles, in your Black Hole paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6092.html, do you claim that black holes have been observed or detected? If so, how? You don't seem to have any references about that.
Yes, I should cite some references for that, but black holes have been detected on the basis of their gravitational influences on nearby objects. So we know that they are there — the question is how could there be such a huge gravity source without the radiation that the standard model predicts, from stuff getting pulled into it. The standard model also asserts that stars can implode under their own weight, and black holes are way over the weight limit. This is what caused mainstream theorists to take a walk on the wild side, conjuring up the whole "event horizon" thing.
I countered with my "natural tokamak" model, with a toroidal structure of matter, contained by the magnetic field that it generates with relativistic angular velocities. This model is the only one to my knowledge that accounts for bipolar jets emanating from stars with extremely powerful magnetic fields. Since sometimes black holes emit bipolar jets, I threw black holes into the same category, though for the hole to be black, the fusion in the tokamak needs to either have stopped, or the radiation has to be blocked by surrounding dust clouds.
But the more I think about it, the more I think that black holes aren't necessarily all that fancy. Elsewhere I dismiss the possibility that stars implode under their own weight, becoming neutron stars, which is non-sense. In my model, there is no theoretical limit to the mass of a dead star, where it stopped radiating simply because it eventually cooled down. And if all of the matter that was going to get drawn into it already has been, there isn't going to be even any infrared radiation from thermalized collisions of infalling particles at the surface. So it could be just a huge gravity source that has already consumed all of the surrounding matter, but without any atoms getting crushed into neutronium. Only black holes that emit bipolar jets should be considered exotics.
Lloyd wrote: You say that fusion should occur in black holes, producing heavier elements from lighter ones. Which elements do you expect are produced from which?
In my model, fusion occurs in exotic stars (i.e., natural tokamaks) due to magnetic confinement, and in main sequence stars due to electrostatic discharges, and in the case of extremely large stars, due to gravitational loading. There is a standard progression, from hydrogen to helium, through carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, all of the way up to the 7th period elements. Even-numbered atomic masses dominate, since two out of the three combinations (even-even, even-odd, odd-odd) produces an even-numbered sum. But you get the whole periodic table in the end.
Lloyd wrote: The end of your paper there seems to say that black holes should have electric double layers. Offhand it's sounding like the CFDL model somewhat.
Sorta, but for a very different set of reasons. I'm saying that in a "natural tokamak", with matter revolving around the center at relativistic speeds, the +ions will take the outside track, due to centrifugal forces developed by their greater masses. This leaves the center to be populated by free electrons, attracted to all of the positive charge in the toroid, and thus favoring the center. So it's two circular charge streams, with the positive ring having a greater radius than the negative ring, and with the electric force between them pulling the outer ring inwards.
Lloyd wrote: I was curious what each exotic object would produce mostly. And what may become of each such object type?
Another work-in-progress of mine is comparing the properties of exotic stars, and seeing if I can just vary the factors in my "natural tokamak" model to produce the differences among them. Here's the table that I started, of the overlapping property sets of exotic stars:
This will be a big project, since each of these star types is a study in and of itself, and the literature doesn't acknowledge a similarity of kind among these. Thus the data are not already sorted out for my purposes.
Lloyd wrote: Is a galaxy more like an exotic object with huge magnetic fields, or more like stars?
The evolution of galaxies, from random assortments of stars, into highly organized spirals, would make them more like exotic stars than main sequence stars. So just as dust grains get organized into stars, stars get organized into galaxies, but there are semi-spherical configurations (such as the elliptical galaxies) in which there is a small amount of angular momentum, analogous to a main sequence star, and there are flattened discs (i.e., the spiral galaxies) in which almost all of the momentum is angular, analogous to an exotic star.
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
David wrote: Yes, I have a question. Chandler has stated: "I dismiss QM, GR, and anything based on them."
If he rejects General Relativity, then what theory of gravitation is he using? Newtonian? Or does he have his own gravitational theory that can accurately predict the elliptical orbits of the planets, and the anomalous precession of Mercury?
Newtonian gravity predicts the elliptical orbits of planets reasonably enough. I believe that the anomalies are evidence of electrostatic forces, since planets have a net charge, and so does the interplanetary medium. Thus fluctuations in the density of the IPM will exert electric forces on the planets, perturbing their orbits.
As concerns Mercury, I could think of a lot of things that could cause its orbit to precess, including electrostatic and electrodynamic forces, and drag forces from the somewhat denser solar wind in its neighborhood. So I don't consider Mercurial precession to be the monopoly of the GR camp.
antosarai wrote: And while you're at it, Mr. Chandler: isn't electron degeneracy pressure (and Pauli exclusion principle) — something crucial in your model — based on QM?
I wouldn't say that the Pauli Exclusion Principle is "based on QM", and therefore necessitates accepting the premise if we are to acknowledge the outcome. Rather, QM incorporates it into a framework. But then again, so does the Bohr model, which also came later. So the QM camp doesn't own the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and I can accept that, and its implications for electron degeneracy pressure, without having to buy the whole QM package. But you're right that EDP is a QM term. D'oh!
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Charles, is Sagittarius A the only region in which a black hole can be inferred so far? Do you disagree with anything in this paragraph from Wikipedia?
Currently, the best evidence for a supermassive black hole comes from studying the proper motion of stars near the center of our own Milky Way.[110] Since 1995 astronomers have tracked the motion of 90 stars in a region called Sagittarius A*. By fitting their motion to Keplerian orbits they were able to infer in 1998 that 2.6 million solar masses must be contained in a volume with a radius of 0.02 lightyears.[111] Since then one of the stars—called S2—has completed a full orbit. From the orbital data they were able to place better constraints on the mass and size of the object causing the orbital motion of stars in the Sagittarius A* region, finding that there is a spherical mass of 4.3 million solar masses contained within a radius of less than 0.002 lightyears.[110] While this is more than 3000 times the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to that mass, it is at least consistent with the central object being a supermassive black hole, and no "realistic cluster [of stars] is physically tenable".[111]
Have you read Stephen Crothers' analysis of conventional black hole theory? Is the Schwarzschild radius inapplicable to black hole calculations? Have you been able to make more precise calculations for the size of the Sag A black hole?
Was Sag A likely formed during an implosion that formed the galaxy? Do you think the ratio of the size of a giant molecular cloud to that of a star or star system that forms at its center after the cloud implodes is about the same as the ratio for the size of a volume of plasma space that implodes to form a galaxy? Do you have figures for both ratios?
Have you read the old thread called Stars Are Thousands of Times Closer than They Appear? Do you have an idea why the Milky Way doesn't seem to have a large yellow central mass like many other galaxies seem to have? Is it possible that most blue stars are actually planets like Uranus and Neptune and that galaxies are star systems like the solar system?
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: Charles, is Sagittarius A the only region in which a black hole can be inferred so far?
Sag A isn't the only one — it's just the closest, and therefore, we have the most accurate numbers for it.
Lloyd wrote: By fitting their motion to Keplerian orbits they were able to infer in 1998 that 2.6 million solar masses must be contained in a volume with a radius of 0.02 lightyears.
I can understand how they estimated the mass of the black hole, but I don't understand how they arrived at the volume, just knowing the Keplerian orbits. A black hole of 2.6 million solar masses, at the same density as the Sun, would have a radius of 0.88 the orbit of Venus. OK, that's Really Big. But if only one of the stars orbiting Sag A has completed a full orbit since 1998, it would have to be a long ways away — so far away that the gravity of Sag A would behave as a point source, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between big and small volumes just by the Keplerian orbits. So I think that the volume came from black hole theory, not observations. And I don't buy into black hole theory (i.e., the atomic structure is getting crushed). I think that most of the matter inside stars is at or near its liquid density. So I think that they got the volume wrong.
Lloyd wrote: Have you read Stephen Crothers' analysis of conventional black hole theory? Is the Schwarzschild radius inapplicable to black hole calculations?
I haven't looked at it — that kind of thing is off of my radar screen. I have enough targets to worry about. It doesn't surprise me that GR isn't self-consistent, and it doesn't surprise me that nobody really cares. I just think that the whole thing is flawed.
Lloyd wrote: Was Sag A likely formed during an implosion that formed the galaxy?
I do believe in galactic implosion/explosion cycles, and I believe that this is how galaxies morph, from peculiars to ellipticals, lenticulars, and ultimately, to spirals. In a galactic implosion, some of the stuff is melted and re-forged, but not all of it. I don't know if there will ever be a way of guessing which cycle produced which star.
Lloyd wrote: Do you think the ratio of the size of a giant molecular cloud to that of a star or star system that forms at its center after the cloud implodes is about the same as the ratio for the size of a volume of plasma space that implodes to form a galaxy? Do you have figures for both ratios?
Well, a dusty plasma implodes to produce a star. But the stars don't implode to produce a galaxy as one integral unit — a galaxy is still just a collection of stars. In my model, it's possible for a dusty plasma to implode and not form a star. Rather, if the force feedback loop never amounts to anything, the plasma will just bounce off of itself, and expand back out to its original dimensions, sometime later to implode again. Note that while any random assortment of matter might implode, the explosion is always radial, since everything shoots back out from the centroid. Even random matter has a centroid, and after the first explosion, the matter will be in a spherical form around that centroid. When that matter implodes, it will be more likely to fuse into a star. So is it possible for galaxies to continue to get more and more geometrically perfect, until finally, when they implode, all of the matter gets fused into one super-duper star? As far as I know, there isn't a reason why this couldn't happen. So perhaps the Universe in the distant future will be made up of galaxies that have condensed into solitary integral masses. Then I suppose galactic clusters could combine... And then maybe all of that could implode, and produce a... [no, I'm not going to say it ] ...how about... a Big Oh'sh-it. But no, I don't know if there is a limit to the mass of an aggregate, so I don't know if everything in a galaxy could condense into one object. Maybe they just vaporize themselves if that much matter implodes, and then they start over from the beginning. (Would that be in a Little Oh'sh-it, compared to the big one?)
Lloyd wrote: Have you read the old thread called Stars Are Thousands of Times Closer than They Appear?
I can't remember, but certainly redshift interpretation is far from a closed issue, and it wouldn't surprise me if that title turned out to be correct.
Lloyd wrote: Do you have an idea why the Milky Way doesn't seem to have a large yellow central mass like many other galaxies seem to have?
It does have a central bulge, but you're saying that it doesn't have the typical old yellow stars like other spiral galaxies? (I don't know much about this.)
Lloyd wrote: Is it possible that most blue stars are actually planets like Uranus and Neptune?
Blue stars are "burning" very brightly, which in Uranus and Neptune, the "flame" has all but gone out.
Lloyd wrote: Is it possible that galaxies are star systems like the solar system?
That depends on how you define stellar systems. Most people would agree that they can have multiple stars. I agree with Jeffrey that all of the planets in our solar system were once stars. Anyway, can multiple stars have multiple sets of planets orbiting them? Is that one stellar system, or many? Depending on how you define it, a galaxy might be just one stellar system, with lots and lots of stars in it.
Galaxies I'm rereading your paper on Galaxies and something I never thought about much before is how stars would reform in a galactic explosion after an implosion. If stars do form during the explosion stage, I wonder if it would still be via giant molecular cloud implosions, and if the giant molecular clouds would tend to be much more common near the galactic core. I'll see if your paper discusses the formation of spiral arms. I remember from before that it described how the spiral arm ends would be slowed down by the intergalactic medium, I think. I'll see if it says much more than that.
I thought you initially said galaxies go through implosion/explosion cycles, but maybe I misunderstood. Do you say that the "implosions" don't involve everything hitting the center and re-exploding?
You say near the end: "The arms are whipper snappers plowing through plasma, and new stars are forming on the leading edge, where matter is compressed by the collisions. The trailing edge is shielded from all of this, and has only the old stars from when the filament first formed."
Do you know where the Sun is in our spiral arm? I gather it's not on the leading edge of it. Is the Orion nursery there? Do you know if there's a string of star forming regions on our arm's leading edge?
Have you had any ideas about how the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy got wrapped around the Milky Way?
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Here I'm replying to what Lloyd posted on the Aristarchus vs. Chandler thread, but which isn't going anywhere fast, so I'm taking this up on this thread.
Charles, have you seen this new video? It's about comets.
It will take me a while to get all of the way through it, but here are my initial comments.
Lloyd wrote: We've discussed somewhere that geysers on Mars and some moons may be caused similar to earthquakes and vulcanism by the CFDLs in them. Comets have jets that resemble those geysers. Could comets that are only a few miles in diameter be composed of CFDLs too, which cause the jets? Or do you accept the EU's explanation of them?
Yes, I think that comets have CFDLs, but not for the same reasons as planets and stars. There, the CFDLs are set up by gravitational loading, which (due to electron degeneracy pressure) separates charges, resulting in alternating layers of charges that cling together due to the electric force. But comets are too small for that. The minimum radius for spherical shapes in celestial objects is roughly 750 km — everything bigger than that is spherical, and everything smaller than that is irregular. So that's the threshold for electron degeneracy pressure, which sets up the spherical layers, and also creates the plasticity for the matter to assume that form. Comets are much smaller than that, so the gravitational loading is insufficient for electron degeneracy pressure.
Nevertheless, comets are racing through the interplanetary medium, and they develop charged sheaths, as described on Wikipedia:
Because the relative orbital speed of the comet and the solar wind is supersonic, a bow shock is formed upstream of the comet in the flow direction of the solar wind. In this bow shock, large concentrations of cometary ions (called "pick-up ions") congregate and act to "load" the solar magnetic field with plasma, such that the field lines "drape" around the comet forming the ion tail.
Well, we can see past the MHD band-standing, to what's actually going on. I covered this in detail in this paper:
Basically, the onslaught of particles hitting the comet creates a boundary layer, and +ions bury themselves deeper in this layer than electrons, due to their greater mass. Thus the sheath that builds up is positively charged, surrounded by a negative layer comprised of electrons that got stripped off in particle collisions. The coma glows due to these charges recombining sometime after the comet has passed.
Note that this is a radically different conception of the origins of the coma. Most people think that the coma is material getting liberated from the comet, like a dust trail. I'm thinking of it more like the vapor trail behind a jet flying at high altitude, which is water vapor that was already in the air, and which condensed as a consequence of the jet flying through it, but which didn't come out of the jet itself. So how much material do comets lose to their comas? They don't necessarily lose anything at all, if they are insulated from the solar wind by a +ion sheath.
This explains why a comet moving through a 400+ solar wind could have an accumulation of dust on its surface. You'd think that a supersonic wind would sweep the surface pretty much clean of all dust, but there it is, clearly visible in all of the close-ups of comets.
I don't agree with the EU assertion that comets are negatively charged, having come from a negatively charged region of the interplanetary medium, and that they are discharging their way through the inner solar system. Rather, they are surrounded by +ion sheaths, and this induces a negative charge on the surface. So the surface IS negatively charged, but the whole comet is probably net neutral.
And this explains the jets coming out of comets. If the surface gets an induced negative charge, the interior of the comet will be positively charged, and if the charge is powerful enough, the Coulomb force could expel material from the interior.
BTW, the behavior of the jets is another proof of the presence of a +ion sheath around the comet. If the comet was being subjected to supersonic winds, the jets wouldn't just sprout out from the sunward side, and spray outward in a radial pattern — they would show the effects of that supersonic wind, and be beaten back toward the coma, at least a little bit, if not dramatically so. I don't know the velocity of the jets, but remember that the solar wind is doing 400+ km/s, plus the speed of the comet itself (~45 km/s). So we should see at least a little bit of an effect from that supersonic wind, but we see none. This would only be possible if the jets are spraying into a stagnant +ion sheath surrounding the comet.
Lloyd wrote: I think a little after the one hour mark on the video there's discussion of the breakup of comets. It appears that CMEs or spikes in the solar wind output often cause these breakups. They also cause brightening of comets.
All of that makes sense if there is a +ion sheath around the comet. The induced negative charge on the surface leaves the interior positively charged, and the Coulomb force breaks the comet up into pieces, if the pressure couldn't be relieved by jets. The positive charge also weakens the crystal lattice holding the comet together. And the faster the winds, the more the charge separation in the boundary layer, due to frictional charging.
Lloyd wrote: Halley was beyond the orbit of Uranus when it brightened after its 1986 perihelion. That was apparently due to a CME. I was surprised that CMEs can go that far, since your graph showed that solar wind proton counts are near zero by the time they reach Earth's orbit.
That's interesting. There is a lot that still doesn't make sense to me about the interplanetary medium. The density data seemed to be reliable enough, coming from a bunch of different satellites, which all agreed with each other. But the implications are numerous and complex, and I'm not sure that I have my mind wrapped around the whole thing yet. I guess that there wouldn't be anything stopping a CME from making it past Uranus, if there wasn't much of anything in the IPM to stand in its way. But I don't see why the CME would still be organized — why didn't it just balloon out and disperse itself? Is it just pure momentum?
Lloyd wrote: I think the EU theory is that a close approach between Venus or something and Mars electrically carved out the Vallis Marineris canyon, producing asteroids, comets and some moons.
I think that the asteroid belt was produced by a collision between the planet that the Titus-Bode Law predicts should be there, and something that came zipping through the solar system. This has been dismissed because the asteroid belt has only 1% of the mass of a planet. But then everybody agrees that probably 99% of the material that was originally in the belt is no longer there, because it never found a stable orbit. I "think" that this means that it used to have the mass of a planet.
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: Galaxies I'm rereading your paper on Galaxies and something I never thought about much before is how stars would reform in a galactic explosion after an implosion. If stars do form during the explosion stage, I wonder if it would still be via giant molecular cloud implosions, and if the giant molecular clouds would tend to be much more common near the galactic core.
Yes, the explosion would vaporize everything, and then the stars would have to form from scratch, first from atoms condensing into molecules in giant molecular clouds. Then the molecules would form dust particles, which would form Debye cells, which would make it possible for dusty plasmas to implode into stars. So, how far away from the explosion would each of these stages occur? I dunno.
Lloyd wrote: I thought you initially said galaxies go through implosion/explosion cycles, but maybe I misunderstood. Do you say that the "implosions" don't involve everything hitting the center and re-exploding?
Yes, I'm still thinking that galaxies implode and explode. And yes, there isn't necessarily just one center — irregularities in the distribution of mass can result in there being more than one point of convergence.
Lloyd wrote: Do you know if there's a string of star forming regions on our arm's leading edge?
I don't know.
Lloyd wrote: Have you had any ideas about how the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy got wrapped around the Milky Way?
I don't know.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Comet Formation
CC said: [Lloyd wrote: I think the EU theory is that a close approach between Venus or something and Mars electrically carved out the Vallis Marineris canyon, producing asteroids, comets and some moons.] I think that the asteroid belt was produced by a collision between the planet that the Titus-Bode Law predicts should be there, and something that came zipping through the solar system.
How do you think Vallis Marineris formed? I guess we need you to critique the video, The Lightning-Scarred Planet Mars, too.
Cardona figured the Saturn System entered the solar system at an angle so that it took 5,000 years or so to get from the heliopause to its present orbit. He said some planetoids in the Kuiper belt have the appearance of having been disturbed in the past. Do you think a body from the Saturn System could have been moving fast enough to break up a planet formerly in the main asteroid belt? Could the Moon have been that body, which later broke up to form our supercontinent and the Moon?
Comet Charge
CC said: Basically, the onslaught of particles hitting the comet creates a boundary layer, and +ions bury themselves deeper in this layer than electrons, due to their greater mass. Thus the sheath that builds up is positively charged, surrounded by a negative layer comprised of electrons that got stripped off in particle collisions. The coma glows due to these charges recombining sometime after the comet has passed. [] I don't agree with the EU assertion that comets are negatively charged, having come from a negatively charged region of the interplanetary medium, and that they are discharging their way through the inner solar system. Rather, they are surrounded by +ion sheaths, and this induces a negative charge on the surface. So the surface IS negatively charged, but the whole comet is probably net neutral. [] So we should see at least a little bit of an effect from that supersonic wind, but we see none. This would only be possible if the jets are spraying into a stagnant +ion sheath surrounding the comet. []
Do you mean then that the coma is the positive charge sheath, with a layer of negative charge on its outside, and an induced negative layer on the rocky comet body and an induced positive center? Is it positive and negative charge from the coma that goes into the comet tails? If so, does the coma get replenished by the solar wind?
Comet Breakup
I guess that there wouldn't be anything stopping a CME from making it past Uranus, if there wasn't much of anything in the IPM to stand in its way. But I don't see why the CME would still be organized — why didn't it just balloon out and disperse itself? Is it just pure momentum? []
The video also mentioned that the coma of comet Holmes became bigger than the Sun about 4 months after perihelion, I think. Do you think the CME that hit it was about that size? I don't know what Holmes' distance was. I presume that the CMEs do expand as they move away from the Sun, but it may be a somewhat slow expansion. Would they have magnetic fields that would help keep them organized?
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: How do you think Vallis Marineris formed?
I don't know. My first guess would be that the three nearby volcanoes released a bunch of heat, which enabled the crust to cool, and to rift as it shrunk. If what was erupting was liquid water, it would have produced torrential downpours, which would explain the clear evidence of erosion (especially further downstream). IMO, that explains more of the features than the electrical scarring model. But this is all just "look like..." theory — it isn't quantification and prediction, so I wouldn't hang my hat on any of it.
Lloyd wrote: Do you think a body from the Saturn System could have been moving fast enough to break up a planet formerly in the main asteroid belt?
That would depend on how big it was.
Lloyd wrote: Could the Moon have been that body, which later broke up to form our supercontinent and the Moon?
Well, it's possible that the Moon was a rogue planet, which impacted the planet between Mars & Jupiter with enough force to shatter it into a kazillion asteroids, but the impact slowed it down enough that when it impacted the Earth, it just left a skid mark (in granite continents), and then got captured by the Earth's gravity. It's actually hard to imagine how the Moon could have been traveling slow enough to impact the Earth and not destroy it, unless it had already collided with something else. So that sounds pretty reasonable.
BTW, the chance of one celestial collision at that scale is slight, and the chance of two is slight^slight. But if the Moon was left with little velocity after the first impact, and was drifting slowly toward the Sun, the chance of an inner planet running into it would have been greater. In other words, if you run across the highway really fast (at just the right time) your chance of getting hit by a car is slight, but if you walk slow enough, your chance of getting creamed becomes quite respectable. So we should suspect that the Moon was left nearly stationary by the first impact, and then the Earth ran into it.
We might also say that for the Earth to not get perturbed into a more elliptical orbit by the impact, it had to be a glancing blow (i.e., with the Moon toward the outer solar system, or the inner, but not a head-on collision). With a glancing blow, the Earth would have been tugged toward the Moon up until the impact, but the impact would have offset that velocity, leaving the Earth with the same orbital characteristics. If it had been a head-on collision, the Earth would have been slowed down, and would have fallen toward the Sun, ultimately stabilizing in a more elliptical orbit. So the glancing blow makes more sense, and this would have left a skid mark, not just a circular blob.
Lloyd wrote: Do you mean then that the coma is the positive charge sheath, with a layer of negative charge on its outside, and an induced negative layer on the rocky comet body and an induced positive center?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: Is it positive and negative charge from the coma that goes into the comet tails?
Yes.
Lloyd wrote: If so, does the coma get replenished by the solar wind?
Yes. Otherwise, comets would get depleted pretty fast. Halley's Comet has made 32 laps through the solar system since 240 BCE, and we can suspect that the mass hasn't changed much, since something with less mass would experience more friction per kilogram (i.e., a lower terminal velocity), and that would throw it into a different orbit. And yet the orbital period has stayed in the range of 74~79 years the whole time. So I'm thinking that it isn't losing mass, and that the coma is just the effect that the comet has on the IPM — it isn't coming from the comet itself.
Lloyd wrote: The video also mentioned that the coma of comet Holmes became bigger than the Sun about 4 months after perihelion, I think. Do you think the CME that hit it was about that size?
I don't know.
Lloyd wrote: Would [CMEs] have magnetic fields that would help keep them organized?
They might resolve into filaments, with a z-pinch to keep the ions bundled together. Perhaps the comet got hit by one of those bundles.
It doesn't surprise me that GR isn't self-consistent, and it doesn't surprise me that nobody really cares.
] ...how about... a Big Oh'sh-it. But no, I don't know if there is a limit to the mass of an aggregate, so I don't know if everything in a galaxy could condense into one object. Maybe they just vaporize themselves if that much matter implodes, and then they start over from the beginning. (Would that be in a Little Oh'sh-it, compared to the big one?)
Lloyd wrote:I can't remember, but certainly redshift interpretation is far from a closed issue, and it wouldn't surprise me if that title turned out to be correct.