Aristarchus wrote: When the paradigm produces too much fruit (i.e., is laden with theories), the paradigm tree collapses.
By a paradigm bearing fruit, I meant a paradigm that explains more and more stuff, without any additional effort on the part of the theorists. As an example, consider the atomic theory of matter. What can't you explain, with just 3 particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons)? Once scientists started thinking that way, they just kept finding more and more stuff that could be explained, without adding much in the way of complexity to the framework. So that's a good theory, because it continues to yield new value. Like an apple tree that just continues to bear apples, year after year, with no additional effort on your part.
By "fruit", I did not mean a bad theory, which fails to explain stuff, and which necessitates more and more theories as ad hoc patches to try to preserve the existing framework. That indeed will collapse sooner or later. But I don't understand how you mistook that for "fruit". Maybe to people who work in the academic community, a bad theory that constantly requires work to keep it afloat, which of course necessitates funding, and creates jobs for scholars, might be "fruit" to them — after all, it's what they feed on. But from where I'm sitting, that isn't "fruit" at all — that's a scam that yields no value to me. Like a sick apple tree that provides jobs for people who treat tree diseases, and which eventually collapses under the weight of all of the people climbing around working on it — that isn't what I would call a good apple tree. Forget them apples.
D_Archer
Re: Most Thorough Model
EU is a paradigm - Everything is connected, electricity can be used as a force to explain and predict a lot of phenomena and it explains myths of our past. EU explains stars/galaxies to be formed in filaments.
GTSM is a paradigm - Stars are planets, planets are stars, simple chemical processes have stars evolve to life sustaining planets.
CFDL? - ad hoc jibber jabber, this thread is called most thorough model, and CFDL is supposed to be a paradigm? For what exactly? Star formation? Star structure? The solar wind? Why would you call it a paradigm? Has it ever predicted anything?
I can't find anything useful on CFDL via google, is there an actual paper? Jeffrey Wolinsky's GTSM has numerous papers to be found that expand and improve the paradigm.
Regards, Daniel
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Daniel, have you read CC's paper on the Sun's Interior at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7224.html? I think he does a good job of explaining CFDLs there and why they must be what the Sun consists of. Bob Johnson is the one who first brought up CFDLs in a model of the Sun a couple years ago, when he had criticized the EU solar models at an EU Conference. His speech is on video at the TB Youtube channel.
On the MM forum I've been trying to get anyone there to acknowledge that the Sun emits 63 million watts per square meter of energy or "charge", while it receives less than the Earth does from its surroundings, which is way less than 1 thousand watts per square meter. Obviously, the energy of the Sun must be stored. And CFDLs are the most logical way in which they can be stored, apparently. MM's model would make a whole lot of progress, if such simple matters would be acknowledged.
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
D_Archer wrote: EU is a paradigm - Everything is connected, electricity can be used as a force to explain and predict a lot of phenomena and it explains myths of our past. EU explains stars/galaxies to be formed in filaments.
Whether or not the EU models "explain" a lot of phenomena depends on your standards for an explanation. The Ptolemaic system "explained" the motion of the planets and moons, but it didn't identify the underlying forces. That only became possible in the Newtonian system, which also included the formulas for considerably more accurate tracking of such motions. And of course now we're finding out that there are "gravitational anomalies" that require that we identify other forces that are not in Newton's equations, which can only be EM. Thus progress is made. So there are explanations, and then there are explanations.
quick answers that sound good: $1 thorough, accurate answers: $2
If both were free, which would you choose?
D_Archer wrote: GTSM is a paradigm - Stars are planets, planets are stars, simple chemical processes have stars evolve to life sustaining planets.
I agree.
D_Archer wrote: CFDL? - ad hoc jibber jabber, this thread is called most thorough model, and CFDL is supposed to be a paradigm? For what exactly? Star formation?
Ummm... it explains a lot more stuff than the other things that you're calling paradigms, and to a far higher degree of specificity.
D_Archer wrote: Has it ever predicted anything?
One month before the bolide exploded over Chelyabinsk, I described how bolides might start spinning if they enter the Earth's atmosphere at a shallow angle, resulting in a dynamo that will direct electric currents toward the poles of the magnetic field, producing bipolar EDM on the bolide's surface. Bolides had never been observed doing this, so it wasn't a postdiction. And it wasn't just a vague notion that something strange might happen — I identified the underlying forces, and said what those forces would do.
I'll forgive you for simply not being aware of how detailed this work actually is. But it would be more useful if you would rephrase your slander as questions instead of assertions. I can answer the questions, but I don't know what to do with the slander.
johnm33
Re: Most Thorough Model
Just a few incidental thoughts, 1. I assumed dinosaurs got so big because reptiles only need about 10%[+] of calories compared to mammals of similar mass, not so sure this is true of herbivores. When i have the time i'll check out whether this is true with galapagos iguanas. Plus i'm sure i read somewhere that reptile muscle is much stronger than mammalian, hence why crocs can walk/run with their limbs spread out so far. 2 Marsupials radiated out of 'asia' http://www.palaeontologyonline.com/arti ... arsupials/ [probably as nocturnal burrowing shrewlike omnivores] so the further back you go the more similar and related the fossils will be no matter where they're found. The mammals who seem to have originated in much the same place clearly never made the distance before the breakup, but [re]-filled the available niches wherever they reached. 3. IIRC at the time of chicxulub the deccan traps were on the opposite side of the globe [now kergulen islands hotspot] and were formed as a consequence of the impact, I too wonder if a similar occurence caused the volcanoes on mars as suggested above. 4. When i was investigating, for my own satisfaction, plate techtonics i checked out the elemental outpourings of volcanoes near subduction zones and again iirc there were enough significant differences between those and others such as kergulen hawai kilimanjaro, to convince me that subduction was occuring even though none of them were spewing cement occasionally like i thought they would. 5.Short of catastrophic flooding most of the time sediment settles out before it ever reaches the sea so the lack of oceanic basal sediment speaks to a mostly uniformitarian past there being any speaks to occasional catastrophies. This is especially true about times since the rise of angiosperms about 85mya and the spread of the great forests. Plus erosion stops very close to the low tide mark where there is a healthy seafloor ecosystem 6. Although i think the expanding earth hypothesis is quite compelling the increase in surface area of 3/5ths and the implied increase in mass/volume or conversely the decrease in density and expansion of the core needs a lot of explaining. so for now i'm sticking to the tectonic/supercontinent breakup model. 7. This http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/ ... 2gives.jpg bedrock map of antarctica shows that it is indeed being squeezed towards the sky, at least along the transantarctic mountains. Charles i'd be very interested in looking at both your tornado and volcanic theories but find your site a little opaque so if you have the time links please. This, http://charles-chandler.org/BulletinBoa ... p?f=6&t=11 ,is as close as i get but no links to the paper being discussed? Before this thread i read through A vs C and most of the links and i think your model has a lot going for it so thanks for your efforts.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
johnm33 wrote: Just a few incidental thoughts, 1. [] i'm sure i read somewhere that reptile muscle is much stronger than mammalian, hence why crocs can walk/run with their limbs spread out so far.
Have you read Ted Holden's critique of dinosaur theory, claiming that gravity had to be far weaker in the past for large dinosaurs to be able to survive? Even the flying dinosaurs needed weaker gravity, though thicker atmosphere would also have apparently solved the problem.
3. IIRC []. I too wonder if a similar occurrence caused the volcanoes on mars as suggested above.
I had to look up IIRC. I see it means "If I recall correctly". Charles explains volcanoes and earthquakes at this link: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6199.html. He found that they both seem to be CFDL effects. Impacts would affect CFDLs too, leading to both processes, I think.
4. [] i checked out the elemental outpourings of volcanoes near subduction zones and [] significant differences [] convince[d] me that subduction was occurring even though none of them were spewing cement occasionally like i thought they would.
We've concluded that plates don't subduct, but they sometimes ride over one another, like the North American plate is over-riding the Pacific. See http://NewGeology.us for the best explanation of plate tectonics and continental drift.
5. Short of catastrophic flooding most of the time sediment settles out before it ever reaches the sea so the lack of oceanic basal sediment speaks to a mostly uniformitarian past [] especially [] since the rise of angiosperms about 85mya []. Plus erosion stops very close to the low tide mark where there is a healthy seafloor ecosystem
You missed the finding that rock strata formed mostly at the same time, as per sedimentology.fr. The supercontinent formed ten or so millennia ago, probably from a huge impact. Land species developed from rapid evolution. (Dating methods are screwed up, though C14 dating is close to correct.) Then an impact occurred about 4,500 years ago, resulting in the supercontinent breaking up and the continents sliding rapidly over the frictionless Moho layer to near their present locations. Flooding occurred during the continental sliding. How can you say erosion stops at the low tide mark? Rivers carry sediment many miles into the seas.
Charles i'd be very interested in looking at both your tornado and volcanic theories
I gave the link to his volcano and earthquake papers under point #1. I read his tornado paper or book recently, I mean probably the last chapter, but he doesn't seem to have a link to it on his site with his other papers. So he'll have to take care of that.
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
johnm33 wrote: Charles i'd be very interested in looking at both your tornado and volcanic theories but find your site a little opaque so if you have the time links please.
Start with the Volcano paper, as it's much shorter. Be sure to read all of the way to the end, where I show that a catastrophic eruption at Yellowstone could be prevented.
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Vulcanism Charles, I think your earthquake prevention idea is probably sound, but I don't think a Yellowstone eruption is at all likely.
Wikipedia says "Volcanism at Yellowstone is relatively recent with calderas that were created during large eruptions that took place 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago. The calderas lie over a hotspot [] [that] appears to move across terrain in the east-northeast direction, but in fact the hotspot is much deeper than terrain and remains stationary while the North American Plate moves west-southwest over it." "the Columbia Basalt flows appeared at the same approximate time"
The caldera floor is said to have risen a maximum of 8 inches AT ONLY ONE POINT in a recent 4 or 5 year period and since then it has almost stopped.
Conventional dating is useless, so those ancient datings are meaningless. Don't you think the eruptions are much more likely to have occurred when the North American plate over-rode the Pacific plate during the Shock Dynamics event? That's when the Columbia basalt flows likely also occurred. That was 4,500 years or so ago.
We discussed the Mars Borealis basin lately and supposed that a large impacting body tore off the Mars northern hemisphere surface, leaving the basin, and accompanying forces produced the large volcanoes on Mars and formed the great rift, called Vallis Marineris. On Earth at about the same time an impact split the supercontinent and the forces involved raised mountains on the continents, and surely produced lots of vulcanism and earthquakes, esp. where the North American plate over-rode the East Pacific Rise. The Rise may have had a hot spot, which melted through the North American plate in several spots on a line during the plate movement. The Columbia basalt flow may have been from a rift like the Mars canyon. I don't think ratcheting would have been able to move the N. Amer. plate over the Rise. To do that the plate had to have the momentum from the impact force.
Is a supervolcano more likely to occur during a major impact event, or during quiet times thousands of years later? Wikipedia said there have been swarms of minor earthquakes or tremors. What does your model say about such swarms?
D_Archer
Re: Most Thorough Model
CharlesChandler wrote: I described how bolides might start spinning if they enter the Earth's atmosphere at a shallow angle, resulting in a dynamo that will direct electric currents toward the poles of the magnetic field, producing bipolar EDM on the bolide's surface. Bolides had never been observed doing this, so it wasn't a postdiction. And it wasn't just a vague notion that something strange might happen — I identified the underlying forces, and said what those forces would do.
The bolide was never confirmed to be spinning, you made that up.
---
Why call an object a paradigm? CFDL is a a description of an object/thing doing something, and you did not come up with the term. Where is the generality? Please be aware that a CFDL is an outcome of underlying physics, it can not be used as a physical explanation itself. You often use terms (instead actual physical things) to do stuff. That would be my problem.
---
I will ''try' to read the links, Interior, Accretion, Elements, Heliosphere. Usually i start one paragraph of what you write and , bang my head and just quit.
---
I just say what i think, it is not slander to me, i have the best intentions in mind. I think you are en intellectual but you use your intellect to reinvent the wheel 10 times over and it just tires me.
Regards, Daniel
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Daniel, maybe I could summarize those CC pages for you.
Charles, you didn't give John a link to your Tornado paper. Why don't you have the link with your other papers on your site?
Quasar Sizes? There are several quasars near galaxy M82. If the quasars are near the galaxy, as the EU & CEU models propose, then we can perhaps estimate the size of the quasars, by comparing them with the size of M82.
This site http://astropixels.com/galaxies/M82-01.html says the diameter of M82 is 37,000 ly. I suppose that's the diameter of its disk. The way M82 is oriented with respect to us in the solar system, it appears to be 9 arcminutes long by 4 arcminutes wide. The larger measure should be close to correct. That's apparently what is estimated to be 37,000 ly.
I believe the image shown on the first link above came with the 4 arcminutes scale attached. With that scale I found that the quasar diameter is about 1/6th of an arcminute (24 quasar diameters cover the 4 arcminute scale). If 9 arcminutes is proportional to 37,000 ly, then 1/6th arcminute is proportional to 37,000/9x6 = 37,000/54 = 685 ly.
Charles, maybe we discussed that before, but do you consider 685 ly to be a reasonable diameter for a quasar? That's more galaxy-like than star-like. Could quasars not be seeds of future galaxies, maybe as AGNs, active galactic nuclei?
Researchers found the bridgmanite in a meteorite that had fallen to Earth near the Tenham station in western Queensland, Australia, in 1879. The meteorite, Ma said, is highly shocked, meaning it endured high temperatures and pressures as it slammed into other rocks in space. Those impacts can create shock veins of minerals within the meteorites.
Charles, do you think the veins of shocked minerals could be produced by the high temperatures and pressures of the meteor's movement through Earth's atmosphere? If not, then would you agree with the article that the veins are evidence of collision previously? CC on Meteoric Airbursts: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/10634.html
For EU this is easy, the quasars settle in the same mega/giga parsec current filament.
Regards, Daniel
CharlesChandler
Re: Most Thorough Model
Lloyd wrote: Charles, I think your earthquake prevention idea is probably sound, but I don't think a Yellowstone eruption is at all likely.
I guess you mean my "volcano prevention idea", since I don't have an earthquake prevention idea. Anyway, I guess that if Yellowstone was going to erupt, we'd probably have warning signs years in advance, as the magma chamber pressurized. But we don't know how long that period would be. If we had the technology ready to go (i.e., if we knew exactly how & where to drill boreholes to shunt the electric current), perhaps we could wait until we saw the distinctive warning signs, assuming that we knew exactly what they are. But I think that we should develop the technology now. The way to go would be to see if we can redirect a smaller volcano. But if my model is correct, once there is a liquid magma channel connecting the Moho to the surface, that's going to be the conduit for electric currents (and thus it will get all of the ohmic heating), and the chance to redirect the heating elsewhere by drilling a borehole will have already passed.
Lloyd wrote: The calderas lie over a hotspot [] [that] appears to move across terrain in the east-northeast direction, but in fact the hotspot is much deeper than terrain and remains stationary while the North American Plate moves west-southwest over it.
The whole "hotspot" idea just doesn't work thermodynamically. Hot, high-pressure magma is a good thermal conductor, and hotspots don't happen in good thermal conductors, for the same reason that discrepancies in charge densities don't happen in good electrical conductors (all other factors being the same). The "hotspots" are actually electrical conduits connecting the surface to the Moho. They occur at plate boundaries because crustal deformation creates cracks that are much better conductors than solid rock. As the electric currents start flowing through these cracks, they melt the rock, which makes it an even better conductor. Thus it is a winner-take-all situation, with the currents and magmas following well-defined channels, unlike "thermal hotspots" which should diffuse radially.
Lloyd wrote: ...the Columbia Basalt flows appeared at the same approximate time...
Note that most stratovolcanoes produce felsic eruptions, which is igneous granite, and which would be melted continental crust (not a mantle plume). Basaltic flows indicate melted oceanic crust, which is slipping under the continental crust. But remember that thermal bubbles don't convect through solid rock. Only if an electric current opens up a conduit could magma make it all of the way through the thickest part of the continental crust under a mountain range.
Lloyd wrote: Conventional dating is useless, so those ancient datings are meaningless. Don't you think the eruptions are much more likely to have occurred when the North American plate over-rode the Pacific plate during the Shock Dynamics event? That's when the Columbia basalt flows likely also occurred. That was 4,500 years or so ago.
I haven't studied dating methods, so I don't know. It would make a lot of sense for the Rockies to get thrown up in a catastrophic event that sent the North American plate sliding over the Pacific plate, and for the same event to create a puddle of basalts under the leading edge of the N.A. plate, which would soon cause flood eruptions in the Cascades. So I agree with the sequence of events, even if I'm unsure of the date ranges.
Lloyd wrote: I don't think ratcheting would have been able to move the N. Amer. plate over the Rise. To do that the plate had to have the momentum from the impact force.
I agree.
Lloyd wrote: Is a supervolcano more likely to occur during a major impact event, or during quiet times thousands of years later?
Not knowing if there is any correlation between supervolcanoes and impacts, I'd say that yes, a large impact would increase the chance. Waves in the crust propagating away from the impact would raise and lower the crust, driving electric currents as the underlying rock is alternately ionized and de-ionized by the pressure. This sudden increase in ohmic heating could cause a runaway pressurization in an existing magma chamber, resulting in a supervolcanic eruption. And I guess that after the first eruption, you'd have all of the strike-slip faults to enable one later. In other words, each eruption at Yellowstone might not have been triggered by an impact — perhaps just the first one was, and thereafter, the weakened rock was more susceptible.
Lloyd wrote: Wikipedia said there have been swarms of minor earthquakes or tremors. What does your model say about such swarms?
As the ohmic heating builds up, due to electric currents being driven by crustal deformation, the differential expansion within the plates will create a wide variety of seismic events. If it was just one plate sliding over another, and if the plates were perfectly rigid, there would only be one event at a time, which would affect the entire region. But if the overlying plate is expanding because it is warming up, and if the heat sources are irregularly distributed throughout the plate (wherever the electric conduits are), the expansion will be irregular. The heating is well-known, and is one of the warning signs of an impending earthquake. Likewise, after a major quake, there is a swarm of aftershocks, as the plates cool down, with differential motion on the mating surfaces, producing a wide variety of events.
D_Archer wrote: CFDL is a a description of an object/thing doing something, and you did not come up with the term. Where is the generality?
I'm saying that main sequence stars (such as the Sun) and planets (such as the Earth) are comprised of, and defined by, layers of alternating charges. This is a fundamentally different way of looking at the problem domain, which appears to solve many otherwise intractable problems. If that doesn't qualify it as a "paradigm", I don't know what would.
D_Archer wrote: Usually i start one paragraph of what you write and , bang my head and just quit.
Please let me know where you get stuck. Maybe it's just bad writing, or maybe it's an idea that just doesn't work. Either way, it has to be fixed.
D_Archer wrote: I think you are en intellectual but you use your intellect to reinvent the wheel 10 times over and it just tires me.
How is the CFDL model of main sequence stars and planets "reinventing the wheel"? Nobody ever did that before. I didn't invent CFDLs, but I appear to be the first one to apply the idea to the structure of celestial bodies.
Lloyd wrote: Charles, you didn't give John a link to your Tornado paper. Why don't you have the link with your other papers on your site?
There is a link to my tornado paper in my signature, but I suggested that he start with the volcano paper, because it's not as involved.
Lloyd wrote: There are several quasars near galaxy M82. If the quasars are near the galaxy, as the EU & CEU models propose, then we can perhaps estimate the size of the quasars, by comparing them with the size of M82.
I thought that quasars were all point sources. Anyway, I explain quasars as "exotic stars", which are "natural tokamaks" (i.e., toroidal plasmoids). I'm thinking that the toroids are a lot bigger around than main sequence stars, which are spheres. Perhaps they have a major radius like the orbital radius of Jupiter or Saturn. The model requires a large radius, because maintaining relativistic angular velocities begs the question of how much degree of curvature could be tolerated. The bigger the radius, the smaller the degree of curvature, and the less problematic the centrifugal force will be. But there is also going to be some sort of upper limit, for how big a toroidal plasmoid can be, and still call itself an organized system. I truly have no idea what these limits would actually be, but I'm thinking that the exotics are bigger than the Sun, and smaller than the solar system.
Lloyd wrote: Could quasars not be seeds of future galaxies, maybe as AGNs, active galactic nuclei?
I don't think that quasars are seeds — I think that they're just stars.
Lloyd wrote: Charles, do you think the veins of shocked minerals could be produced by the high temperatures and pressures of the meteor's movement through Earth's atmosphere? If not, then would you agree with the article that the veins are evidence of collision previously?
I don't really see how a collision between two meteoroids out in space would create veins. That takes a molten interior under pressure. Maybe a collision created the fractures, but you still need a way of heating the rock from the inside out, to get the intrusions. That's the kind of thing that I think can only happen in the "rolling bolide regime", where there is an electric current flowing into the magnetic poles of the meteor.
I have developed the idea that quasars are aligned to the minor axis of elliptical galaxies. I actually believe that any main sequence star on a highly elliptical orbit through the center of a galaxy, following the galactic lines of magnetic force, is a candidate for conversion into a toroidal plasmoid. The reason is that moving along the magnetic lines of force induces rotation which could spin up a natural tokamak, starting with a spherical main sequence star. But I haven't studied the "Large Scale Structure". Are the quasars aligned to magnetic fields in the LSS?
Lloyd
Re: Most Thorough Model
Shock Dynamics N.A. Volcanoes
CC said: The "hotspots" are actually electrical conduits connecting the surface to the Moho. They occur at plate boundaries because crustal deformation creates cracks that are much better conductors than solid rock. As the electric currents start flowing through these cracks, they melt the rock, which makes it an even better conductor. Thus it is a winner-take-all situation, with the currents and magmas following well-defined channels, unlike "thermal hotspots" which should diffuse radially.
Lloyd wrote:...the Columbia Basalt flows appeared at the same approximate time...
CC replied: Note that most stratovolcanoes produce felsic eruptions, which is igneous granite, and which would be melted continental crust (not a mantle plume). Basaltic flows indicate melted oceanic crust, which is slipping under the continental crust. But remember that thermal bubbles don't convect through solid rock. Only if an electric current opens up a conduit could magma make it all of the way through the thickest part of the continental crust under a mountain range.
Looks like it might help to figure out some of the details about the North American plate over-riding the East Pacific Rise. The western edge of the N.A. plate would have smoothed the triangle-shaped rise into a wide rolling hill, I think. The N.A. plate would have been sliding over the Moho layer until it hit the Pacific plate at the Rise. Wouldn't it? As the N.A. started sliding over the Pacific plate, mountains would have been piled up from the friction of the Pacific plate opposing the momentum of the N.A. There would have been a lot of faults in the mountains while they were still brand new and that's where the vulcanic eruptions would have had to occur, I expect.
There are dormant and extinct volcanoes in Yellowstone in Wyoming/Montana, northern Arizona and western Washington, also western Nevada etc. The ones toward the east, like in Yellowstone, would have been over the Moho layer directly, but the ones toward the west coast would have been over the Pacific plate. How would the western volcanoes have linked to the Moho with the Pacific plate in between vertically? The Pacific plate would have had to fracture too. Wouldn't it? In order to get vulcanism started? Oh, wait. You said those basalt volcanoes are from melting of the Pacific plate, which is basalt. Would that have been a different kind of vulcanism that did not connect to the Moho? Or would electrical conduits to the Moho have been needed for those basalt flows too?
, bang my head and just quit.
