Thunderbolts Forum

'12-01-29, 14:17 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: I'm still looking for a possible way for Marklund Convection, or something, to form astronomical bodies of heavy elements. So far, your model seems to suggest that such bodies form from a combination of gravity and EM forces acting on a cloud of gases, where EM forces aren't very great. Is that right? That's correct, and I agree that this is an issue. I have gravity as the prime mover, which gets things moving in the first place. Then the dipolar particles start generating weak magnetic fields, where the only significance is that neighboring particles get aligned by the overlapping fields, and this gets their opposite electric poles facing each other, and now there is a far more powerful attractive force. The problem is getting gravity to exert that much force in the first place. Just make sure that you're comparing apples to apples. I'm talking about aggregation from scratch. If you're talking about Marklund convection, that's not scratch, because you didn't explain what aggregated the charge separated matter that created the voltages necessary for the current... Of course, if we had a Big Bang in here somewhere, we'd have relativistic speeds that would invoke electrodynamic forces (pinches, etc.) that would accomplish the primary aggregation. But that's another issue... Lloyd wrote: And I don't see yet how your model could explain the filamentary structures, jets etc in the universe that are often many lightyears in length. What do you think explains such structures? On my website I talk a little bit about accretion disc jets, but I'm not totally sure that even that much is well-covered, and I don't even touch on supernova ejecta, such as the Cygnus Loop that you mentioned earlier. I wouldn't argue with you if you were to say that the supernova accelerated the ejecta to relativistic speeds, which caused the pinches. But I don't think that such is what you're saying, because that wouldn't be a pole-to-pole current — that would just be a ballistic plasma jet coming out of an explosion. Lloyd wrote: Have you read Miles Mathis' theory about Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? I'll take a look and let you know. It might be a couple of weeks — radical ideas take me a long time to process...
'12-01-29, 16:18 Sparky	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient http://milesmathis.com/ug.html Abstract: In this paper I will break open the universal gravitational constant G, showing the hidden information inside. G is not and has never been just a constant. It is the carrier of hidden motions and hidden theory, uncovered by neither Newton nor Einstein. In discovering what G contains, I will be able to show that the current value of gamma (in Relativity) and the current estimate for the age of the universe are incommensurate. A complex constant like that is normally a sign of incomplete theory. The constant is a fake that obliterates future science in a nearly perfect manner. G is the ultimate proof of this, since it has stood in for mechanics, and prevented mechanics, for over three centuries. It has become so invisible now that no one even thinks to look at it anymore. http://milesmathis.com/g.html Abstract: In this paper I show that G acts as a transform between the two separate fields that compose the uber-field of Newton's gravitational equation. First I write each mass as density times volume. I then give V to one field and D to the other field. This makes gravity, taken singly, dependent on volume or radius alone. Density then becomes a consideration of the foundational E/M field. That is, density is important only in that field. Accelerations are comparable only when velocities are equal, but velocities at the surfaces of "gravitating" objects are not equal. Therefore, in order to put both fields in the same equation, we must transform one size to the other, or one velocity to the other. This is what G does.
'12-01-29, 17:09 Solar	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient CharlesChandler wrote: Lloyd wrote:I'm still looking for a possible way for Marklund Convection, or something, to form astronomical bodies of heavy elements. So far, your model seems to suggest that such bodies form from a combination of gravity and EM forces acting on a cloud of gases, where EM forces aren't very great. Is that right?That's correct, and I agree that this is an issue. I have gravity as the prime mover, which gets things moving in the first place. Then the dipolar particles start generating weak magnetic fields, where the only significance is that neighboring particles get aligned by the overlapping fields, and this gets their opposite electric poles facing each other, and now there is a far more powerful attractive force. The problem is getting gravity to exert that much force in the first place. Just make sure that you're comparing apples to apples. I'm talking about aggregation from scratch. If you're talking about Marklund convection, that's not scratch, because you didn't explain what aggregated the charge separated matter that created the voltages necessary for the current... Thank you Lloyd. Charles: With regard to "aggregation from scratch" you might find experiments with Plasma Crystals interesting owing to electrically charged dust particles ("dusty plasma") having the tendency to 'self-organize' into macroscopic crystal lattice formations. Lots of work has been done in this area but it seems to fly low on the radar with regard to its potential as a possible 'explanation' for the formation of 'structures'; which seems to be an aspect of your quest towards a more comprehensive theory. In these experiments electrostatic forces are used to "balance gravity and ion drag": In 1986 H. Ikezi published a theoretical work on Coulomb crystallization in a dusty plasma. While astrophysicists fell in love with dusty plasmas, the micro-chip industry tried to avoid dust grains inside their processing chambers with all means. In the mid-80ies of the 20th century several plasma processes were introduced in the progress of creating smaller and smaller devices on integrated circuit chips. Each single dust grain falling on the surface of a micro-chip during manufacturing will destroy it and therefore raise production costs. The scientists in industry assumed that the dust they found on the chips came from outside the hermetically sealed process chambers and they improved the technique of their clean rooms further and further (and spent more and more money on that). Nevertheless, they found almost the same amount of dust in their chambers. Gary Selwyn of IBM solved the riddle, when pointing a laser device into a processing chamber during plasma etching. He discovered a cloud of dust floating inside the chamber (Pictures). The dust particles even grew with time from nanometer to micron-size. This means that the dust did not come from the outside but rather was a product of the plasma etching itself. The effort to prevent this dust production also gave a boost to the growing research on dusty plasmas.- Complex (Dusty) Plasma The "etching" process mentioned above, in my humble opinion, seems to have implications with regard to the EU's proposal of both cometary and/or planetary etching i.e. "electric etching" of their surfaces by cosmic electric forces. See "Electrical Etching of Mercury", for example. This process appears interesting in relation to a possible 'cosmic cycle' such that the etching of even dust from the surface of a comet, moon, or planet then might facilitate Columb Crystalization at again at some location in the cosmos perhaps leading to the formation of some other world or star from ubiquitous "molecular (dusty) clouds." We are speculating aren't we? Here is a paper on that topic: Plasma Crystal: Coulomb Crystallization in a Dusty Plasma Also see: "From plasma crystals and helical structures towards inorganic living matter" … as a general conceptual overview of the 'scope' that the topic may cover including helical formations. Interestingly the book "Elementary physics of complex Plasmas" refers to numerous types of dusty plasma instabilities that can lead to 'clumping' and structure' but I find it peculiarly appropriate that this book calls the relationship in this venue "Electrostatic Gravitation Like Instabilities" in light of good macroscopic 'clumping' results only being obtained when gravity is reduced to microgravity levels and dust particles retain charge. The following website (movies available) from the Plasma Crystal experiment refers to this process as the "coagulation" or "agglomeration" of the dust particles and it is also found that upon turning the plasma "off" (evacuating the argon plasma from the chamber) that the particles still retain residual "rest charge" which can result in a "run-away" process of clumping "due to charge-induced attraction": Coagulation Experiment
'12-01-29, 19:55 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient EM Coagulation * Solar Ty, that's very interesting and relevant. Along similar lines are Santilli's Hadronic Mechanics and Kanarev's info. I guess those probably aren't as important to discuss now, though. Mathis' Ideas Again * Charles, I mentioned Mathis last time, because he's like you in thinking that EM effects are not generally the main force in the universe, but that gravity may be. But he, like you, does credit it with significant contribution. Besides what Sparky mentioned, I'll try to give a quick summary of what I understand of Mathis' conclusion. First, I'm happy to see in a recent paper by Mathis that he considers that gravity, as a push, instead of a pull, is not due to universal expansion, as previously considered, but to spin of the universe. So I think he may be on the right track with that new idea. Newton's Law Includes EM * This might be the best Mathis paper to read for his explanation of Newton's Law containing equations for both gravity and EM: The Unified Field Theory: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html. Newton's equation: F = GMm/R^2; F is actually the combined force due to gravity and electromagnetism. Call H the force due to gravity. Call E the electromagnetic force. E = F – H; H = m(A + a); A = acceleration of M; a = acceleration of m. E = [GMm/R^2 ] – [m(A + a)] E = [m/R^2] [GM – AR^2 – aR^2] That is the E/M field equation that was buried in Newton's equation. ... Notice that we don't need the larger mass to calculate a gravitational force, but we do need it to calculate an electromagnetic force. This is logical since we assume that both masses are creating a real bombarding field with subparticles, in order to mechanically express the E/M repulsion. We do not assume this with the gravitational field, since we are expressing the gravitational field with motion only. ... [Also] gravitational acceleration is dependent only upon radius.... * Mathis also has a new paper: STAR FORMATION: http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf, and here are some quotes. (Unfortunately, it seems Mathis is talking about star formation within a galaxy, rather than outside of any galaxy.) Lacking any real theory, the best thing [Wikipedia] can do is push you as fast as possible into sexy esoterica and trivial sidelights. For example, we get this: Complicating this picture of a collapsing cloud are the effects of turbulence, macroscopic flows, rotation, magnetic fields and the cloud geometry. Both rotation and magnetic fields can hinder the collapse of a cloud. Amazing. In two sentences, we not only get multiple misdirection, we also get black theory. What do I mean by black theory? I mean theory that purposely mentions the correct answer, but tells you it is the wrong answer. Most of modern politics is black theory, as is nearly all art theory. All the sciences are now heavy with black theory, since it is a large part of job protection. Just reread that last sentence from Wiki and think about it for a moment. Rotation requires a centripetal force and a center, both of which would seem to help this theory, but we are shooed away from the idea. And magnetism is a force of attraction, but we aren't to consider it? Very strange. This bit of black theory can only be explained as a part of the mainstream's now pathological fear of the E/M field in celestial mechanics, since including it would destroy all their prize equations, back to Laplace, Lagrange, and even Newton. Since we have had clear data since at least the 1940's that E/M plays a sizable role in celestial mechanics, this continued refusal to admit it can only be called an illness. The extent of this illness can be seen in the first sentence of the entire page at Wiki: Star formation is the process by which dense parts of molecular clouds collapse into a ball of plasma to form a star. They now admit the existence of plasma, and admit that plasma is an E/M entity, but somehow a gas collapses into a plasma with gravity only. As if the E/M field didn't exist in the vicinity until after the plasma was created, at which time it magically turned on. And the E/M field now exists only inside the plasma, but if the plasma as a whole interacts with another celestial body, it does so via gravity only. So what is the answer that is being hidden here? Well, it isn't esoteric and it isn't difficult to comprehend. It is simply that star formation, like everything else, is a unified field phenomenon. The charge field (that is to say, spinning photons) is present at its usual strength in this problem, which is a strength that is about 19 times that of normal (baryonic) matter in the field. Meaning, as a function of mass equivalence, the photons in the area outweigh the hydrogen protons and electrons by 19 times. Or, 95% of what is happening here is happening in the photon field, so 95% of the answer here has been totally missed so far. I have shown that mainstream theory and equations have contained this information almost in plain sight from the beginning. Just look at these three equations, which I have published in several papers before this one: e = 1.602 x 10^-19 C 1C = 2 x 10^-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere to find this number in the mainstream) e = 3.204 x 10^-26 kg/s That means the proton is emitting 19 times its mass in charge every second. Yes, I have shown that there is no "dark matter," there is only photonic matter, and this photonic matter exists everywhere, not just in esoteric places. In the vicinity of baryonic matter, these photons are recycled by the spinning protons and electrons (and other particles), and that is how they interact. And since photons move in straight lines very quickly, they can link together molecules or ions, even molecules or ions with a very tenuous density. ... How does this capture of ions initiate collapse? Why would a plasma capture ions at all? If the electrons and protons were prone to rejoin, why wouldn't the original electrons join, instead of new ones? And if they did join, wouldn't the photons just knock them apart again? Well, all that does happen, but because the gas remains ionized, it has a way of capturing other free ions. The plasma cannot tell incoming ions from its own ions, and since free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were. The charge field inside the plasma also tends to the same effect, since the spinning protons and electrons are recycling the charge field whether they are part of molecules or not. This means the charge field itself is denser and more magnetic inside the plasma than outside, so it tends to capture ions even without the ions being attracted to one another. We have a doubled weight gain. Normally, this would make the plasma tend toward a molecular gas, since the electrons and protons would eventually join. But the high-energy photon traffic from the galactic core continues to knock the protons and electrons apart. So, up to a certain point, the plasma can continue to gain weight. Only when the photon traffic can no longer ionize the entire plasma, do we have a limit to the weight gain. When this limit is reached, the plasma partially collapses, and it will now contain a portion of molecular hydrogen. The plasma portion continues the previous process of capture, however, and the weight gain continues. It continues until the entire original field has gained enough mass that gravity really does kick in and overpower the charge field repulsions. At that point we have the big collapse that we were trying to explain from the beginning. So you see that once again, we have a unified field explanation. We require both gravity and charge to explain star formation.
'12-01-30, 06:56 mjv1121	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd, I see Miles Mathis is taking some more liberties with dimensional analysis - I presume that is how he has managed to justify his numbers. The definition of the Ampere states a force on two wires 1 metre apart, of 2x10-7 Newtons per metre. That's Newtons per metre (kg m / s2 / m) not kilograms per second (kg /s). Any way you wring it, force is not mass per second. The only way to establish proton charge emission is via electron charge emission. By this method it is determined that the elemental charge e = 1.6x10-19 Coulombs. Interestingly, and yes also by unit definition, 1 eV = 1.6x10-19 Joules. In other words Coulombs, i.e. charge, is a measure of the kinetic energy of charge emission. By E=1/2mv2, 1eV gives a mass of 3.57x10-36 kg, a rather inconvenient 10 orders of magnitude less. Also, you will find that his B-photon, which is his quantum, has a mass of 2.77x10-37kg. Although Mathis' critiques are often quite insightful, his theoretical work contains quite a number of similar logical abuses. He has entirely misinterpreted Planck's constant, Coulomb's constant, the Newtonian gravitational constant, heaped upon other mistakes such as the whole basis of his particle construction theory, stacked spins, expansion field gravity, acceptance of E=mc2, and more, results in an unfortunate loss of credibility. Michael
'12-01-30, 08:29 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Solar wrote: This process appears interesting in relation to a possible 'cosmic cycle' such that the etching of even dust from the surface of a comet, moon, or planet then might facilitate Columb Crystalization at again at some location in the cosmos perhaps leading to the formation of some other world or star from ubiquitous "molecular (dusty) clouds." But it begs the question of how the charge separations were etched into the pre-condensed Universe. Once aggregates form, it's easier to see how energy and matter might get shuffled around, producing all kinds of fancy effects. But if the question is how the aggregates formed in the first place, we have to assume that there are not already any aggregates, or behaviors that require the pre-existence of aggregates. mjv1121 wrote: I see Miles Mathis is taking some more liberties with dimensional analysis... That's my initial take also. For example, from his Unified Fields in Disguise page: Mathis wrote: Mass is not a fundamental characteristic, like density or volume is. To know a mass, you have to know both a density and a volume. But to know a volume, you only need to know lengths. Likewise with density. Density, like volume, can be measured only with a yardstick. You will say that if density and volume can be measured with a yardstick, so can mass, since mass is defined by density and volume. True. But mass is a step more abstract, since it requires both measurements. Mass requires density and volume. But density and volume do not require mass. How do you measure density with a yardstick? It is true that density = mass / volume, and therefore mass = density x volume. But that doesn't mean that mass cannot be defined without knowing the density and volume. Inertial and/or gravitational forces can be measured without knowing the volume of the matter. The cool thing is that if you "reduce" forces (such as G and E) to densities and volumes, you can (whoops) drop the difference between them, and then they can be unified. But what's the cash value in that kind of slight-o-hand? In the end, we cannot "define" forces in an a priori way. This is because we know forces merely as their effects. Forces are actually constructs that we use to explain and predict effects. So it's not that forces produce effects — it's that effects produce forces (in our minds, that is). But forces reduce to effects, and only to effects, not to maths. Remove the effects, and metaphysically speaking, the forces are gone. Bring back the effects, and now the forces are back. A study of first principles requires a firm comprehension of the nature of inductive reasoning itself, or there will be nothing to keep it from getting off track.
'12-01-30, 10:38 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Where is Mathis Right? MJV said: Although Mathis' critiques are often quite insightful, his theoretical work contains quite a number of similar logical abuses. He has entirely misinterpreted Planck's constant, Coulomb's constant, the Newtonian gravitational constant, heaped upon other mistakes such as the whole basis of his particle construction theory, stacked spins, expansion field gravity, acceptance of E=mc2, and more, results in an unfortunate loss of credibility. * I appreciate your and others' finding mistakes in theories, but do these mistakes disprove Mathis' basic ideas? Is he wrong about Newton's law of gravitation containing the EM force as well as the gravitational force, instead of just the gravitational? Can you tell us which of his insights are correct? I think he's right about straight geometry being superior to curved geometry, which latter Michael Miller explained is illogical. And what about stacked spins of photons, electrons, protons, neutrons and the universe? His model of the table of elements seems to explain the elements extremely well.
'12-01-30, 12:53 mjv1121	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd, These stacked spins, how do they work? By what method of attachment are the outer spins connected to the particle below? In short, I will answer my own question - it is impossible. His nice wobbly photon doing an end over end bounce so as to describe a wave form - by what physical mechanical method is this possible? - answer: it is not physically possible. His frequent use of the Dalton. This is an arbitrarily chosen "average nucleon mass" value, that is derived by dividing the mass of Carbon12 by 12. It is simply used as a convenient measure and there is absolutely no underlying mystery associated with it. Furthermore, Miles seems wantonly inclined to change the value of the Dalton to suit his maths - apparently, if a given result is not quite right, then it's OK to vary the value of the constant. Of course the universe operates by the straight geometry of 3-dimensional space. You can only achieve a curve if external forces are applied. Riemannian Spacetime is a nonsense, that is only required to put observing humans into a universal position of importance. That human observers are unable to guarantee simultaneity between spatially separated events is entirely a matter of observation. The universe is not concerned with such trivialities as "what happened in the past" or "what may happen in the future" or "whether events may or may not have occurred simultaneously". The operation of the universe is only a function of what is happening now and now and now and now - simultaneity is only of concern to observers. All electrons and protons emit charge, this is unavoidable unless the particular Standard Model you choose is utterly dependent upon, and happy to gleefully accept action at a distance. Therefore, all bodies must emit a charge field, as posited by Mathis. So Newtonian gravitational theory must include this emission. There are two choices: stars and planets emit a charge "field", which is effectively reverse gravity, or, all physical science is based on action at a distance, in which case fairies, pixies, mechanical attraction and positive&negative may used as valid scientific explanations of phenomena. Michael
'12-01-30, 14:04 Sparky	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles, I'm talking about aggregation from scratch. If you're talking about Marklund convection, that's not scratch, because you didn't explain what aggregated the charge separated matter that created the voltages necessary for the current.. If you need to know the source of voltage, which may be outside of our ability to find, then you are staring at a wall. But, If you can accept that currents are flowing throughout the universe and we don't really know why now, then you have a starting point. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/01 ... ar-siesta/ Photographs of plasma in the laboratory show those currents forming twisted filament pairs called "Birkeland currents." Birkeland currents follow magnetic field lines, drawing ionized gas and dust from their surroundings and then "pinching" it into heated blobs called plasmoids. As the so-called "z-pinch" effect increases, it strengthens the magnetic field, further increasing the z-pinch. The resulting plasmoids form spinning electrical discharges that glow first as red stars, then "switch discharge modes" into yellow stars, some intensifying into brilliant ultraviolet arcs, [b]driven externally by the Birkeland currents that created them.[/b] To me, this seems plausible. I have to accept that they did the experiments that they claim to be explaining, and that they have the ability to analyze the data correctly. Do you challenge these conclusions? ****************** ********************** 8 ****************** EDIT: mjv, All electrons and protons emit charge, this is unavoidable---Therefore, all bodies must emit a charge field, as posited by Mathis. So Newtonian gravitational theory must include this emission. Are you disagreeing with unified field, emissions within Newton's equations?
'12-01-30, 15:00 saul	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient mjv1121 wrote: Saul, Helioseismology: A disturbance on the Sun's surface of unknown cause or origin and of unknown magnitude and of unknown method of operation may or may not produce a seismic shock wave that may or may not travel through the Sun and may or may not result in other surface disturbances. Therefore to calculate the density gradient of the Sun: Close your eyes and pin the tail on the donkey. By observing the cloud formations on Earth from 150,000,000 km away, what is the density gradient of the Earth? Thanks for your reply The magnitude of the disturbance is not as important as the speed with which it travels. Yes, interpretation of the sound speed and density are not trivial, especially once you add more unknowns such as magnetic fields in the interior of the sun. But the answer is yes, if you were curious about the Earth's atmosphere and lived 150,000,000 km away, I would say observe the cloud formations and how fast disturbances travel through them at different directions. mjv1121 wrote: Since: E=mc2 is erroneous Mass Increase is erroneous Length contraction is erroneous Time Dilation is erroneous. Mass curved non-inertial empty space is erroneous Then, my faith in the Pound-Rebka experiment is limited. With no theory of gravity and no theory of light, I would say that General Relativity lacks a certain credibility. Michael I'm afraid I don't follow you here. Isn't GR a theory to help us describe gravity and light? What about those things do you find erroneous? Cheers -
'12-01-30, 17:17 mjv1121	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Saul, GR "describes" mathematically, because it cannot do so logically, that space has geometrical shape. As far as GR is concerned the space in empty, but it curves, and as Crothers has pointed out, there is no inertial motion from this curvature. In short this is not a theory of gravity, it is no theory of gravity. Instead we are left with maths, and effects and forces without cause. Add in a bit of spacetime for the sentient population to observe in and you are left not with a description of the universe, but of a nonsensical viewpoint. Along with the no theory of gravity, we are also handed light as an electromagnetic wave to travel through this curved empty space. Since transverse electromagnetic waves do not exist, light cannot be an EM wave and so GR (spawn of SR) presents us with no insight into the nature or behaviour of light either. SR is entirely wrong. From conception to construction it is so steeped in flawed logic that it beggars belief. Any theory that stands upon it is cursed from birth. Erroneous is only the polite description of SR and GR. Neither has any more scientific basis than astrology or religion. Saul wrote: But the answer is yes, if you were curious about the Earth's atmosphere and lived 150,000,000 km away, I would say observe the cloud formations and how fast disturbances travel through them at different directions. Are you suggesting that by observing the motion of Earth's you might be able to determine with any confidence detail knowledge of the density gradient of the entire globe, from core to clouds?. Michael
'12-01-31, 09:38 saul	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient mjv1121 wrote: Saul, GR "describes" mathematically, because it cannot do so logically, that space has geometrical shape. As far as GR is concerned the space in empty, but it curves, and as Crothers has pointed out, there is no inertial motion from this curvature. In short this is not a theory of gravity, it is no theory of gravity. Instead we are left with maths, and effects and forces without cause. Add in a bit of spacetime for the sentient population to observe in and you are left not with a description of the universe, but of a nonsensical viewpoint. As we learn as children, one can always ask "why" again and again ad infinitum. Just because there are some unknowns or approximations in a theory does not invalidate the theory. Indeed ALL theories have unknowns and approximations. GR is one of them. As for "empty space" that is not entirely clear. As Einstein pointed out, in so far as empty space has physical properties (metric tensor, electromagnetic field, etc.) there is an aether. In the limit of small perturbations of the metric tensor, GR reproduces Newtonian gravity. So then, is Newton's theory of gravity also no theory of gravity? mjv1121 wrote: Along with the no theory of gravity, we are also handed light as an electromagnetic wave to travel through this curved empty space. Since transverse electromagnetic waves do not exist, light cannot be an EM wave and so GR (spawn of SR) presents us with no insight into the nature or behaviour of light either. Wait, I thought light is a transverse wave? While on the surface GR does tell us about the behavior of light (light defines null geodesics) you may have a point in that the theory doesn't describe the mechanics underlying the propagation. There are still a lot of questions to answer along the lines of what is charge and what is an electric field. mjv1121 wrote: SR is entirely wrong. From conception to construction it is so steeped in flawed logic that it beggars belief. Any theory that stands upon it is cursed from birth. Erroneous is only the polite description of SR and GR. Neither has any more scientific basis than astrology or religion. I think you are a bit confused at to the nature of special relativity. Entirely wrong? SR is merely a protocol, which at the most fundamental level tells us how to measure length and duration. If you can find an improved protocol to measure distance and time, then that is great, suggest your alternative scheme. Proponents of IPv6 however are unlikely to claim that IPv4 is "entirely wrong". Rather, protocols have a realm of applicability. The SR scheme which defines these things in terms of electromagnetism (speed of light) may not appear so at first but is actually quite natural. After all it is electric forces which hold together meter sticks and clocks, and electrochemical connections which tie our neurons together. mjv1121 wrote: Are you suggesting that by observing the motion of Earth's you might be able to determine with any confidence detail knowledge of the density gradient of the entire globe, from core to clouds?. Michael Yes, if you can measure the propagation of waves through the Earth, you can gain some knowledge of density gradients. AFAIK that is the best source of knowledge we have as to the density gradients in the Earth: seismic waves. On the sun it is a bit different because we can't place Seismographs, however it is a bit easier because there are much more massive disturbances and the waves are more easily visible with remote sensing. Massive disturbances from flares have been observed after passing through the entire sun. Unfortunatly however that is where my knowledge ends as I am not a Helioseismologist, but it is merely a suggestion: if it is density gradients you are after, take a look at some Helioseismology papers. Cheesr - lukas
'12-01-31, 11:45 mharratsc	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient I've been listening to all this with quite a bit of interest, but it seems that there is a whole bunch of gettin' off-track going on now. Here's my (completely intuitive, self-rationalizing) take on it: Gravity, which is the superatomic version of subatomic EM, causes charge separation in the charge carriers floating around in the Universe in the first place, and Solrey had posted a paper a while back that talked about how free-floating hydrogen clouds getting hit by light from stars nearby had charge-separation induced in their environment, leading to currents and induced EM fields; On a different note- electric arcs pinching at the surface of a tray of hematite in C.J. Ransom's lab (and presumably at the surface of Mars) create spherical 'blueberries' even against the pull of the Earth's gravity. Why would it not also do so at the surface boundaries of large hydrogen clouds in space? No proof there on the second part, of course, but it's an easy logical artifice that doesn't require a giant leap to get a grip on... o.O
'12-01-31, 13:32 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Sparky wrote: The resulting plasmoids form spinning electrical discharges that glow first as red stars, then "switch discharge modes" into yellow stars, some intensifying into brilliant ultraviolet arcs, driven externally[/b] by the Birkeland currents that created them. Do you challenge these conclusions? I'm challenging the applicability. The plasmoids in question are relativistic electrons moving between solid electrodes in the laboratory, and they don't necessarily speak to the aggregation of matter into planets, stars, etc. mharratsc wrote: ...it seems that there is a whole bunch of gettin' off-track going on now... It's all related, somehow... While I'm not terribly concerned that changes in low-level, abstract maths are going to force a total overhaul in our conception of cosmology, I am still struggling with the "aggregation from scratch" issue. I agree with Mathis (and many others) that without pressure, gases don't condense, so we definitely have a problem. In his Star Formation paper, he assumes that the galaxy is already organized, and uses its EM fields and "photonic matter" to coalesce gas into stars. While interesting, it doesn't explain how the galaxy became organized in the first place. Neither am I particularly pleased with my own concept, that wimpy gravity gets everything moving, and then the magnetic fields so created polarize the particles with respect to each other, which helps in their polymerization. If there was a Big Bang, high initial velocities would be a given, and these would generate enormous magnetic fields that would polymerize matter quite nicely, and I wouldn't need gravity to provide the initial velocity. But then I'd have to explain what caused the Big Bang, and I'm not any better off. But I did make a little bit of headway in how the first stage of aggregates (such as small rocks and proto-asteroids) might continue to aggregate, given just that there are already some aggregates, and some background photoionization. It just requires the application of the "like-likes-like" idea (coined by Feynman and continued by Gerald Pollack). Once aggregates of matter start forming, they develop a net negative charge. Isolated atomic nuclei, and small molecules, are not good at hosting excess electrons. But liquid and solid matter can very definitely host net negative charges. At the atomic level, it's a binary issue — is there enough electric force to hold onto that electron, or not? But at a larger scale, it's not an either/or situation anymore. The electron cloud in a large aggregate can easily hide a few extra electrons per every million protons. So when atoms get ionized by UV radiation in space, the electron that is so liberated might fall back into the same atom, or it might hit a larger aggregate of matter, in which case it might get lost in its electron cloud. For this reason, planets have a net negative charge, while the plasma floating around in space is positively charged. This means that between two negatively charged bodies in space, we can expect a greater density of positively charged plasma that will actually pull the bodies together in the so-called "like-likes-like" phenomenon. An isolated body with a negative charge will be surrounded by a concentric shell of positively charged plasma. But if two negatively charged bodies are within range of each other, the concentration of positive charges between them will be 4 times greater, because the plasma is attracted to the negative charges in both bodies. The bodies are then attracted to the plasma, making it seem as if the bodies are attracting each other, when really, they're both attracted to the shared positive charge between them. In other words, it's like covalent bonding, except on an astronomical scale. And we can expect this phenomenon to manifest itself at every level, from asteroids to planets, stars, solar systems, and galaxies. The "like-likes-like" force then removes the need for gravity from dark matter to be the organizing principle of galaxies. So either there is 5x more gravity due to dark matter, or there is 5x more force coming from a "like-likes-like" electric configuration. Since the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, a near-infinitesimal dose of it could provide 5x more force than gravity, and hold galaxies together. Since this explanation does not require the invention of new forces and/or particles to get CDM into play, it survives Occam's Razor, while CDM does not, and therefore is the superior explanation.
'12-01-31, 19:09 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Star Formation from Scratch Charles said: I am still struggling with the "aggregation from scratch" issue. I agree with Mathis (and many others) that without pressure, gases don't condense, so we definitely have a problem. In his Star Formation paper, he assumes that the galaxy is already organized, and uses its EM fields and "photonic matter" to coalesce gas into stars. While interesting, it doesn't explain how the galaxy became organized in the first place. * It was probably a year or more since I had last read Mathis' stuff, until a few days ago. As I mentioned, I was very relieved the other day that he's found a better means than universal expansion of accounting for gravity being a push that moves inward(?), that being universal spin, however that works. So, as I've been reading a lot of his new material and some of the older too, I think he has a lot of concepts pretty well nailed down. The charge field may be the one most relevant to answering your question about aggregation from scratch, though he may not have said enough about it in his Star Formation paper. I'm thinking that it may be necessary to go back a bit farther than a cloud of neutral gas as the starting point. I think his idea is that the charge field makes photons, many with stacked spins, and that photons produce electrons, protons and neutrons, as well as positrons, anti-protons and anti-neutrons, which also have stacked spins. Stacked means there are several levels. The first level is plain spin. The next is having the spherical spinning particle rotate about a point on its spherical surface in the x-plane, which I think would make a torus shape. Similarly, two more similar levels would be made in the y- and z-planes, also making larger tori. I don't understand how the particle would be able to do that (rotate about a point on its own surface), but that seems to be his idea. * So how do you think it would be to start your model with the charge field and try to build photons and particles from that? Since he says the charge field is 19 times more massive than particles, that might be doable. He also says photons can ionize matter, if I remember right, so, even if you started with a gas cloud, it might be ionizable. He says particles recycle the charge field and produce photons constantly, except for neutrons, I think. Mike H. said: Solrey had posted a paper a while back that talked about how free-floating hydrogen clouds getting hit by light from stars nearby had charge-separation induced in their environment, leading to currents and induced EM fields * That's along the same lines as above, I guess. Charles' Pulsar Model * Now I have a question about your pulsar model. Since pulsars are a type of star, I guess it's relevant enough to this thread. At http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6202, you say: It is more reasonable to think that a neutron star is not a sphere but a toroid, and that it's actually a natural tokamak that has fallen into an explosion/implosion cycle. - But it will take more than that to actually explain the tight beams of light emitted by pulsars. It is undeniable that the light that we see is focused. If the light radiated in all directions (as it would from a nuclear explosion), we would be seeing just that portion that happened to be pointed in our direction, which would be a very small fraction of the total. If we multiply the intensity of the light that we see by the inverse of that fraction, the total amount of energy at the source would be way beyond theoretical limits. So there is definitely a beam-concentration mechanism. * Since you question the existence of neutronium or pure neutron substance, did you mean to say pulsar, instead of neutron star, there on the first line? * What average figures have you read for the intensity of pulsar pulses? And about how much greater would the pulsar's total pulse intensity be than the intensity of the brightest known object? If you're right, it sounds like Wal and Don's pulsar model may be ruled out. And my last question is: since I think you suggest that the pulses are produced as beams concentrated by magnetic fields of nuclear fusion explosions at the pulsars, do you know of evidence that it's possible for them to repeat hundreds of times per second? That would seem rather amazing and hard to believe. Did I misunderstand something? In what manner do you think these explosions would occur? Would each one explode matter in a small area of the star? Do you have an idea how big each pulsar star would be?