This proved that the force causing the collapse of the dusty plasma had to be three orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Elsewhere I calculated the forces in dusty plasmas, and sure enough, the electric force between Debye cells (after getting shocked by a supernova) is three orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. So all of that checked out.
But wait — there's more!
"But wait — there's more!" That's funny!
CharlesChandler
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
Now how much would you pay?
Sparky
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
No where near what you are worth!
Lloyd
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
Wow, Charles, another piece of the jigsaw puzzle is put together. So GRBs are the final stages of galactic molecular cloud implosions! Your whole chain of logic seems sound, though I didn't check the formulas and math entirely. Do you know the rate of GRB detection? This http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -life.html says "there is, on average, only one supernova per galaxy per century". This "Gamma Ray Burst Lecture" at http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/lattimer/AS ... re_grb.pdf says: - "several hundred bursts per year" - "some long GRBs are linked to supernovae" - "The brightest SNe [supernovae] are associated with relatively faint GRBs."
If supernovae provide the "shock waves" (or fast ion waves and/or UV rays) for GRBs, shouldn't the GRBs be detected where supernovae occur shortly afterward? It surely doesn't take long for the wave to run through a molecule cloud, does it? How many lightyears thick are galactic molecular clouds? The Sun's molecular cloud wasn't much over one lightyear thick, was it? Since it says above that some GRBs are linked to supernovae, I guess it's reasonable that they're all connected to them. But one would have to go through the star records for a year or two to find that they occurred in the same place. Right?
Where's your paper on supernovae?
CharlesChandler
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
Lloyd wrote: Wow, Charles, another piece of the jigsaw puzzle is put together. So GRBs are the final stages of galactic molecular cloud implosions!
Yep!
Lloyd wrote: Do you know the rate of GRB detection? - "several hundred bursts per year"
That's what I saw, in a couple of sources.
Lloyd wrote: If supernovae provide the "shock waves" (or fast ion waves and/or UV rays) for GRBs, shouldn't the GRBs be detected where supernovae occur shortly afterward?
No, the supernova occurs first, triggering the collapse of the dusty plasma, which seems to take something like a million years or so (gotta run numbers on that someday), at the end of which the final stage of the implosion causes a GRB. Supernovae, star formation, and GRBs are definitely linked...
Wikipedia wrote: Most observed events (70%) have a duration of greater than two seconds and are classified as long gamma-ray bursts. Because these events constitute the majority of the population and because they tend to have the brightest afterglows, they have been studied in much greater detail than their short counterparts. Almost every well-studied long gamma-ray burst has been linked to a galaxy with rapid star formation, and in many cases to a core-collapse supernova as well, unambiguously associating long GRBs with the deaths of massive stars. Long GRB afterglow observations, at high redshift, are also consistent with the GRB having originated in star-forming regions.
Note that twice it said that GRBs occur in star-forming regions, and twice it said that GRBs are caused by the deaths of stars. Well, which is it: birthing or dying? They can't seem to make up their minds. GRBs are to be found in star-forming regions, but the mainstream theory is that GRBs are caused by the deaths of massive stars, hence the blatant contradiction. They should consider the possibility that the data are right; their theory is wrong; and that GRBs occur at the beginning of the stellar life-cycle, not the end.
Their problem is coming from the fact that they interpret the redshift as cosmological redshift. While the majority of GRBs are nearby, some of them have the distinction of being the most distant events ever observed.
At that distance, only the catastrophic annihilation of a supermassive star, combined with a very tight beaming mechanism (which somehow doesn't get annihilated along with the star ), can account for the estimated energy, given that much luminosity, coming from that far away. But in my study of collapsing dusty plasmas as applied to the formation of the Sun, I found that the electric force can accelerate the plasma to 86% of the speed of light. To a nearby observer, gamma rays issued during the formation of the Sun would have had an extremely high redshift due to that relative velocity, and if interpreted as cosmological redshift, would have put the Sun at the far end of the Universe. If we take such relative velocities into account, and call it Doppler redshift instead of cosmological redshift, the GRBs are much closer, and much fainter. Then, it doesn't take enough energy to annihilate everything in the vicinity — it can be just enough energy to halt an ongoing implosion. And then it becomes possible for there to be a remnant left behind, being the star that was formed by the implosion. A catastrophic explosion of a supermassive star just isn't going to leave a remnant behind.
Lloyd wrote: How many lightyears thick are galactic molecular clouds?
GMCs have been estimated to be 9.5 × 1017 m across, which is a little more than 100 light-years. So it will take 100 years for the UV radiation to make it all of the way through the cloud. Then, the ejecta from the supernova arrive. If traveling at 50% the speed of light, they'll take 200 years to make it through. And that's when the dusty plasmas begin to collapse.
Lloyd wrote: Where's your paper on supernovae?
It's still in my mind. There are a number of different types of supernovae — each one is a study in and of itself.
CharlesChandler
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
CharlesChandler wrote: ...the supernova occurs first, triggering the collapse of the dusty plasma, which seems to take something like a million years or so (gotta run numbers on that someday)...
OK, I ran the numbers for that, and given an acceleration that's 1000 times more powerful than gravity, I'm getting a total time to full collapse of over 160 million years. So I don't know where the mainstream got their number of 1 million years for a dusty plasma to collapse just on the basis of gravity.
CharlesChandler
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
I updated my paper on Tides, and realized that there are a few more implications. I demonstrate that tides have to be electrostatic, not gravitational. A gravity gradient could produce a tidal bulge on one side of the Earth, but only electrostatics can produce equal-but-opposite bulges on both sides at the same time. The force at work is the potential between the negatively charged surface of the Earth, and two different positive charges aloft: the ionosphere, and the Moon. When the Moon is directly overhead, the surface of the Earth is attracted to it, producing a tidal bulge. The corollary is that the positive charge in the ionosphere is repelled by the positive charge of the Moon. So it is chased around to the opposite side of the Earth. Then, that side of the Earth also sports a "tidal" bulge, due to the attraction of the negatively charged surface to the positively charged ionosphere. Because the charge density on the far side of the Earth is by definition equal to the excess positive charge on the near side, the tidal bulges will be the same on both sides. Electrostatics can do this; gravity cannot.
This has a number of interesting implications. The one that I just discovered is that this proves that the Moho is a supercritical fluid. How did I get there?
For the surface of the Earth to have a sustained net charge, in the absence of appreciable resistance, there has to be a sustained charge separation mechanism, which produces current-free double-layers (CFDLs). This mechanism is electron degeneracy pressure (EDP), driven by gravitational loading. Basically, under pressure, electrons are expelled, leaving the deeper layer positively charged, with an overlying negative layer, where the expelled electrons congregate. By a variety of lines of reasoning, I establish that the crust is just such a negative layer, while at the Moho, the threshold for EDP is crossed, so the underlying mantle is positively charged. Then, as the crust flexes due to tidal forcing, the precise depth for this threshold moves up/down, as the pressure is increased/decreased, driving electron expulsion/uptake in the underlying mantle. Ohmic heating from this electric current four time a day (i.e., two ebbs and two flows) makes the transition zone a very hot place. I concluded that the Moho has to be SO hot that it's supercritical, partly because then it's a frictionless boundary on which the tectonic plates can slide around. But now I can demonstrate that it's supercritical by another line of reasoning.
The Earth's crust flexes as much as 55 cm at high tide. If this is because of an electric force being exerted on the negatively charged crust, then the crust is being pulled up, while the mantle is actually being pushed down by the same force. The hidden implication there is that all of the throw in that 55 cm is occurring entirely within the crust, and the problem with that is that the modulus of elasticity of granite (i.e., 30 GPa) won't allow that much extension in a crust that is only 35 km deep on average, with the available force. The only possible solution is that somewhere down there, there is a layer that has a much lower modulus of elasticity, which can provide the throw. If the Moho is a supercritical fluid, it is compressible, meaning that it has a very low modulus. Thus most of the throw in the 55 cm of crustal elastic deformation due to tidal forcing is coming from the compressibility of the Moho, which would only be possible under such pressure if it was a supercrititcal fluid.
Lloyd
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
Question on Moho Argument
You said: I can demonstrate that [the Moho is] supercritical by another line of reasoning. - The Earth's crust flexes as much as 55 cm at high tide. If this is because of an electric force being exerted on the negatively charged crust, then the crust is being pulled up, while the mantle is actually being pushed down by the same force.
Don't you mean the crust is being Pushed up instead of Pulled up? Only a force above the crust can pull it up. Right? And aren't you saying the force is from the Moho layer below the crust?
You said also: The hidden implication there is that all of the throw in that 55 cm is occurring entirely within the crust, and the problem with that is that the modulus of elasticity of granite (i.e., 30 GPa [= 296,000 atm) won't allow that much extension in a crust that is only 35 km deep on average, with the available force.
By available force, do you mean gravity? It's amazing if 35 km of granite can't expand and contract by a mere 55 cm, or a little less that two feet. What about sedimentary rock? Can't it expand and contract that much either? If you're confident about all that, then it looks like you're getting the CFDL and Moho nailed down nicely.
Number of Stars from One GMC?
A couple posts back you said: GMCs [giant molecular clouds] have been estimated to be 9.5 × 10^17 m across, which is a little more than 100 light-years.
There are quite a few stars within 100 ly. Have you concluded that all or many of those stars were formed in the same GMC implosion that formed the Sun? It may be hard to determine which stars formed where, if stars sometimes move erratically within or among galaxies. I think Cardona said there's a possibility that the Sun came from the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, like Saturn did (but not both together).
CharlesChandler
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
I just figured something else out too. If electrostatics can produce equal tidal bulges on opposite sides of the Earth, there is still an open question — what happened to the gravity from the Moon? We should still see its effect. I might be able to explain the opposing bulge by saying that in addition to the Moon's gravity, there is also an electric field that produces a component of tidal forcing on both sides of the Earth. But then the near side should have the electric and gravitational forces acting on it, and the near side bulge should be greater. Ah but the tidal bulges on both sides of the Earth are the same size, meaning that we're actually not seeing any effect at all from the Moon's gravity, which is odd, and which requires explaining in a complete treatment of the topic.
In my previous post, I said that the tidal force is actually electrostatic, where the surface of the Earth is negatively charged, and the Moon is positively charged. Thus the force that lifts the crust 55 cm is an electrostatic attraction. At the same time, the same force is pushing down on the mantle, as electrostatic repulsion. This offsets the gravitational attraction. So the only net effect that we see is the electrostatic attraction of the crust to the Moon on the near side, and of the crust to the ionosphere on the far side, which is the same in both cases, and thus the bulge is the same on both sides.
@Lloyd: I'll get to your questions in a little bit — I'm fleshing out the calcs for this. How much elasticity you'll see in 35 km of crust is actually a non-linear problem, because you have to know the amount of force, and you have to know much matter is involved (i.e., how big the spring is). Conventional wisdom is using the gravity gradient for the force, and compression/expansion that goes all of the way to the core. I double-checked, and their numbers are correct, given their assumptions. So the whole Earth flexes due to tides in the standard model (though the movement at the core is infinitesimal). I'm saying that only the topmost 35 km is moving, which can happen with a lot less force. This makes it possible for the relatively paltry fluctuations in the fair weather field in sync with the tidal cycle to actually be the instrument of tidal deformation. But with a lot less force, there is a lot less elastic deformation, because that is a straight function of the force that is applied. This is where the compressibility of the Moho comes in handy. But then I didn't "prove" the compressibility of the Moho — I invoked it to save my assertion about weak tidal forcing. So if I can prove the electrostatic tidal forcing independently, it will prove the compressibility of the Moho. I think that I can do this, by tracking down all of the most accurate numbers on the tidal bulges, and on the fair weather fields. If I can show that the electric force fully accounts for the opposing tidal bulges, in principle and in light of the strength of the electric fields, the whole thing will be solid.
willendure
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
CharlesChandler wrote: The current-free double-layer (CFDL) model takes a different approach. The thermal energy of the primordial dusty plasma is incontrovertible, so it has to be taken as a given. This begs the question of where all of that thermal energy went. The answer is that it got converted to electrostatic potential. Under the enormous pressure of implosion, and with the force of gravity thereafter, electron degeneracy pressure (EDP) separated charges into CFDLs.
A question about this. I have read other EU proponents calim that the energy of the sun comes from electric currents arriving from interstellar space. I thought, that sounds easy to verify, just sent a probe around one of the poles of the sun to detect this massive current.
Are you saying that this idea is simply not true? The energy of the sun comes mostly from the initial energy of the dusty plasma that formed it, and not from external currents?
Thanks for your analysis, it was a great read. I have an engineers mind too, but I also think my old high school physics teacher would have enjoyed this, he had a very practical mind, a good ability to estimate things, and a solid grasp of thermodynamics.
willendure
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
CharlesChandler wrote: BTW, there is also a lower limit to the speed at which a dusty plasma can implode, and still form into a star — I just don't know how to quantify it yet.
I just don't know how to calculate that minimum pressure yet.
Can you get the minimum pressure like this? Find the lightest star known, and use its estimated mass to tell you what the minimum pressure is, and what its approximate collapse velocity is. Then you have the minimum pressure empirically, and can form a hypothesis as to why it takes that value from there.
Lloyd
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
Cosmic Electric Power Lines?
willendure wrote: A question about this. I have read other EU proponents claim that the energy of the sun comes from electric currents arriving from interstellar space. I thought, that sounds easy to verify, just sent a probe around one of the poles of the sun to detect this massive current.
Are you saying that this idea is simply not true? The energy of the sun comes mostly from the initial energy of the dusty plasma that formed it, and not from external currents?
Thanks for your analysis, it was a great read. I have an engineers mind too, but I also think my old high school physics teacher would have enjoyed this, he had a very practical mind, a good ability to estimate things, and a solid grasp of thermodynamics.
Charles can speak for himself better, but in case he doesn't get back here quick, I don't mind providing an interim answer. Yes, he's saying electric currents don't power stars directly. They do so indirectly by way of electric forces from supernova shockwaves, UV radiation and charge sprays spreading through a giant molecular cloud and causing electrical collapse of the cloud contents over long time periods. The collapse produces the huge pressures at centers where EDP or compressive ionization forms double layers within stars and planets. I don't think he's discussed more than one center before, but since GMCs are apparently about 100 ly in diameter, the other stars and planets within that diameter from the Sun must all be from the same collapse, unless the Sun moved into this area from outside or the stars filled in after the collapse.
I organized a discussion here two years ago. The thread link is http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6124. I was lucky to find 3 knowledgeable guys willing to have discussion. I invited others who favor the EU model, but none of them wanted to discuss at that time. One was Brant Callahan, whose username is UpRiver. He has an Aether Batter Iron Sun model which I had a thread about just before the discussion started. Another was Michael Mozina, who was a collaborator on Oliver Manuel's Iron Sun model, which is powered by a neutronium core from which neutrons decay. I think his site is called thesurfaceofthesun.com. And Charles was the third discusser. Charles hadn't yet worked out his model much at that time. What was notable was that all three agreed that the Sun is a cathode, not an anode, and that the Sun's energy is stored as in a battery, so not much energy if any comes from typical cosmic circuits. It was a fun discussion and lasted about 3 months with weekly discussions, which I posted to the thread.
CharlesChandler
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
I'm still slugging my way through the calcs, to figure out where this all leads, but I wanted to correct an inaccuracy in my previous post...
CharlesChandler wrote: If electrostatics can produce equal tidal bulges on opposite sides of the Earth, there is still an open question — what happened to the gravity from the Moon? We should still see its effect. I might be able to explain the opposing bulge by saying that in addition to the Moon's gravity, there is also an electric field that produces a component of tidal forcing on both sides of the Earth. But then the near side should have the electric and gravitational forces acting on it, and the near side bulge should be greater. Ah but the tidal bulges on both sides of the Earth are the same size, meaning that we're actually not seeing any effect at all from the Moon's gravity, which is odd, and which requires explaining in a complete treatment of the topic.
Actually, the effects of lunar & solar gravity ARE there — they show up as the diurnal constituents in tidal forcing.
The actual question, more accurately stated, is why the diurnal constituents are weaker than the semidiurnal constituents, and why the semidiurnal constituents are identical on both sides of the Earth, which cannot possibly be for Newtonian reasons. In other words, the tidal forces that are in sync with the daily rotation of the Earth make sense as gravitational forces. The twice-daily forces are the ones that do not make sense, and which can only be evidence of EM.
CharlesChandler
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
OK folks, it looks like electrostatic tides, the way I had them figured, didn't stand up to closer scrutiny. What I set out to prove about elasticity turned out to be beyond any sort of definitive conclusion. But that gave me the foundation to run other numbers, and that's when I found that the electric force is insufficient to hoist the crust 0.55 m. I'm still convinced that the semidiurnal tides are EM, just because they cannot possibly be Newtonian. But how I thought they would work... well... they won't.
For a first pass, I checked to see if tidal gravity could produce 0.55 m of deformation in the crust, given the modulus of elasticity of granite. With 1.63 × 10−6 newtons/kilogram, integrated through the entire distance from the surface down to the center of the Earth (6371 km), and given a modulus of elasticity of 50 GPa, I actually got too much throw — 1.76 m, when all I needed was 0.55 m. The discrepancy there was in assuming that the elasticity is the same, all of the way to the center of the Earth. The matter actually transitions from elastic to plastic deformation in the Moho, so we can't just assume that the rock deep inside the Earth is just as springy as it is at the surface. So let's go the other way — suppose only the crust is elastic, and that the plastic regime in the mantle doesn't afford any expansion/compression at all. This would mean that all of the tidal deformation is occurring just in the topmost 35 km. But then there wasn't enough tidal forcing to produce 0.55 m of throw. Using the same modulus of elasticity, but scaling down the distance from 6371 km to 35 km, the 1.76 m of throw got scaled down to just 0.01 m, leaving almost all of the 0.55 m of tidal deformation unexplained.
There are two ways out of that jam. One is to think that even in the plastic regime in the mantle, there is still some compressibility. Unfortunately, stats on rock subjected to such pressures are pretty sparse. There are lots of studies of the limits of the elastic regime for various types of rocks. But when the limit is reached, the rocks fracture. Only if they are supported by extreme pressures on all sides do they not fracture, and instead, enter the plastic regime. But that's a tough study, and I haven't found anything on the compressibility within that regime yet. Anyway, the other way out of the jam is to think that the compressibility is coming from the Moho, which I'm saying is a supercritical fluid, and which therefore would be plenty springy. But not being able to rule out plastic compressibility, this doesn't prove that the Moho is a supercritical fluid — with respect to this analysis, that's just one of the hypotheses. So that's as far as that road went.
Having tracked down all of the relevant formulas, I then tested my assertion that the electric force could hoist the crust 0.55 m, but that didn't work out. The net charge of the Earth is roughly 450,000 Coulombs, and the fair weather field is roughly 100 V/m. The tidal fluctuations in the fair weather field might be as much as 10%, but even the full field of 100 V/m was nothing compared to gravity. The electric force can be calculated as the coulombs times the volts/meter, which returned 4.50 × 107 newtons. In the hypothesis being tested, the negatively charged crust is being pulled up by its attraction to the positively charged Moon, or the positively charged ionosphere on the opposite side, while the positively charged mantle is actually being pushed down by its repulsion from the like charge. So all of the throw is just in the crust. But when compared to the tidal gravity acting just on the crust, gravity was over 9 orders of magnitude stronger (7.68 × 1016 newtons). So the crust definitely isn't being hoisted by its attraction to an external charge.
Like I said, I'm still convinced that semidiurnal tides are EM. Currently, I'm brewing an idea that when gravity hoists the crust 0.55 m on the near side, it creates a demand for electrons (by relaxing the electron degeneracy pressure), which flow through the conductivity of the Moho to get into the rock that is no longer being forcibly ionized. This creates a deficiency of electrons on the opposite side of the Earth, leaving a positively charged crust sitting on top of a positively charged mantle. This would create an electrostatic repulsion between the two layers, which "might" push the crust up from below. Unfortunately, I don't think that there is any way of confirming this with surface data, because all of the action would be submerged under 35 km of crust in this configuration. But at least this contention isn't provably wrong.
In conclusion, the CFDL model appears to survive this test, but the contention about the electric force hoisting the crust 0.55 m bites the dust. If semidiurnal tides are, in fact, caused by EM, it has to be some other configuration.
I'll get back to answering questions this evening. Cheers!
CharlesChandler
Re: CFDL solar model passes another test
Crustal Tides
OK, I resolved the problems identified in my last post. In the end, it worked out rather nicely — better than the previous model, even before I found the problems — so I'm glad that I pursued it.
I re-double-checked, and indeed, the force of gravity "should" produce more crustal deformation than is actually observed on the near side. (With 1.63 × 10−6 newtons/kilogram, integrated through the entire distance from the surface down to the center of the Earth (6371 km), and given a modulus of elasticity of 50 GPa, the expected throw is 1.76 m.) Surprisingly, the maximum observed crustal deformation is only 1.11 m, so there is 0.65 m of deformation that somehow went missing.
Interesting, there is also a tidal bulge on the far side of the Earth, which defies Newtonian explanation. All the more interesting is that the unexpected bulge on the far side is almost exactly the same as the unexpected missing throw on the near side — 0.65 m. So on the near side, given the tidal forces tugging on the Earth, the crust should bulge outward by 1.76 m. It actually only bulges 1.11 m, and the missing 0.65 m of bulge shows up on the far side. Thus somehow the near and far side bulges are coupled, and force is being transferred from one to the other. But there is no Newtonian way to do this. So it has to be non-Newtonian.
The hypothesis that I'm currently considering is an expectation of the CFDL model. When gravity from the Sun and Moon attempt to hoist the crust on the near side, this relaxes the pressure inside the Earth on that side. The consequence is that matter that had been forcibly ionized by the pressure can now get neutralized. This creates a demand for electrons. Precisely where they are needed is at the Moho, which is a high-conductivity, supercritical fluid going all of the way around the Earth, at an average depth of 35 km. So electrons are pulled from all around the globe through the Moho. This creates a similar deficiency of electrons on the far side, leaving the Moho and the surrounding rock positively charged. Then, electrostatic repulsion pushes upward on the crust. So the near side crust would have been able to get hoisted 1.76 m by tidal gravity, except for the fact that it is electrically coupled, via the Moho, to the rest of the planet, and for it to raise up creates an electron deficiency on the far side. Thus anything that raises the near side has to raise the far side as well, because they're coupled. But the coupling isn't perfect. The near side gets raised 1.11 m, and the far side gets raised 0.65, which means that 63% of the elevation occurs on the near side, and only 37% occurs on the far side. This is because the coupling isn't perfect. If the near side can get electrons from the surrounding rock, it doesn't have to transfer the electrical stress to the far side.
All of the numbers are within range now, at least to the limits of what is available. See Tidal Forces for the full write-up and for the calcs.
That's funny!
Well, which is it: birthing or dying? They can't seem to make up their minds. GRBs are to be found in star-forming regions, but the mainstream theory is that GRBs are caused by the deaths of massive stars, hence the blatant contradiction. They should consider the possibility that the data are right; their theory is wrong; and that GRBs occur at the beginning of the stellar life-cycle, not the end.
If semidiurnal tides are, in fact, caused by EM, it has to be some other configuration.
