No, I don't do dark matter, dark energy, black holes, wormholes, neutron stars, or anything else non-physical.
Gravity is present in my model, and even though it is the weakest of the forces present, it actually figures significantly. If it weren't for the pressure gradient due to gravity, there wouldn't be electrostatic layering, and then there wouldn't be any arc discharges between the double-layers, and we'd be debating the properties of a dark star.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Gravity and Mass Charles, I tend to agree that the gravity issue doesn't seem to be greatly problematic at this point for your model, but there are a few puzzles that may need to be dealt with eventually. When we were briefly discussing the hollow star/planet theory that Brant and I both brought up, I showed you a link to a Wikipedia article about Earth's or the Sun's gravity. I don't know if you noticed the oddity about their graph, but they showed the force of gravity at the center as starting at zero, no gravity. The graph showed the force of gravity steadily increasing to maximum at about half the radius of the object and then the force decreased a little over the remaining half of the radius. I think the graph suggests either that the core could be sort of hollow, or that gravity on opposite sides of the center tends to cancel itself out approaching the center. I also posted on your Call for Criticisms thread in Nov or Dec several links regarding EU related evidence that subatomic particles start out with zero mass, but gradually gain mass after some time.
Anode vs Cathode for SAFIRE Experiment It might be helpful if anyone who reads this thread would go and post something at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&~ saying why you favor or oppose having the SAFIRE experiment test both the anode and cathode sun models, instead of just the anode model. Or has Monty stated somewhere by now that both models will be tested? And has he agreed to post the specs soon for critiquing? Comment on that too, if you would.
Galactic Jets In case it's not obvious enough, I posted info that Brant previously posted on another forum in 2006 at the Call for Criticisms thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. I didn't want to sidetrack this thread with that discussion, which fits in much better there I believe.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
I posted this on the other thread, but I suppose it's better to repost it here.
Cathode Star Question Someone asked: If the cathode model still requires the galaxy to be held together by electric forces then why would not the electric currents that run through the galaxy and are enough to hold it together not power the stars ... within it? It seems to me that Charles does not fully take into account the effects of cosmic plasmas, ie they produce charge separation, electric currents, and magnetic fields. These currents can be in dark mode and they can be of immense proportions - measured in light years.
My hasty reply was: I think the electric currents are provided by the stars. Without the stars the currents would be extremely weak. They need [the] combined forces of small electric currents in photoionization etc to assist gravity and magnetism to form stars from nebulae. Then the stars produce the electric currents to hold galaxies together. Charles seems to explain a lot more details than do the anode models.
Charles, or anyone kind enough, it would be nice if you'd explain it better, in more detail, if you like.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Solar Battery Problem
Someone said: The one great problem I find with [Charles' model] is knowing how the Sun's "batteries" can be recharged.
Here's a reply I'm thinking of giving, but I invite your suggestions for modification, Charles.
In Charles' model, stars form through electrical nebular collapse and compressive ionization of matter into electric double layers. Thornhill partly explained compressive ionization at http://www.holoscience.com/wp/seti-the-search-for-extraterr~ where he said: gravity induces charge separation and electrical repulsion effects within a star – something that Eddington dismissed. The simple fact that a proton weighs almost 2000 times as much as an electron ensures that this will occur. Each hydrogen atom in a star will be distorted by gravity to form a tiny radial electric dipole. The resulting electric field will ensure charge separation inside the star. Free electrons will drift toward the surface and leave behind a positively charged core. - The compressive ionization stores enough thermal energy converted to electrical potential to power stars for their normal lifetimes. If more matter falls into a star than is lost via stellar wind, there will be more compressive ionization of stellar material available to recharge (by trickle charging) the star. Otherwise, the star goes through stages from blue giant to white dwarf and down to planets as it slowly loses mass. Charles attributes Earth's heat to compressive ionization too, so Earth, Venus and the gas giants etc are also radiating energy. He also explains pulsars, quasars etc as "exotic" stars powered by electro-magnetic fusion reactors. These form similarly to other stars, except that they rotate too fast for compressive ionization, so they form fusion reactors instead (not much by gravitational forces, but electro-magnetic).
Comments for the EU Team Charles, can you help improve the following points to help explain to the EU team the cathode Sun?
To the EU Team: I think someone gave a wrong impression by stating that Charles unfortunately agreed somewhat with Tom Bridgman. There were only a few things he agreed with him on. He disagreed with most of Bridgman's arguments.
Current to Power Solar Radiation Bridgman claimed that Wal's and Don's EU models would require an extremely high powered current between the Sun and the heliopause, especially near the Sun, in order to supply the amount of solar radiation observed. That's what Charles agreed about and Charles said the current would be visible probably within one AU from the Sun and the visible discharges would concentrate near the poles, somewhat like Earth's auroras. It would resemble a plasma globe. The electrons would have to reach relativistic speeds within the discharge channels. There's nothing in the thin interplanetary medium (IPM) to prevent the near light speed of the electrons. If the electrons did not reach such speeds, they would not have enough energy to power the Sun's radiation. They would also require a powerful magnetic field in the IPM, which is not observed.
It should be easy to calculate how large the discharge channels would be and how much overall current they would carry. [Who wants to calculate that? I think Bridgman provided a formula.]
Charles' model has the Sun formed by electrical nebular collapse and compressive ionization, which produces several electric double layers within any star. Wal's model includes compressive ionization, but not the double layers, I think. The photosphere is a positive layer held down tightly by a negative layer below. If the photosphere were negative, with no positive layer below, it would not have a distinct surface, but a fuzzy one.
[Calculate Negative Attraction to Photospheric Ions] [By the way, Charles, isn't 20,000 km too deep for the negative layer to accelerate ions from the top of the photosphere downward? 4,000 km would be more believable to me. A few hundred km would be more believable yet. Can you calculate how much force ions would feel at the top of the photosphere from the negative layer below at various depths?]
Source of Solar Radiation Helioseismic waves below the negative layer below the positive photosphere cause release of hot bubbles, which via supercritical fluid (which produces the Sun's blackbody radiation) conductively, not convectively, forms the granules (or tufts, which form on cathodes as well as anodes). The heat in the photosphere prevents the rising electrons from sticking to the ions. When they reach the top of the photosphere, they are attracted to the positive chromosphere and corona and flow out accelerating in the solar wind toward the heliopause. The ions accelerate downward attracted to the negative layer below the photosphere.
Proton Sources Flares occurring within the photosphere cause bubbles of ions to join the solar wind about twice a day. So some of the positive ions in the solar wind come from the CMEs. The rest come from the IPM. They are pushed outward by the momentum of the outward flowing electrons. IPMs are positively charged due to photoionization. Planets are negatively charged because ...
Spicules Spicules are not large enough to supply enough electrons to power the Sun, assuming that electrons enter the Sun through spicules. But the evidence is that electrons move upward through spicules, not downward. Spicules occur about one every 30,000 km between adjacent supergranules. Each one is about 500 km wide, 3,000 to 10,000 km tall, lasts about 15 minutes, rises at about 20 km/s, has a mass flux of about 100 times the solar wind. Altogether they cover about 1% of the Sun's surface. [So how much current and power would that be at maximum?]
Sun's Wiring Don's wiring diagram doesn't work for the Sun. [Can you provide a full explanation of why?]
Lloyd
Saturn Theory with Cathode Sun
Got Time to Critique Saturn Theory? Anyone's welcome to join the discussion, but I'd like to get Charles' comments on this, if time allows.
Here's an illustration of Saturn's journey into the solar system. This starts with Saturn (with Earth trailing behind it) entering the heliosphere at upper right after bouncing off of it a few times 10,000 years ago (10k BP), then it spirals in toward the Sun for 5,000 years, moving toward the left. At 5k BP Earth separated from Saturn (after Venus and Mars did so) and spiraled in to its present orbit.
Here is my summary of the Saturn theory, mostly from Cardona, some from Cook, Talbott and Gilligan. The theory started with common mythic elements and each element is supported by scientific theory. Each statement starts with M) for Mythic element or s_ for scientific interpretation of prior mythic element. - Charles, or anyone, if you find any of these scientific interpretations improbable, please state what would more likely explain the mythic element. I suppose you may doubt that a planet could bounce off of the heliosphere. Right? If so, I'll see what Cardona said about that.
M) First there was an Age of Darkness s_Saturn was Earth's original dim sun s_Saturn came from the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy s_Earth was ejected from Saturn there or between there and the solar system s_Saturn must have been a rogue brown dwarf with Earth trailing behind it M) Saturn was the only object visible in the sky s_Saturn's plasmasphere hid the stars from view M) Saturn looked like a stationary glow worm in the sky s_Saturn flared when it crossed plasma cell double layers in space s_Saturn flare detritus formed a supercontinent on Earth s_Saturn flares caused sudden magnetic braking of Earth's rotation s_Such braking broke up the supercontinent s_The continents slid apart over the Moho layer M) There appeared an ominous plasma stick man on the horizon under Saturn M) The stick man may have appeared 5,000 years later, instead of here s_The stick man was a plasma event caused by high electrical stress M) The Age of Darkness ended with a Saturn flare s_That was around 10k BP, during the Younger Dryas events s_It was caused by a charge difference between Saturn and the outer heliosphere s_The Great Lakes were carved by electric discharges from Saturn (Cook) s_Mammoths were buried and the ice age began (Cook) s_Or the ice age may have begun 5,000 years later when Earth left Saturn M) After the flare the Golden Age of Saturn began M) Saturn got brighter than before the flare s_The increase was due to light from the Sun M) And Venus appeared on the face of Saturn like an 8-pointed star s_Venus formed during or before the flare s_Venus must have been some thousands of kilometers closer than Saturn M) And the Sun first appeared as a distant star s_It was about 100 AU from Saturn and Earth M) But no other stars yet appeared s_Saturn apparently grew increasingly bright as is gradually got closer to the Sun M) Saturn appeared to float on a small ocean s_This ocean was really a circumstellar disk M) Saturn developed a bright column between it and the north pole s_It was a sustained plasma column M) Soon Mars appeared on the face of Venus like a pupil of an eye s_It was closer to Earth than Venus or Saturn M) Saturn remained constantly above the north pole s_It was spiraling inward toward the Sun for 5,000 years with Venus, Mars and Earth trailing behind s_It was like the SL9 fragments traveled in a line to Jupiter s_Apparently the Sun moved from east to west across the sky as now M) Saturn developed a bright crescent s_The crescent was on its sunlit side M) The crescent resembled the quarter phase of the moon s_It seems that Saturn was brightest at midnight and dimmest at noon because sunlight dimmed it in daytime M) The crescent moved around Saturn each day s_It was always facing the direction of the Sun, like the lunar crescent does M) At its brightest each day (midnight) Saturn looked like an angel s_Saturn = face; Venus/Mars = eye; crescent = upraised arms; column = dress M) Saturn developed a wheel or swastika shape usually with 4 spokes s_They were plasma features M) Above the horizon appeared a plateau of land s_This was the aurora, which probably looked somewhat different then M) Large animals and people or gods appeared to live on the plateau s_These were more plasma phenomena M) The column to Saturn looked like a ladder or bridge to heaven s_It was a plasma column M) Sometimes people appeared to go up or down the ladder s_They were plasma phenomena M) Later Mars moved periodically off and back onto the face of Venus M) When it moved off it grew large s_That's because it was getting closer to Earth M) Then it would shrink and return to Venus s_It was returning to its usual distance M) Venus and Mars looked like an eye when together s_Mars was reddish and Venus pale or white M) Eventually the eye would leave and return to Saturn cyclically s_Both Venus and Mars would approach Earth (Talbott cff) M) I think the pupil of the eye also left and returned to the eye s_Mars strayed somewhat from the polar axis M) Finally Venus left Saturn shaped like a white crown with 8 rays s_The rays were a plasma effect M) Then the 8 rays became 5 and Venus looked like a hand s_3 of the rays went out of view due to change in orientation M) Then Venus looked like a comet M) The Venus comet formed a ring around Saturn s_leaving a trail of dust as it circled around the polar axis M) Venus looked like a snake biting its own tail in a ring shape (Ouroboros) M) The planets were at war s_They had close encounters with each other s_Humans began to imitate the planets by warring among themselves M) The stick man may have appeared here, instead of 5,000 years earlier M) Saturn left its polar throne in the sky and shrank in size s_That was after it encountered Jupiter or something about 5k BP s_It was actually Earth that left Saturn s_This may be when the ice age began as Earth left the orbit of Saturn and spiraled in to its present orbit M) Earth's Moon came into view for the first time s_It was a former moon of Saturn or another planet not then visible M) The stars then first appeared in the sky s_It was because Earth was then free of Saturn's plasmasphere M) Jupiter may then have occupied Saturn's throne for a time s_That's if Earth began to follow behind Jupiter s_Saturn may have bounced off of Jupiter (if it could bounce off of the heliosphere) M) The sky became filled with meteors and dust s_The debris came from close encounters among some planetoids M) The meteors looked like herds of animals running around the sky (Cook) s_Cave painters were familiar with herds seen at a distance M) The Sun, planets and stars became partly obscured by orbiting dust (Gilligan) s_Egyptians drew the Sun and planets as red balls (Gilligan) s_Earth was often struck by meteors for about 3,000 years (Gilligan) M) Human consciousness changed from robotic to self-directed (Julian Jaynes) s_The skies gradually cleared about 2,000 years ago (Gilligan)
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Lloyd wrote: Here's a reply I'm thinking of giving, but I invite your suggestions for modification.
Your explanation was well-put. Gravity-induced ionization, as Thornhill notes, is real, and has been understood for quite some time. So there's no question that the Sun has an internal electrostatic potential, and that mass loss will release that potential, and thus heat & light in the charge recombination. You could leave it at that if you wanted.
The only thing that I would add is that there might be more powerful ionization due to other reasons, which is worth mentioning only if somebody challenges the strength of the forces. At 6000 K, all of the hydrogen will be fully ionized, so the only ionizing agent would be gravity. But heavier elements have greater binding energies, and will not be fully ionized at that temperature. For example, Fe XV is still only partially ionized (14 degrees out of 26) at 2 MK. Yet the density of the Sun requires that the core be far heavier than liquid iron. Squashing iron atoms closer together than the electron shells allow will expel the electrons, by the Pauli exclusion principle. The resulting ionization will then be far greater. Gravity exerting 1836 times more force on protons than electrons is actually not such a powerful force, because you're really just talking about buoyancy, and the electric force keeping opposite charges matched should be much more powerful. But in compressive ionization, the cumulative gravity of all of the matter above it pressing down on the core, and expelling electrons, can do things that buoyancy cannot.
As an analogy, how much does a cubic meter of concrete weigh? That would be about 2400 kg. It weighs that because it is heavier than air, so it has "negative buoyancy". So that's the force that it exerts on the scales, due to buoyancy. Now, how much force would be exerted on the scales if there were 1,000,000 blocks on concrete on top of that one? (Answer: 1,000,000 times more!) So compressive ionization isn't just the positive buoyancy of electrons, and the negative buoyancy of nucleons. It's the cumulative effect of the increasing pressure inside the Sun.
Lloyd wrote: I think someone gave a wrong impression by stating that Charles unfortunately agreed somewhat with Tom Bridgman. There were only a few things he agreed with him on. He disagreed with most of Bridgman's arguments.
You just HAD to bring that up... didn't ya... didn't ya... Here something just has to be said. If we ever let the debate with the mainstream become an "us against them, no matter who's right or wrong" thing, then right/wrong is no longer the determining factor, and if we're actually right about something every once in a while, it's only by random chance. So if they say something that's correct, and we have to disagree, because it's us against them, then we're... ummm... wrong! I'm not looking for somebody to fight. I'm looking for the truth. They'll find somebody to fight, if they want to be that way. And I'll find the truth.
Lloyd wrote: Isn't 20,000 km too deep for the negative layer to accelerate ions from the top of the photosphere downward? 4,000 km would be more believable to me. A few hundred km would be more believable yet. Can you calculate how much force ions would feel at the top of the photosphere from the negative layer below at various depths?
It all depends on how much negative charge is below it. There isn't any theoretical limit to the size of double-layers. As concerns the calculations, I'm still working on that. It's a 4th order tensor, which is why no one has ever done it before. I'm going to do it with a finite element analysis engine, which I already have working for the Newtonian factors, and which confirms Dalsgaard's calculations. (See Stellar Model Checker.) But I can't find definitive laboratory data on the degree of ionization per pressure. I have been told that the quantum mechanics predictions are unreliable. So I'm still researching that. I can guess at the numbers, and see what it takes to get a stable solution, and let future generations do the supporting lab work. But in my lifetime, that won't prove anything.
Lloyd wrote: Planets are negatively charged because ...
...all solids/liquids become negatively charged in the presence of a gas, due to Debye charging. (Electrons knocked off of gas atoms can get lost in the electron clouds of the solids/liquids, leaving the gas ionized, a.k.a. plasma.)
Lloyd wrote: Don's wiring diagram doesn't work for the Sun. [Can you provide a full explanation of why?]
The problem is that he has the current flowing in through both of the poles, and out of the equator. He doesn't specify whether that's the direction of the conventional current, or electron flux. By default, we'll call it conventional current. Effectively, he's asserting that the Sun is a cathode at the poles, so that it can pull ions inward, and an anode at the equator, sending ions back out. This also means that the corona is an anode above the poles, emitting ions that flow downward into the Sun, and a cathode above the equator, pulling ions out of the Sun. And this current does 1025 watts of work. OK. What's the energy source? And don't say that it's electrostatic potential between the Sun and the heliopause. That isn't going to make the corona over the equator a cathode, while the corona over the poles is an anode. Really the onus is on Don to provide the field schematics, including electrostatic and/or electrodynamic simulations for the principle assertions, as I've done for my model. If he can get an electrostatics simulator to get the current flowing in through the poles and out of the equator, with a potential between the Sun and the heliopause, I'd like to see that. I can do the simulations myself, but what am I going to simulate? They're making ambiguous assertions. "The Sun is powered by a galactic current, which flows from the interstellar medium, through the Sun, and back out into the interstellar medium, because of an electric field between _______ and _______." They need to fill in the blanks, and then I can test it with a simulator.
CharlesChandler
Re: Saturn Theory with Cathode Sun
Lloyd wrote: Here's an illustration of Saturn's journey into the solar system.
IMO, that asks more questions than it answers. The Greenland Ice Core Project claims to have found identifiable yearly markers going back 100,000 years. Even with the periods of glaciation, which make a big difference to humans, the temperatures didn't actually fluctuate that much. Any major rearrangement of suns & planets during this period would have to account for these (and similar) data.
Nevertheless, I still believe that ancient symbols were inspired by celestial events. I just think that it was a swarm of asteroids that came through, lighting up the daytime sky, causing a few impacts, and generally doing a pretty good job of making a lasting impression on the humans who were running around at the time, before heading back out into the interstellar medium.
And I believe that this was the Younger Dryas event(s). The one impact that we know about is the one that hit the Laurentide Ice Sheet, sending huge chunks of ice through the air, which caused the Carolina Bays when they bounced, before landing somewhere in the Atlantic. There could have also been a number of other near misses, and there could have been arc discharges powerful enough to catch everybody's attention. Just imagine what it would have been like to have been a hunter gatherer, 12900 BP, witnessing such events! And how would you explain such things to your children? I think that future generations then attempted to rationalize the stories, and mapped the events to objects that they could still find in the night sky, leaving us with lore associated with known planets from events that had nothing to do with the planets. The swarm that left its mark on our planet, and changed the evolutionary path of humans, while causing the extinction of many other species, is long gone. But it's interesting to consider the possibility that we could actually piece it all together someday, from the lore and from the scientific evidence. People don't just make up wild-n-crazy stories about things that don't relate directly to everyday life. So when such stories pop up all over the place, there has to be a reason.
And this is not an under-developed hunch. Two of my uncles were noted authorities on ancient history, including the study of mythology (i.e., Tertius Chandler, author of "Godly Kings and Early Ethics" and "4,000 Years of Urban Growth", and William Doty, author of "Myths, Rites, Symbols: A Mircea Eliade Reader" and "Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals" to name a few). Both of them could tell us how to distinguish between a popular story (because it is a projection of human psyche) versus the record of an actual event (because there are central aspects to the story that cannot be shown to have originated from within the minds of the storytellers). So if you tell me that there are numerous, repeating references to dramatic events in the sky, and ancient symbols that don't look like any common objects here on Earth, but do look like plasma discharges, and that there was an Earth-shattering impact 12900 BP, I'm going to think that the stories were all about the asteroid swarm.
But both of my uncles always insisted that all of the facts were taken into account, and that room be left for alternate interpretations. Your first thought isn't always your last! Knowledge isn't a position — it's a process.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Greenland Ice Core Dating
Charles said: The Greenland Ice Core Project claims to have found identifiable yearly markers going back 100,000 years.
I believe the yearly markers claim was disproven by the squad of military airplanes that landed on the icecap in the 1940s but which dates back centuries by the supposed yearly markers. Conventional dating methods tend to be based on uniformitarian assumptions. One assumption is that the climate and weather patterns have been as they are now far into the past.
I believe another assumption is that there is snowfall every year that makes a recognizable layer and that layer doesn't melt. But there are strong indications that many layers sometimes melt in a short period of time. I think it's likely that there was considerable melting during the intermediate warm period, or whatever it's called, about 1,000 years ago, when southern Greenland was inhabited and the permafrost was deep enough or nonexistent that the Vikings could bury their dead 6 feet deep or something like that. As the climate got colder the place couldn't support raising cattle any more supposedly.
And the other thing is that sometimes there were likely to have been more than one snowfall in a year that appeared to be several or many years of snowfall. This may have been the case for the first 90,000 or more yearly markers which may have accumulated in a few centuries or so. The Piri Reis map shows Antarctica free of the icecap and that may be 5 to 10,000 years old. There may be native American legends about times when the Arctic icecap was not there. Northern Canada has the remains of more southerly forests and wildlife likely from within 10,000 years ago.
I believe there are markers in the icecap that give general datings, but not detailed yet. Like the Santorini volcanic eruption sometime in the second millennium BC probably has a marker. The icecap dating has been discussed in catastrophist magazines since the 1970s, such as in Talbott's Pensee' and later Warner Sizemore's [?] Kronos etc. Cardona participated in many of the discussions, I believe. I still have most of the issues of Pensee' and Kronos.
Uniformitarian vs Catastrophist Mythology It would have been nice if your uncles had looked into catastrophism. The general assumption among mythologists has been uniformitarian, that conditions on Earth have always been about the same as now. Velikovsky first got many scientists interested in the possibility of catastrophic events in the past. Cardona and Talbott concluded that Velikovsky's claims about Venus and Mars encountering the Earth in the second and first millennia BC were wrong, but that his Saturn theory seemed to be generally correct, that Saturn had been the original sun. This was back in the early 1970s at least. Talbott said he first read Velikovsky in 1968. I read him in 1969. Cardona said he read him in 1959 or so. Talbott, Cardona et al developed a method they called comparative mythology. They looked for the common themes or motifs in myths from around the world. This was detailed in articles by Talbott in Thoth magazine, which is still online. Some of the common themes were the universal monarch, the mother goddess, the warrior god, the world mountain, the axis mundi, the cosmic pillar or tree etc. Ancient myths worldwide all had such themes.
The researchers tried to find the most ancient myths first, as from Sumeria, Egypt etc, and trace the development of myths down through the ages. They found that the first myths identified the sun as Saturn. The present sun was not in their myths, apparently because it was not impressive, since it was first seen to be a distant star. The mother goddess was the comet Venus. The warrior god was Mars. All three planets were clearly visible from Earth. The world mountain, axis mundi, cosmic pillar, cosmic tree etc was the polar column. It was found that later peoples often identified Saturn as the first sun too. Cardona and others have not come to their conclusions (that I outlined previously) hastily. They've spent years in careful study of myths.
Most mythologists have been sidetracked into assuming that ancient peoples liked to tell imaginary stories which came from their subconscious minds rather than from reality. So they have tried to explain myths as psychological phenomena. Velikovsky, a psychologist himself, was able to see that humans had suffered major trauma from global catastrophes. He found that generations after the cataclysms people sometimes tried to explain away myths as part of their existing world, instead of a world that was different in the past. Early in the science of geology geologists were interested in catastrophes as described in the Bible and other sacred literature etc. But prejudice developed against such study and geologists, like others, became entrenched in uniformitarian assumptions, devoid of catastrophism. Several lines of evidence show that the ancients actually saw what they reported in the earliest myths. One is that thunderbolts were seen flying between the planets. Mars appears to have much evidence of strikes by such thunderbolts. The ancients also referred to a large scar on Mars. The great canyon, Valles Marineris, looks like such a scar, but is not now visible from Earth. The ancients said Venus was born from Jupiter or Saturn, so Velikovsky predicted that Venus would be found to be very hot, since it was incandescent only a few thousand years ago, if it erupted from another planet. Other scientists assumed that Venus would be cold, because of the cloud cover.
Anode or Cathode Sun Mythology Charles, if you don't want to consider the more extreme implications of catastrophist research findings, I'll drop this topic in discussion with you. But, I'd like to prove if the cathode model would explain the myths better than the anode model. I'd like to know if it might be possible for a brown dwarf star to bounce off the heliosphere a few times before maybe adjusting charge potential to be able to penetrate it. (And, if so, I suppose it might likewise bounce when encountering another plasmasphere like Jupiter's.) Cardona says brown dwarfs are known to flare brightly, so I'd like to know how they do so. I assume it would be somewhat similar to solar flaring, but more intense. I'd like to know if Alfven's plasma cells may exist in space where electric potential changes considerably. I think those are supposed to be similar to heliospheres. Cardona supposes that the change in potential is what triggered flaring on Saturn in its journey from the Saj Dwarf galaxy to the solar system. Cardona seems pretty confident that Saturn did come from that galaxy, I guess because of the similarity in spectra or something like that and the fact that part of that galaxy is nearby and that the sun was originally not seen by the ancients and was later seen as a distant star. If encountering a plasmasphere is unlikely to produce flaring in a brown dwarf, it'd help to know what else might trigger a nova-like flare on Saturn outside or near the Sun's Kuiper belt that would not greatly endanger life on Earth under Saturn's south pole.
I'd like to find out if Saturn's flares could rain down enough detritus on Earth etc to form a supercontinent and to deliver petroleum-like hydrocarbons and water etc. The ancients reported seeing Venus first on the face of Saturn as an 8-pointed star within a circle, the circle being Saturn's limb. I want to know what electrical or other effects would produce those rays, which apparently continued to appear as Venus moved away from Saturn. And it'd be good to know how much electric current would be needed to carve the Mars canyon, or to produce the lightning rod blisters that are the "volcano" Olympus Mons, or the scalloped cliff edges of it etc.
jacmac
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Great discussion !
In the Mad Ideas portion of this forum I ask:
What about radiation as a possible source of energy?
Could the sun act as an antenna to collect radiation?
Would this be of any significant amount?
Thanks, Jack
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Solar Radiation/Antenna
Jack said: What about radiation as a possible source of energy? Could the sun act as an antenna to collect radiation? Would this be of any significant amount?
Brant Callahan and Miles Mathis have two different models that consider the Sun to be powered by receiving radiation from the galactic center. Miles has the radiation in the form of photons. Brant has longitudinal waves of aether from the galactic center being transmuted by hollow iron stars and planets into electrons, which produce electric currents that power them. His model has the Sun as a cathode, like Charles'. Miles also says the aether is photons and that photons cluster into electrons, protons, neutrons etc. Miles seems to say that there is 19 times as much mass in photons as there is in protons. The subatomic particles radiate the photons.
Other Models' Radiation Sources Charles' model has radiation coming from electrical nebular collapse and gravitational ion compression, which slowly recombine charges that cause the radiation. Michael Mozina has supernovae forming small neutron bodies within stars, so the neutrons gradually decay into electrons and protons which produce electric currents and the solar wind etc. Charles' model seems to be the most complete theory so far.
Model Problems I asked Brant recently if there's any evidence he can reference about antennae forming electrons, which would support his model. He hasn't replied just yet. I also asked him and Michael a few months ago how the Sun could have differential rotation, as measured partly by sunspots, if the Sun has a rigid surface under the photosphere. A rigid surface should all make one revolution per solar day. A fluid Sun would have differential rotation at different solar latitudes. Charles has a supercritical fluid under the photosphere.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Waves Prove Positive Charge Photosphere I think this is another strong point in favor of the Cathode Sun model. Charles' website said: As an indication of how influential ionization can be, we can observe the behavior of s-waves propagating through the photosphere, as in Figure 102. The scientists who studied this event made an interesting observation. Unlike water ripples that travel outward at a constant velocity, the solar waves accelerated from an initial speed of 10 km/s to a maximum of 100 km/s before disappearing. So the waves started at a supersonic speed, and then accelerated by another order of magnitude? That breaks two laws of hydrodynamics. (A third is broken if we expect s-waves to occur in plasma that the standard model claims is as thin as the best laboratory vacuum on Earth. A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun)
This can only mean that the surface has a net charge, where the motion of one particle begins to accelerate the next particle even before they collide, by electrostatic repulsion, thus enabling the propagation of waves faster than the speed of sound. (This is also one of the indicators that the net charge in the photosphere is positive. If those were negative ions [ions with excess electrons], and if a pressure wave was initiated, an ion moving closer to another ion and experiencing a repulsive force would simply lose the electron, with little effect on the momentum of the nuclei involved in the collision. In other words, in highly conductive plasma, electrons can move from atom to atom quite freely if there is any voltage at all, and similarly, the atoms can move for their own reasons, leaving the electrons behind if the voltages prefer it that way. But in a positive ion, the inertial and electric forces stem from the same entity, and cannot be disassociated in the same way. So a supersonic, accelerating pressure wave is proof of a positive charge.)
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Lloyd wrote: Greenland Ice Core Dating: But there are strong indications that many layers sometimes melt in a short period of time.
Wouldn't that mean that scientists would underestimate the time span, instead of overestimating it? Or are you saying that the way they overcompensate for how much they think they're underestimating the span produces the 100,000 year record, which could have actually been laid down in much less time?
Lloyd wrote: Sometimes there were likely to have been more than one snowfall in a year that appeared to be several or many years of snowfall.
That's a good point.
Lloyd wrote: I'd like to know if it might be possible for a brown dwarf star to bounce off the heliosphere a few times before maybe adjusting charge potential to be able to penetrate it.
I think that a star impinging on the heliosphere would simply push the heliosphere out of the way. There might be a potential between them. But a large, condensed object such as a star has a lot of momentum, while the extremely tenuous heliosphere has none of that. In cases where asteroids or meteoroids have bounced off of larger bodies such as the Sun or the Earth, the deflection was extremely slight, and only occurred when the impinging object got into the densest part of the atmosphere.
Lloyd wrote: Cardona says brown dwarfs are known to flare brightly, so I'd like to know how they do so.
I don't know.
Lloyd wrote: I'd like to know if Alfven's plasma cells may exist in space where electric potential changes considerably.
Plasma cells can occur anywhere, if there has been a charge separation, and if there is some sort of resistance to charge recombination. Then the opposite charges organize themselves into double-layers. With equal quantities of both charges, all of the electric field is between the double-layers. So plasma cells are said to "insulate" themselves from their environments, hence the justification for likening them to plasma cells in a cardiovascular system. But it isn't really "insulation" — it's just that they aren't showing much of an E-field to the outside world, so they don't behave as charged objects with respect to their environments, even though there might be substantial potentials inside the cell.
Lloyd wrote: Cardona supposes that the change in potential is what triggered flaring on Saturn in its journey from the Saj Dwarf galaxy to the solar system.
An object penetrating a plasma cell will very definitely encounter differences in potential, and could flare as a result.
Lloyd wrote: Waves Prove Positive Charge Photosphere: I think this is another strong point in favor of the Cathode Sun model.
Actually, I "think" that everybody agrees that the surface of the Sun is positively charged, because there is a broad body of evidence in support, such as what you cited. The difference is that Juergens concluded that the net charge is positive, which I conclude that the net charge is negative. For one thing, if the net charge was positive, what would hold it together? Electrostatic repulsion should blow it apart. And with only gravity holding it together, it could achieve an equilibrium, but then the positive charges would be dense near the Sun, and would thin out gradually with distance from the Sun, the same way the Earth's atmosphere is dense near the surface, and gradually thins out with altitude. Yet the density of the Sun ends quite abruptly. This is not possible by simply hydrostatics, nor is it possible with hydrostatics + electrostatics with a net positive charge. In fact, the Coulomb forces would cause the layer to be much thinner, even where the force of gravity is great. Only if the positive charges are held down tightly to a negative layer will we see a distinct edge. This incontrovertibly proves that the surface is positive, that underneath it is a much more powerful negative layer, and that the net charge can only be negative. The evidence of an electric current through the photosphere then becomes evidence of electrons flowing away from the cathode, and generating ohmic heating in the positive double-layer.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Proto-Saturn Flares
Postby CharlesChandler » Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:28 pm -LK: I'd like to know if it might be possible for a brown dwarf star to bounce off the heliosphere a few times before maybe adjusting charge potential to be able to penetrate it. -CC: I think that a star impinging on the heliosphere would simply push the heliosphere out of the way. There might be a potential between them. But a large, condensed object such as a star has a lot of momentum, while the extremely tenuous heliosphere has none of that. In cases where asteroids or meteoroids have bounced off of larger bodies such as the Sun or the Earth, the deflection was extremely slight, and only occurred when the impinging object got into the densest part of the atmosphere. -LK: Cardona says brown dwarfs are known to flare brightly, so I'd like to know how they do so. I'd like to know if Alfven's plasma cells may exist in space where electric potential changes considerably. Cardona supposes that the change in potential [between plasma cells] is what triggered flaring on Saturn in its journey from the Saj Dwarf galaxy to the solar system. -CC: Plasma cells can occur anywhere, if there has been a charge separation, and if there is some sort of resistance to charge recombination. Then the opposite charges organize themselves into double-layers. With equal quantities of both charges, all of the electric field is between the double-layers. So plasma cells are said to "insulate" themselves from their environments.... But it isn't really "insulation" — it's just that they aren't showing much of an E-field to the outside world, so they don't behave as charged objects with respect to their environments, even though there might be substantial potentials inside the cell. ... An object penetrating a plasma cell will very definitely encounter differences in potential, and could flare as a result.
Interstellar Plasma Cells Thanks for your answers, Charles. These are more questions for you on Cardona's Saturn Theory. I want to inform him of any potentially useful findings from this. - Do you agree that the heliosphere is a plasma cell? If so, then I guess you'd agree that Saturn as a brown dwarf encountering the heliosphere for the first time would or could have flared on contact. Right? - Cardona thinks Saturn flared several times when it entered the heliosphere about 10k BP. Since the heliosphere is probably way too low density to cause a brown dwarf etc to skip or bounce on it a few times, as you say, is it possible that the heliosphere surface could have been wavy enough for Saturn to have penetrated several waves while entering at a low angle to the heliosphere surface? And could the electric charge difference between Saturn and the heliosphere surface have triggered flares on Saturn each time it penetrated a wave? - Am I right that you've said that interstellar and interplanetary media are positive charged, while planetoids and stars are negative? If so, did you also say it's because of photoionization? Or would it be by the process that Bridgman mentioned, in which electrons are able to move much faster and farther than positive ions, so they naturally tend to separate in a gaseous environment? And then those separated electrons tend to attract to planetoids and stars initially by gravity and by the "like^3" principle? - If all that is right, is that likely how plasma cells form in space? And how do the plasmasphere surfaces of plasma cells form? Would they form only from stellar and planetary winds, like the solar wind? Would the plasmasphere surfaces be electric double layers with positive inside and negative outside? Would the layers be stationary, or would they tend to flow in opposite directions as in electric filaments? Would the plasma cell surfaces tend to form filaments, or sheets? If sheets, could the sheets develop waves, such as from the approach of large objects and would such waves accelerate outward?
Proto-Saturn Flares - Cardona thinks proto-Saturn flares rained detritus onto the Earth. He thinks much of the sedimentary rock of the continents rained down from Saturn over many millennia. Gordon Webb and I think much of the detritus must have rained down all at once not many millennia ago for the following reasons. 1. It appears from Walter Brown's analysis (http://creationscience.org) that the Grand Canyon eroded not long ago when the sedimentary layers there were not yet hardened. 2. From Mike whatshisname's Shock Dynamics theory (http://newgeology.us) it appears that the Colorado plateau (where the Grand Canyon later eroded) was uplifted when the former supercontinent broke apart (from an unusually deep impact to the Moho layer?). 3. In order for the Colorado plateau strata to have still been soft enough for the Grand Canyon to erode in such a short time (from the catastrophic draining of former Grand and Hopi Lakes), the former supercontinent must have formed within a few centuries before the canyon formed. Apparently the supercontinent formed via deposition of detritus, including mineral dust and "flood" water from a Saturn flare. The flood water would have deposited the two-mile thick sedimentary strata in a short time. - That idea has some problems, but for now do you consider it possible for a Saturn flare to produce enough detritus to form a supercontinent of mostly sedimentary strata two miles thick covering one fourth of the Earth's surface? If not, what about enough detritus to form rock layers a few hundred feet thick? - Could a brown dwarf star encountering plasma cell double layers cause ion compressed matter inside it to explode to produce a flare and a rain of detritus? - If such an explosion started in ion compressed matter in a brown dwarf, would there be ways to stop it from exploding the entire star? I think you said ion compressed matter in the Earth may not be confined to a certain depth, but may vary quite a bit, so I thought such variation might prevent a runaway chain-reaction explosion. Do you agree?
It would also be helpful if you can comment on these images. I posted 2 images of Talbott's Saturn configuration with rayed Venus between Mars and Saturn at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&~. The images below (modified slightly) are from Talbott's video at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/12/07/symbols-of-an-al~. - Since the SL9 comet fragments formed a line in single file before they hit Jupiter in 1994, do you think it's plausible that Venus, Mars and Earth could have followed behind dwarf star Saturn in single file, so that the planets all appeared to be above Earth's north pole? This would be after the Saturn System entered the solar system and was slowly spiraling inward. - Does the plasma tube between the planets seem plausible?
D_Archer
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
I do not understand the basis of this thread, anode vs cathode sun? Why this confusion?
The Sun can only be an anode in the definition of the word. The Anode is outflow and the Cathode is inflow. The solar wind proves the Sun is anode. End debate.
So is there a reason why this is a question at all? Am i missing something?
Regards, Daniel
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
LK: Waves Prove Positive Charge Photosphere: I think this is another strong point in favor of the Cathode Sun model.
CC: Actually, I "think" that everybody agrees that the surface of the Sun is positively charged, because there is a broad body of evidence in support, such as what you cited.
Well, two things have me confused here. First, Scott considered the Sun to act like a PNP transistor, but Brant said it should be an NPN transistor (though I think you said it's too hot for a transistor effect there). Second, you guys call the photosphere cathode tufts, but the EU team calls it anode tufts. So, first, is Scott's PNP transistor meant to equate the photosphere and corona to positive and the chromosphere to negative? If so, I wonder what Brant meant. I guess he meant the Sun's solid iron shell and the chromosphere are negative while the photosphere is still positive. And, second, do both sides consider the photosphere to be positive tufts, one being positive tufts on an anode and the other positive tufts on a cathode? I was supposing that anode tufts and cathode tufts would be oppositely charged.
DA: The solar wind proves the Sun is anode. End debate. So is there a reason why this is a question at all? Am i missing something?
Yes, there's much more evidence of net negative charge outflow than inflow. Defining Anode and Cathode The following is from http://www.av8n.com/physics/anode-cathode.htm. From this it seems that it might be best not to use the terms anode or cathode. Both positive and negative charge are outflowing from the Sun, but more of the outflow is negative than positive and the Sun is net-negative charged. - Definition: The anode of a device is the terminal where [positive] current flows in from outside. The cathode of a device is the terminal where [positive] current flows out. - To avoid misconceptions, remember that the anode/cathode distinction is based on current, not voltage. Anode/cathode is not the same as positive/negative or vice versa. Illustrative example: for a battery being discharged, the positive terminal is the cathode, while for the same battery being recharged, the positive terminal is the anode. - As a trustworthy rule, keep in mind that anode and cathode refer to function, not structure. There are lots of devices where it would be madness to permanently label the structures as anode or cathode, because their function changes from time to time. Rechargeable batteries are a common, very important example. - ... I am astonished that some people take a concept that is simple and unimportant, make it needlessly complex, and pretend it is important. - When dealing with batteries, don't think in terms of anode and cathode; think in terms of positive terminal and negative terminal. - When dealing with semiconductor diodes, don't worry about anode and cathode; think in terms of P-doped side and N-doped side. - The general rule is: Anode means current into the black box and cathode means current out from the black box. Zener diodes give rise to an execrable exception that should be avoided like the plague. - There is abundant evidence that even people who call themselves experts cannot keep the anode/cathode terminology straight. In any practical situation, there is always a way to figure out how to hook things up without a deep understanding of anode versus cathode. - In almost all situations, it is better to avoid the terms anode and cathode. There are better ways to say what needs to be said. Constructive suggestion: it is better to talk about the current (rather than the electrode). It is better to talk about what the current is doing (rather than what the electrode "is").
It's a 4th order tensor, which is why no one has ever done it before. I'm going to do it with a finite element analysis engine, which I already have working for the Newtonian factors, and which confirms Dalsgaard's calculations. (See Stellar Model Checker.) But I can't find definitive laboratory data on the degree of ionization per pressure. I have been told that the quantum mechanics predictions are unreliable. So I'm still researching that. I can guess at the numbers, and see what it takes to get a stable solution, and let future generations do the supporting lab work. But in my lifetime, that won't prove anything.
Lloyd wrote:...all solids/liquids become negatively charged in the presence of a gas, due to Debye charging. (Electrons knocked off of gas atoms can get lost in the electron clouds of the solids/liquids, leaving the gas ionized, a.k.a. plasma.)
