Thunderbolts Forum

'12-11-05, 02:21 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: How many neutrons do you figure clump together when fusion produces neutronium? I'm not sure — I'm just vaguely aware that when the available particles fuse, whatever individual neutrons are present, that would make a reasonably stable isotope, are included in the final aggregate. I guess if the neutrons clumped together, this would help. But I don't know. Lloyd wrote: When you use the term "black hole", you probably confuse people, who are likely to suppose that you mean the conventional definition of black hole. Whereas, I believe your definition is considerably different, although the result is fairly similar. [...] Then how about a black star? How about "natural tokamak"? Pretty much all of the existing terms (planetary nebulae, white dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, black holes, and quasars) become misnomers if there is a theoretical shift. So I use the existing terms to refer to the known property sets, but explain them as toroidal plasmoids doing nuclear fusion without gravitational pressure. Lloyd wrote: Do you still think pulsars are neutron stars? That's how they're conventionally defined. Note that I don't even think that neutron stars are neutron stars. Cassiopia A TPOD wrote: Flares are the result of double layers that form and explode in one or a few of the Birkeland currents in a star's corona or photosphere. Those double layers arise from current surges that are generated in local instabilities. What's a "local instability"? I actually agree with every word of that, but there's such a difference in granularity, I'm not sure that I'm agreeing with that, or just with myself. The model of flares that I'm using starts with the same solar~heliospheric current that lights up the quiet Sun, and drives the convection in the granules. At increased current densities, cathode spots form, which on the Sun are known as sunspots. These form where the overall magnetic field is perpendicular to the surface, and hence the solar~heliospheric current follows the magnetic field lines out into space. In other words, they're Birkeland currents. The more robust electric current generates a far more powerful local magnetic field, which insulates the electrons from the surrounding plasma. Hence a positive double-layer can build up around the charge stream, but the magnetic pressure prevents charge recombination. But if the current relaxes, the magnetic insulation weakens, and the electrons can abandon their solar~heliospheric pathway, in lieu of a greater attraction to the positive ions that built up around the charge stream. Hence I totally agree that surges in Birkeland currents form double-layers that can explode. But would the TPOD author agree with me? Cassiopia A TPOD wrote: Novas and supernovas may be double layers that explode from the entire surface of a star. They are like cosmic sparks that "jump the gap" when instabilities switch off the current in galactic Birkeland filaments. The sudden interruption of current in such transmission lines will cause the energy that is distributed throughout the circuit to be dumped into the spark that bridges the gap. The resulting explosion will dissipate more energy than was originally present in the circuit element that "blew"—in this case, the star. I don't understand this. What separates the charges? What is the current density? Where is the dielectric? What is the switching mechanism? Lloyd wrote: I'm skeptical that he based the idea of quasars' initial high velocity on the red shift data. How sure are you about that? I'm really not sure at all about that. Lloyd wrote: Your stellar model has a dense positive core stripped of electrons by gravitational compressive ionization. I mentioned to you before that I don't think electrons orbit atomic nuclei, but Kanarev's model of atoms would still allow electrons to be stripped off, even though his electrons don't orbit. This is outside of my field of focus. I'll stand up and applaud anybody taking a swipe at quantum mechanics, as little of it is fully quantized, none of it is mechanical, and not a lick of it makes any sense whatsoever! I took a look at Bill Lucas' work (http://www.commonsensescience.org) and was thoroughly impressed. Maybe I'll ask him about the expected behaviors of supercritical fluids in his model. But that's a whole 'nuther story right there. I'm doing my part in the war against quantum heuristics by attacking its cornerstone: black-body theory. It's starting to look like atomic oscillators can completely account for continuous stellar spectra. It's ridiculously simple, but the implications are devastating, both for QM and for existing stellar theories. So nobody will touch it with a 10-foot pole. Yet in order to make a full accounting of the solar energy budget, and to identify where the radiation originates, I need a mechanistic model of BB radiation. So I've got that piece. I'll leave the rest up to Lucas, Kanarev, et al.
'12-11-05, 12:30 Native	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Apart the already posted issues in this topic, a complete solar theory must also include the solar system as being an integrated part of the circuits in our galaxy. When so, the solar system most likely is formatted in the z-pinch in the galactic centre and slowly moved out in the galactic surroundings via the galactic bars which shows a suddenly 90 degree turn out in the arms, a motion that only can be explained as an outwards motion away from the galactic centre.
'12-11-05, 16:18 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model I thought it might be useful to outline a number of the salient features of the model in question. The basic idea is that compression, initially due to the implosion of a dusty plasma, and subsequently due to gravity, ionizes the matter, creating charged double-layers. Here are some of the lines of evidence in support of this. Dusty Plasma Energy Budget The Sun condensed from a dusty plasma with a volume of something like 7.48 × 1037 km3, and a temperature of something like 10 K. The Sun's present volume is 1.41 × 1018 km3, meaning a compression ratio of 5.31 × 1019. By the ideal gas laws, we can estimate the thermal energy of the Sun by multiplying the initial temperature by the compression ratio. The result is 5.31 × 1020 K. The difference between that and the actual temperature of the Sun (averaging something like 105 K) can only be evidence of a conversion of most of that kinetic energy into some form of potential that is not repulsive, otherwise, hydrostatic pressure would have precluded the condensation. Of the few choices at the macroscopic level other than gravity, only the electric and magnetic forces can be attractive. More specifically, powerful electric fields are capable of removing heat, and thereby reducing the hydrostatic pressure. The only reasonable conclusion is that the kinetic energy was converted to electrostatic potential. Missing Neutrinos By the neutrino count, nuclear fusion is only responsible for 1/3 of the Sun's power output, meaning that the other 2/3 has to come from some other energy conversion. The vast store of electrostatic potential can be reconverted to heat and light if the charges recombine. This will happen if mass loss due to solar winds relaxes the pressure that is maintaining the compressive ionization. Distinct Solar Surface If the density gradient in the Sun was only a function of gravity pulling in, and hydrostatic pressure pushing out, the Sun would not have a "surface." Rather, the density would just gradually thin out to nothing. If there was an internal light source, it would produce an effect that would look like headlights in the fog. By all means of observation, the Sun has a very distinct surface, where there is a sharp increase in density at the outer edge, and the surface has the dynamics of a liquid (or supercritical fluid), not a thin gas. The non-Newtonian density gradient can only be proof of non-Newtonian forces, pulling matter into the Sun with far more force than can be attributed to gravity. The Sun's average magnetic field (~1 gauss) is too weak to do this. Electrostatic attraction between charged double-layers would very definitely do this. Missing Oblateness The rotation of the Sun should produce an equatorial bulge, but it does not. Trying to solve the problem by varying the estimated mass won't work, because heavier/lighter substances will have more/less centripetal force, but also more/less centrifugal force, at the same ratio, producing the same bulge. Hence the discrepancy can only be evidence of a centripetal force that does not vary with mass (i.e., a non-Newtonian force). Electrostatic attraction between charged double-layers is a non-Newtonian force. Black-body Radiation The power from the Sun is in the form of 5525 K black-body radiation. Gamma rays propagating outward from a nuclear fusion reactor are distinct spectral lines, not a smooth continuum of frequencies. Ohmic heating from an electric current in a supercritical fluid produces black-body radiation. Electrostatic attraction between charged double-layers produces the force necessary to create supercritical fluids close enough to the surface that the black-body radiation will escape without being scattered. Solar Power The Sun continually emits 4.7 × 1025 watts of power in black-body radiation. 1/3 of that power comes from nuclear fusion. The other 2/3 can only come from the release of electrostatic potential in arc discharges. Coronal mass ejections expel positive ions, leaving the Sun negatively charged, and emitting electrons. Ohmic heating from this current flowing through the supercritical fluid near the surface accounts for 1/3 of the total power output. The other 1/3 can be attributed to a similar electric current due to mass loss from spicules, and the solar wind during the quiet phase. Surface Dynamics Granules on the surface of the Sun have 2 km/s updrafts and 7 km/s downdrafts. These are supersonic speeds. Granules are typically explained as simple convective cells, but in no sense do the principles of convection explain supersonic speeds. An electric current flowing through a supercritical fluid generates "electron drag" that accelerates the fluid in the direction of the current, and can easily accelerate fluids to supersonic speeds. When the updrafts get to the surface, the electrons continue on out into space, while the plasma sheds off to the sides and is pulled back down by the electric force. Such dynamics are commonly called cathode tufts. Coronal Temperatures The temperature in the coronal exceeds 1 MK. The standard model predicts that heat radiating outward from the "fusion furnace" should dissipate by the inverse square law, not increase by 3 orders of magnitude. Electrons emitted from the Sun, and accelerating toward the heliosphere, will generate higher temperatures as they move away from the Sun, as their velocities increase due to the reduction in atmospheric density. There are many, many more details, far too numerous to mention here. So there's plenty to discuss, even if we constrain ourselves just to discussion of solar models.
'12-11-06, 17:47 Sparky	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
'12-11-06, 20:38 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model I know — it's a lot of material. It's also a radically new way of studying the Sun, which brings in terms and concepts that people aren't used to hearing in the context of solar theory. Stuff like "energy budget" and the 1st/2nd laws of thermodynamics seem out of place, because nobody talks like this. Yet these are standard scientific methods. I find it hard to believe that nobody in the mainstream ever tried this before. But it's easy to see why they wouldn't have told anybody if they did. The gravity-only model is clearly shown to be impossible, and the electric force dominates. They're going to get sent back to square one, while we're already a couple of steps ahead. But science is like that sometimes. Mother Nature doesn't put the Easter eggs where only PhDs will find them. She does what she does for her own reasons, and the eggs don't know who has a PhD and who doesn't. The people who find the eggs are the people who look in the right place, and this usually means that they were willing to try something new.
'12-11-06, 22:36 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Charles, your electrical double-layer theory as the force holding the photosphere strongly onto the Sun just reminded me of something I referenced a couple years ago at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4~, which I'm copying below. Re: Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth? Post by Lloyd » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:05 pm ELECTRICAL FORMATION OF CONCRETIONS? * Concretions may form electrically, similar to the way new cars are painted using opposite electric charges. Here's a short description from a VW website at http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/vortex_news/printer_~. The atomized paint is transferred in an electrostatic field to the [car] body, with low losses in the process, and adheres to the metal. ... Electrolytic dip-priming - a new Polo [car] is lowered into the electrolytic dip-priming bath which uses negative charges to adhere paint to all portions of the car to ensure absolute coverage of all exposed metal. * So, instead of objects rolling around gathering mud, as I speculated above, maybe the objects moving in flood waters, where there were electric fields and currents, got covered with layers upon layers of "static-cling" mud, which electrically hardened into concretions.... * By the way, here's a theory about a Dinosaur Heart Concretion - pro and con http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5505/783a#RF7. * Also, at the same site, it says "The only known instance of rapid growth [of concretions] is from the cathodic corrosion of iron ordnance from World War II, which generated concretions 40 cm [about 16 inches] in diameter in 50 years." I don't know if that was underwater or not, but it was apparently electrical. * And almost finally, this site, http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/reprint/143/1/243.pdf, says ... that fusain in coal is fossil charcoal [concretion] and "its formation following wildfire has been firmly established (see Scott 1989a; Jones 1993; Jones et al. 1993 a, b; Scott & Jones 1991a,b, 1994; Winston 1993 and references therein)." * This webpage, http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=28297, is about using calcium bicarbonate in water with 40 amps of electricity to clean rust off of iron objects. It did the job in a couple hours or so. The rust built up on the electrodes, maybe something like how concretions form[?]. * This site, http://resonatingbodies.wordpress.com/a ... ering-tray, says: Electroforming is a process that deposits a thin layer of metal on a matrix, in this case the beeswax hive. The hive is first coated with electroconductive paint and immersed in a plating bath of sulfuric acid and copper sulfate. An electric current is passed through and copper is deposited on the hive until it is of sufficient thickness. * I think this was for making a decorative piece from a natural beehive. * This, http://www.shortrunsaldeca.com/about-us/finishes.html, says: Anodizing is an electrolytic passivation process used to increase the thickness of the natural oxide layer on the surface of metal parts. Anodizing increases corrosion resistance and wear resistance.... [like concretions?] How far off-topic is this then? Do all of these events involve electrical double layers and, if so, do they show how sticky such double layers are? But I guess in these cases, if there were double layers, they don't remain when the process is completed, so covalent bonding or something must replace them. Huh? Sorry if this is irrelevant. I just enjoyed the slight novelty of thinking of the photosphere as a kind of skin stuck to the Sun.
'12-11-07, 05:48 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: How far off-topic is this then? Do all of these events involve electrical double layers and, if so, do they show how sticky such double layers are? But I guess in these cases, if there were double layers, they don't remain when the process is completed, so covalent bonding or something must replace them. Huh? Sorry if this is irrelevant. I just enjoyed the slight novelty of thinking of the photosphere as a kind of skin stuck to the Sun. I "think" that concretion and accretion are slightly different, though the electric force is certainly the prime mover in both cases. My understanding of concretion is that certain combinations of molecules have electric dipoles that naturally line themselves up, facilitating polymerization. Magnetic dipoles do the same thing, so condensation and solidification are enhanced if the molecules are magnetized and there is an external field. Gerald Pollack's work on "liquid crystal water" is a great example of how ubiquitous this phenomenon might actually be, and how many mysteries can be solved if we acknowledge the full diversity of the effects of electromagnetism. Accretion is definitely a double-layer phenomenon. Out in space, dust particles pick up a negative charge because of the high mobility of free electrons. These are absorbed into the electron cloud of the particles, which can host a net negative charge of something like 0.1 ppm before the electrostatic repulsion exceeds the force of the covalent bonds. As a dust particle picks up a negative charge, the surrounding gas that lost the electrons is now ionized, and is therefore attracted to the particle. Ions attracted to the dust particle will eventually collide with it, and then there are two possible outcomes. First, a fast-moving ion might regain its lost electron on collision, and then bounce off of the dust particle. The outflow of neutrally charged molecules then offers a little bit of resistance to inflowing positive ions, and this is part of what maintains the charge separation. Second, a slow-moving ion that regains its lost electron might get snared by the covalent bonding, and just stay there, accreting itself onto the dust particle. As a consequence, the dust particle grows a lot faster than it would just by random molecular motions. Then, the "like-likes-like" force between dust particles pulls them together into even larger aggregates. This is similar to covalent bonding, just at the macroscopic level. The negatively charged dust particles repel each other, but they're both attracted to their positively charged Debye sheaths. The shared positive charge between the negative particles is closer to them, so the net force is attractive. If there are just two particles there, they will be drawn together. Then again, if all of the particles in the dust cloud are ionized, the net effect is a body force on the entire thing, causing the collapse of the dusty plasma into a star. As the body force builds up inward momentum in the dust particles, they retain their 0.1 ppm negative charge, and the initial proto-star is negatively charged, surrounded by positive ions that were squeezed out during the collapse. The electric force between the negative proto-star and the surrounding double-layer pulls everything together, increasing the pressure. When the pressure becomes sufficient for compressive ionization, the core becomes positively charged, surrounded by a negative double-layer, which has a positive double-layer around it. The increasing electric forces further compact the matter, increasing the compressive ionization, which increases the force binding all of it together. And the electric force removes degrees of freedom from the atoms, which reduces the hydrostatic pressure, further enabling compaction. Hence it's a force feedback loop. And thus the whole thing is electric — start to finish.
'12-11-07, 21:18 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model One more thing, Charles, your electric sun model amounts to a big storage battery (Brant calls his electric iron sun model a battery also). Seems like it would be nice to have a piece of the Sun's core to draw electric power from for a few lifetimes. Do you think there's the least possibility that a way could be found to condense matter (ions) like that and draw energy from it like a battery?
'12-11-08, 04:01 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model I hadn't thought of it like that, but you're right — it's a battery. But like any energy system, you're never going to get more energy out of it than you put into it. So you'd have to find some sort of natural force that was developing some sort of extreme pressure, sufficient for compressive ionization, and then you'd have to be able to release the pressure and harness the electric current that resulted. To be a worthwhile endeavor, the electric current would have to be more usable than any other energy conversion. So where, here on Earth, are you going to get that kind of pressure? I'm convinced that compressive ionization occurs in the Earth's mantle. Something that always puzzled me was how sedimentary rock forced under the surface under sufficient pressure can "flow" inside the Earth. Usually rocks under sufficient pressure get crushed — they don't flow. But ionized matter definitely flows, because the crystal lattice has been weakened, and the matter goes from being brittle to being viscous. The problem is that such pressures only occur deep inside the Earth. This does have interesting implications concerning simply how we come to understand our own planet. There are inexplicable heat sources inside the Earth, without which it would have frozen over a long time ago, like the Moon and like Mars. These heat sources keep churning things up, producing volcanism, tectonic plate movement, and the whimsical geomagnetic field. You really can't say that this is still just heat left over from the initial condensation. Under such pressures, heat conduction is nearly perfect, and the temperatures should have been thoroughly distributed soon after the condensation. Thereafter, you're really not going to get any adiabatic convection the way you would in a non-conducting substance (such as the atmosphere). So for there to be convection, there has to be an internal heat source. Heat is generated by friction from tidal forces, but this is well-distributed, and again, in a highly-conducting substance, we wouldn't expect convection. What if tidal forces are raising and lowering pressures inside the Earth, and at the threshold of compressive ionization, stuff is being ionized and neutralized on a daily basis? That would be an internal heat source. I wonder where that boundary occurs? Maybe it's at the bottom of the Earth's lithosphere, which is the solid crust, below which the rock has plasticity, meaning to me that it is ionized. And that would put a heat source right where volcanic magma originates.
'12-11-08, 13:18 Maol	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model CharlesChandler wrote: There are inexplicable heat sources inside the Earth, Perhaps piezoelectricity? It seems likely the constant kneading of tidal forces and the regular electromagnetic influence from the sun, solar wind, CME's, etc, would generate large amounts of piezoelectric energy in massive bodies like a planet.
'12-11-08, 14:22 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Can you do a formal write-up of that? I think you might be right. I can almost remember reading somewhere about somebody studying subterranean piezoelectricity, having to do with either earthquakes or volcanoes. I think the idea was that changes in pressure induced currents, and these could be measured at the surface. Anyway, if you want to pursue it, I'll post whatever you write on my site, and if you PM me with your real name, I'll give you the credit.
'12-11-08, 15:25 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Earth Battery? Well, Charles, that's interesting. Are you suggesting that the Earth is a battery too, if you're saying it has condensed ions in its core like the Sun? If so, does that mean any warm body is a similar battery, or is being heated by such a battery? Like Venus and the gas giant planets? (Mathis says Venus is heated by "charge" from the Sun and the outer planets.) Tidal Engine? So you think the tidal motion from the Moon may release heat in the Earth? But the EU mythologists say the Moon wasn't orbiting Earth until about 5,000 years ago. However, Earth was close to Saturn at that time, though not orbiting it, so maybe Saturn, Venus and or Mars provided the tidal motion before that. Fred Jueneman had the idea for some time, probably over ten years, that the barycenter between the Earth and the Moon, which is within the Earth, has major influence geological activity. Here's what an astronomer says about the barycenter. Where is the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system located? http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q665.html - The center of mass of the Earth-Moon system, is a point in space about which the Earth and Moon appear to orbit as they travel around the Sun. It is located exactly along the line that connects the center of the Earth with the center of the Moon. The average distance between the centers is 384,405 kilometers. The distance from the Earth's center to the barycenter is - D = M(moon)d(moon)/(M(earth) +M(moon) = 0.012 x 384405/(1.00 + 0.012) = 4641 kilometers where the mass of the Earth is 1.0 and the mass of the Moon relative to the earth is 0.012. Now, the radius of the Earth is 6,378 kilometers, so that means that the barycenter is located INSIDE the Earth about 1707 kilometers below its surface. Does anything weird happen there? Not that anyone can tell. Global Warming It would be funny if global warming were caused by the Moon's tidal forces causing piezoelectric heating in the Earth, if the Moon indeed did first arrive 5,000 years ago. Moho Layer Peter James, a Velikovskyan, stated once that the Moho layer is plasma. I think that layer averages about 20 miles deep, but it varies quite a bit. Some of us, like Cardona, newgeology.us and I think the continents slid over the Moho layer during rapid continental drift a few thousand years ago. Hydroplate Theory Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory discusses piezoelectric effects quite a bit at https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acreationscience.com+~. Sedimentary Strata The sedimentary strata generally don't exist much deeper than about 2 miles and generally only exist on the continents. Juergens theorized that granite is sedimentary rock that was subjected to electrical breakdown. In New Hampshire I saw plenty of granite and it did look like it was formerly sedimentary, since it has distinct layers. We probably ought to start a new thread for this topic, if we want to pursue it in some depth. We might even get away with discussing it on the Planetary Science board.
'12-11-08, 17:31 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: Are you suggesting that the Earth is a battery too, if you're saying it has condensed ions in its core like the Sun? If so, does that mean any warm body is a similar battery, or is being heated by such a battery? Basically, I guess so. I'm saying that any object with mass sufficient to cause compressive ionization is generating electrostatic potentials. This could be a perfectly stable arrangement, with no energy release, unless something is perturbing the pressures, in which case there will be charge recombination, and thus the release of heat and/or light. In the Sun, I'm contending that this is occurring 125,000 km below the surface, due to s-waves at the liquid~plasma boundary. In the Earth, I'm considering the possibility that it occurs at the bottom of the lithosphere, where tidal forces are playing around with the pressures. Too deep and the pressure is always sufficient for compressive ionization. Too shallow and it's never sufficient. But right on the boundary, varying pressures could make the difference between ionized and neutral, with charge recombination occurring on a regular basis, and hence a heat source at that depth. So yes, this would apply to anything of sufficient mass that was being perturbed. Lloyd wrote: Fred Jueneman had the idea for some time, probably over ten years, that the barycenter between the Earth and the Moon, which is within the Earth, has major influence geological activity. I agree with the astronomer on this one, that all by itself, the barycenter doesn't do anything. It's just a mathematical entity, not a physical force. Lloyd wrote: It would be funny if global warming... Don't EVEN get me started on global warming... Lloyd wrote: Peter James, a Velikovskyan, stated once that the Moho layer is plasma. I think that layer averages about 20 miles deep, but it varies quite a bit. The fact that the speed of seismic waves increases dramatically below the Moho is suggestive of ionization. At that pressure, it will be a supercritical fluid, which will flow like a plasma, but you wouldn't call it that. Lloyd wrote: Walter Brown's Hydroplate Theory discusses piezoelectric effects quite a bit. That looks like a cool site, with a lot of useful information. From this page, I got the following quote: David Finkelstein and James Powell, "Earthquake Lightning," Nature, Vol. 228, 21 November 1970, p. 759 wrote: In some parts of the world, earthquakes are often accompanied by ball lighting, stroke lightning and sheet lightning. ... We propose that the piezoelectric effect in the Earth's crust causes the electrical field. ... In rock with a mean piezoelectric coefficient several percent that of x cut single crystal quartz, and with typical seismic stress changes of only 30–300 bars, an earthquake makes an average electrical field of 500–5,000 V/cm. For distances of the order of half the seismic wavelength, the generated voltage is 5 × 107 to 5 × 108 V, which is comparable with the voltage responsible for lightning in storms. This might have been the research that I was thinking about. Lloyd wrote: Juergens theorized that granite is sedimentary rock that was subjected to electrical breakdown. Interesting. Lloyd wrote: We probably ought to start a new thread for this topic, if we want to pursue it in some depth. I truly don't know much about geology, so maybe I'll just lurk & learn.
'12-11-08, 19:49 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: Peter James, a Velikovskyan, stated once that the Moho layer is plasma. I think that layer averages about 20 miles deep, but it varies quite a bit. Charles wrote: The fact that the speed of seismic waves increases dramatically below the Moho is suggestive of ionization. At that pressure, it will be a supercritical fluid, which will flow like a plasma, but you wouldn't call it that. Actually, I got to thinking about this, and about how the tidal forces would actually operate on the Earth. At the top there is a solid crust, and then below, the rock has plasticity. So the crust is going to flex. It's not like the oceans that can rise and fall — it's solid, so it just bends in response to the gravitational forces. So what happens if you flex a solid crust that has a high-viscosity fluid below it? There could be an incredible drop in pressure where the crust is getting elevated, and the fluid rock can't move fast enough to fill the void under the crust. In the extreme low pressure, you could actually get hot rock to evaporate for a little while, 20 miles below the surface (until low tide, when the crust would compress it all back into rock).
'12-11-10, 09:05 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Charles, if you want to lurk to read up on geology, there's been quite a bit of good discussion. What you just said about parts of the lithosphere being solid, then melting briefly and resolidifying reminded me of something I discussed over a year ago. The discussion starts here, I think: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4~ and goes for at least most of that page. Here's the first post, just to give an example of what was discussed. Re: Electric Earthquakes by Lloyd » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:59 pm "Goldmine" * Someone on a nearby thread mentioned this very interesting article, called "An Integrated Alternative Conceptual Framework to Heat Engine Earth, Plate Tectonics, and Elastic Rebound", which is located on this webpage: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_1_tasso~. It goes into great detail and seems to explain a lot. * It says the velocity of S and P waves etc suggests that Earth's deep interior is cool, not hot. It says "the source of thermal energy of Earth's interior is the radiant heat produced by ... released resonating electrons inside the 10^6 to 10^5 m microfractures, which enable electrons to vibrate harmonically at thermal frequencies". * Here are brief statements about the electrical nature of earthquakes from the article. - The Electron Resonance Stimulated by Excess Mass Electrons—ERSEME—process and the dual role of microcracks, (a) as wave harmonically resonant cavities, where radiant heat and other precursory phenomena are produced; (b) as a network of many effective capacitors, connected in parallel electrically, the implosive gravitational collapse of which produces all earthquake shock types, whether deep-focus, shallow focus, tectonic or volcanic. - The catastrophic cavity network collapse which follows discharge is similar to dielectric breakdown and failure of a capacitor. The drop of geoelectric potential and the increased conductivity at the earthquake preparatory stage, that observably culminates co-seismically..., corroborates the logic presented here, that an earthquake itself is fundamentally an electromagnetic phenomenon.* I don't imagine the article speculates about the Earth getting charged from the solar wind etc, but it does mention also the electrical effects of impacts. I've only skimmed it so far, so there may be yet more gold in that goldmine. So what do you think, Charles, does Tassos seem to have it right, or do you think your additional ideas may improve his theory?