Purpose and Rules The purpose of this debate is to help determine which aspects of CC's theory are tenable and which need modification. There was a short discussion of debating rules at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~. We may add more suggestions there at any time. One suggestion is to use the debate to create a definitive document of the tenable aspects of the theory. So I'll try to post a link to the updated document once a week or so. It was also suggested that a debate should cover just one theory. To cover another theory a second debate should be held. Therefore, I'm starting another debate on EU theory at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&~.
Comparison between EU and CC theories: EU1. Galaxies spawn quasars, which grow into galaxies. CC1. Galaxies evolve from Peculiars to Ellipsoids, Spirals and Rings. EU2. Galaxies are homopolar motors containing electric current filaments. CC2. Galaxies are collections of nebulae in electric im/explosion cycles. EU3. Stars and planets form at z-pinches in galactic filaments. CC3. Stars and planets form via electric collapse of nebulae. EU4. Galactic nuclei and stars are anode plasmoids. CC4. Galactic nuclei and exotic stars are plasmoids; most stars are compressively ionized batteries. EU5. Stars under electric stress fission into smaller stars. CC5. Stars dissipate into planets; sometimes planets can grow into stars. EU6. Stars eject planets and s-debris (dust, meteoroids etc) via compressive ionization. CC6. S-debris (dust, meteoroids etc) comes from collisions and electric erosion. EU7. Comet flares are due to charge differences between comets and IPM. CC7. Comet flares are due to comet velocity and IPM friction.
Fill in This CC Theory Outline Let's start by fleshing out EU theory by adding to this outline from Charles' site at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9484 and http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031. 1. Galaxies evolve from Peculiars to Ellipsoids, Spirals and Rings. 2. Galaxies are collections of nebulae in electric im/explosion cycles. 3. Stars and planets form via electric collapse of nebulae. 4. Galactic nuclei and exotic stars are plasmoids; most stars are compressively ionized batteries. 5. Stars dissipate into planets; sometimes planets can grow into stars. 6. S-debris (dust, meteoroids etc) comes from collisions and electric erosion. 7. Comet flares are due to comet velocity and IPM friction.
Lloyd
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Building Documents for Complete Theories Charles' suggestion for debates included using info from each debate to produce a document that states the essential elements of the theory under debate. He also mentioned a preference for debating smaller issues within a theory, but I think it can also be very useful to have threads that cover whole theories, because such threads should help to produce documents that present theories in whole. He also mentioned that a problem with EU Theory is that it's hard to find the complete theory in one place, so that's a reason to have debates on complete theories and to develop documents thereby.
I think it should be okay to discuss any aspect of CC's theory at any time on this thread, so, out of the 7 categories that I divided his theory into in the OP, I'll start with #4, because I think it provides simple, clear, persuasive arguments for the primary aspect of his theory, i.e. the stellar model. On my EU Theory Debate thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&~ I plan to start discussion with #2 and 3 on star formation in galactic filaments by z-pinch, because I think those would lead to very helpful info for the basis of EU theory.
I welcome anyone to post persuasive counterarguments or evidence against (or for) any of the following statements from Charles' theory. The first 3 proofs mentioned below support all, or nearly all, of the electric sun models, so I expect that there won't be much to disagree with here for most members.
CC's Cathode Sun Model 4. Galactic nuclei and exotic stars are plasmoids; most stars are compressively ionized batteries. From CC's paper: "Preview" http://www.qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8469 This is Charles' recent summary of the reasoning for his model. Are there any significant errors here? [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Not Due to Gravity] The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. - at its visible surface, the Sun is 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of heavier elements. - Figure 1 shows the surface of the Sun on the limb, and in the primary wavelength emitted by hydrogen. - Notice that the edge of the photosphere is very distinct, topped by the tenuous plasma in the chromosphere and transition region.1 - Above that, the solar atmosphere is transparent. - The full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in only 7 Mm [7,000 km]. - (Figure 1. The solar limb seen in H-α (6563 Å), 2007-05-27, courtesy Fred Bruenjes.) - Further evidence of a distinct surface are the s-waves sometimes caused by solar flares. - S-waves only occur at the boundary between layers with dramatically different densities.2:73 (See Figure 2.) - (Figure 2. Waves propagating after a solar flare, 1996-07-09, courtesy SOHO.) - (The images show an area 200 Mm [200,000 km] across.) - Yet in the standard model, a distinct surface just isn't possible. - If the organizing principle is gravity, balanced only by hydrostatic pressure, the density gradient should be set deterministically by the ideal gas laws. (See Figure 3.) - (Figure 3. The density gradient of the Sun in the Dalsgaard model, based on the ideal gas laws, with gravity supplying the pressure.) - (The X axis shows the decimal of the solar radius starting from the center, and above is the percentage of the solar volume, starting from the surface.) - (The Y axis shows g/cm3.) - The model density at 1.0 R is 2×10^−4 kg/m^3 (i.e., a good laboratory vacuum), increasing steadily to the density of STP air at a depth of 13.22 Mm. - In such a gradient, there is no distinct edge. - Analogously, the Earth's atmosphere traverses the same gradient from the top of the mesosphere (i.e., the dashed red line in (Figure 4) down to sea level.3 - Even when only partially back-lit by the Sun, the [Earth's] mesosphere is transparent. - In full daylight, even the troposphere is transparent. - (Figure 4. Earth's atmosphere back-lit at sunrise, courtesy NASA.) - (The pale blue-green color is from water vapor in the troposphere.) - (The dark blue is from nitrogen and oxygen in the stratosphere.) - (The dashed red line shows the top of the transparent mesosphere.) - (Figure 5. ESO 325-G004) - Hence the plasma on the limb of the Sun should still be quite transparent at a depth [of] 13.22 Mm, and the opacity should increase steadily with depth, without producing a distinct edge. - With an internal light source, the Sun should look like headlights in the fog, with the luminosity gradually tapering off to nothing at some distance from the center - (similar to the luminosity from elliptical galaxies (for different reasons), as in (Figure 5.)) - Since the ideal gas laws leave no room for reinterpretation, the only possible conclusion is that forces other than just gravity and hydrostatic pressure are responsible for the sharp increase in density going from the chromosphere to the photosphere. - At the macroscopic level, there are two candidates: the electric force, and the magnetic force. [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Not Due to Magnetism] - We can rule out the magnetic force by several lines of reasoning. - First, the Sun's magnetic field averages 1 Gauss, which is merely twice the strength of the Earth's average field, and there is no distinct density drop-off in the Earth's atmosphere. - Second, hydrogen plasma doesn't have much of a magnetic dipole, so it wouldn't respond much, even to a strong field. - Third, if it did, the surface of the Sun would vary [in height] with the strength and polarity of the magnetic field, which it does not. - That leaves only the electric force. [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Not Due to Just One Layer of Surface Electric Charge] - Since it's the only candidate, its presence need not be proved any other way. - We can then ask what configuration of the electric force would produce such a distinct edge. - We know that for the electric force to have that much influence, the top layer has to be charged. - We can also deduce with confidence that there has to be a strong field between it and an underlying layer. - If the Sun only had one charge (positive or negative), it would not have a distinct edge on the limb. - The Coulomb force would simply add to the hydrostatic pressure, somewhat more vigorously, and the density would thin out over a much greater distance.
Lloyd
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Here are the rest of the statements from Charles' Preview paper.
[Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Due to Compressive Ionization in a Deeper Layer] - So there have to be at least two different charges in the Sun, and the charge of the visible surface has to be opposite from the charge of the layer below it. - The electric force then pulls the top layer downward, compacting it far beyond the expectations of the ideal gas laws. - Charged double-layers wouldn't seem possible, since hydrogen plasma at 6,000 K is an excellent conductor. - There are only two forces that can maintain a charge separation in the absence of any resistance whatsoever: the magnetic force, and compressive ionization. - We already ruled out the magnetic force, so compressive ionization is the only candidate. - At extreme pressures (easily achieved inside the Sun), atoms are forced closer together than their electron shells allow, resulting in the expulsion of the electrons.4 - The free electrons congregate at a higher altitude, where the reduced density provides enough space between atoms to accommodate them. - The negative layer so produced might go on to induce a positive charge in the layer above it, which will likewise be a current-free double-layer, still in the absence of any resistance whatsoever. - The positive double-layer will be attracted to the negative layer, but repelled by the positive layer below that (i.e., the one created by compressive ionization), and all three will be stable in a PNP configuration. - Such layers created simply by induction can continue ad infinitum, though in spherical layers, the charge density relaxes [decreases?] with each inversion. - At some point away from the primary charge separation, the next induced double-layer will not be bound firmly enough to stay organized. - So we have deduced with confidence the following facts. -· The electric force is responsible for the extreme density of the photosphere compared to the chromosphere. -· The photosphere is electrically charged. -· There is at least one other layer below it, with the opposite charge, supplying the force necessary to compress the photosphere beyond the expectations of the ideal gas laws. -· The primary charge separation is caused by compressive ionization, setting up the first two charged double-layers. - Additional layers might also be caused by induction. [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Not Due to an Anode Configuration, But to a Cathode One] - We can also deduce the charge of the photosphere, and the relative strength of its charge compared to the underlying layer. - There are six possible configurations. - There are two possible stacking orders of charges (positive over negative, or negative over positive). - Then there are three variations for the relative strengths of the charges (top layer is stronger, underlying layer is stronger, or the charges are perfectly matched). - We can dismiss the possibility that the top layer has more charge, since the excess charge would simply drift away. - We can also dismiss the possibility that the charges are evenly matched. - In charged double-layers, the electric field between the layers is greatest at the boundary between them. - Moving away from the boundary, the field density diminishes, because of the increased distance from the opposite charge, and because of repulsion from like charges in the same layer. - Analogously, in a heavy element, the outer electrons are loosely bound, because of distance from the nucleus, and because of repulsion from electrons in inner shells. - The same is true of plasma double-layers. - The significance is that with equally matched charges in the solar double-layers, the density of the top layer would still relax gradually to nothing at some distance away [the density would decrease gradually, instead of abruptly]. - So the distinct limb proves that the underlying charge [layer] has to be more powerful [than the top layer], and the top layer has only its densest component [?]. - This leaves only two possible configurations, depending on the stacking order (positive over negative, or negative over positive). - First we'll consider that the underlying layer is positive. - If so, it would easily strip all of the excess electrons from the overlying [i.e. top] layer, as they would all be unbound at 6,000 K. - Neutral atoms left behind would form a gravitational gradient, tapering off to nothing at infinity. - So the underlying layer cannot be positive. - The only remaining possibility is that the underlying layer is negative. - As such, it will attract positive ions, and ionize neutral atoms to pull in the positive charges that it wants. - Excess electrons above such a layer will not shield it from our view, because free electrons are transparent. - Hence the distinct limb reveals the extent of a positive double-layer being held down tightly to a far stronger negative layer. - (Figure 6. Convective zone layers.) - (Red = negative; green = positive.) - (Dimensions are in Mm.) - Figure 6 depicts this charge configuration, with a positive charge on top, a negative layer below that, and another positive layer below that. [How the PNP Layers Formed] - If we look back at Figure 3, we see that at ~0.83 R the density has achieved that of liquid hydrogen due to the gravitational force. - Additional pressure will then ionize the hydrogen [by compressive ionization], creating a layer of positive charge. - For this reason, the top of the primary positive layer is set there (i.e., 125 Mm below the surface). - Due to the helioseismic echo at the tachocline, the bottom of that layer is set 84 Mm deeper. - All of the electrons expelled from the primary positive layer will congregate above, creating a negative layer. - The positive layer at the top [called the photosphere] can only be the result of induction. - Its depth is set at 20 Mm due to the presence of a slight helioseismic echo there. - Hence by fully processing a few simple facts, we gain a lot of information about the structure of the Sun, at least near the surface. - The remainder of this work applies this general method, of going back to the most salient observations of the Sun, and thoroughly considering the implications. - The result is a fully physical model that performs respectably at a high specificity. References 1. Robitaille, P., 2011: On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Hervé Faye. - Progress in Physics, 3: 75-78 2. Robitaille, P., 2007: A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun. Progress in Physics, 1: 70-81 3. Picone, J. M.; E. Hedin, A.; Drob, D. P.; Aikin, A. C., 2002: NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107 (A12): 1468 4. Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100
CharlesChandler
4. Galactic nuclei and exotic stars are plasmoids
I've been reviewing Arp's & Thornhill's treatment of quasars, and came upon an interesting epiphany.
Quasars, once transformed into the coordinate system of the relevant AGN, seem to fall along the minor axis of the AGN's elliptical structure. This is what suggested to Arp & Thornhill that the AGN is a plasma gun that is shooting quasar bullets, in addition to spewing diffuse matter in the bipolar jets. As noted elsewhere, I don't think that quasars are being manufactured in the AGNs, nor am I convinced that stars form inside bipolar jets. I rather think that quasars are just stellar systems orbiting the AGN. The variable speed of an object in an elliptical orbit, especially with a high aspect ratio, provides a simpler explanation for the variable redshifts of quasars, depending on the proximity of the quasar to the AGN. Close to the center, the quasars will display a high intrinsic redshift, while far away, it will be low, just due to the orbital velocity.
But a highly elliptical orbit along the minor axis has another implication that is interesting. This would put the motion of the quasar parallel to the AGN's axial magnetic field lines. As such, the stellar system will pick up a spin from the Lorentz force. This figures significantly in my model of exotic stars, which require relativistic angular velocities to set up the magnetic confinement in the "natural tokamaks". I've been looking at a variety of mechanisms for relativistic angular acceleration, without being totally satisfied that I could fully account for such acceleration. But the Lorentz force, from a stellar system moving rapidly along the densest magnetic lines on the axis of an AGN, is a great candidate.
This leads to a fundamentally new conception of quasars. They are not shot out of AGNs, and they are not born special. Rather, they start out as normal stellar systems in elliptical galaxies, that just happen to have elliptical orbits along the minor axis of the galaxy. The rotation in the major axis of the galaxy generates a magnetic field, whose densest lines of force run through the center, parallel to the minor axis. Stellar systems in highly elliptical orbits around the AGN, if aligned to the minor axis, will develop a lot more spin, due to the Lorentz force. Hence normal stars will be transformed into natural tokamaks by the increased angular velocity.
I updated my site, and I'll be following up on this, to see if alignment to external magnetic fields is a general rule for exotic stars. I know that it's true of planetary nebulae, which I consider to be natural tokamaks. I don't remember reading anything about black holes and external magnetic fields, so I'll look for that.
Goldminer
Re: 4. Galactic nuclei and exotic stars are plasmoids
CharlesChandler wrote: I've been reviewing Arp's & Thornhill's treatment of quasars, and came upon an interesting epiphany.
Quasars, once transformed into the coordinate system of the relevant AGN, seem to fall along the minor axis of the AGN's elliptical structure. This is what suggested to Arp & Thornhill that the AGN is a plasma gun that is shooting quasar bullets, in addition to spewing diffuse matter in the bipolar jets. As noted elsewhere, I don't think that quasars are being manufactured in the AGNs, nor am I convinced that stars form inside bipolar jets. I rather think that quasars are just stellar systems orbiting the AGN. The variable speed of an object in an elliptical orbit, especially with a high aspect ratio, provides a simpler explanation for the variable redshifts of quasars, depending on the proximity of the quasar to the AGN. Close to the center, the quasars will display a high intrinsic redshift, while far away, it will be low, just due to the orbital velocity.
Where did you find that the intrinsic redshifts of QUASARs are variable. What Arp discovered is that the shifts are progressing toward neutral [unshifted] as the distance from the AGN increases. As the distance from the AGN increases, (along a vector, not an elliptical curve) the redshift decreases, and the QUASAR begins assuming the characteristics of a more or less normal galaxy or sometimes a B Lac object. The QUASARs lose redshift (and increase in brightness) in quantum-like jumps or intervals. Their velocity is along a straight path out from the minor axis, not an elliptical path. The morphed QUASAR-proto galaxy then drops back a little, towards the AGN and then assumes an orbital position as a companion galaxy. The intrinsic red shift is not velocity related, since QUASARs ejected towards Earth still have the intrinsic redshift. Your theory doesn't seem to take, among several other aspects of his evidence, the morphing of the ejecta into account.
While a high aspect ratio elliptical orbit might be imagined from a QUASAR's vector path, the QUASAR loses momentum as it morphs, rather than exchanging speed with distance from the primary focus, as entities in elliptical orbit do. The mass of the QUASAR increases as it looses momentum relative the AGN, perhaps the lost momentum is transferred to the newly forming stellar systems within the morphing proto-galaxy.
It's been a while since I have reread Arp's books, but his work was one of the major reasons why I fell in love with the EU paradigm.
CharlesChandler
Re: 4. Galactic nuclei and exotic stars are plasmoids
Goldminer wrote: Where did you find that the intrinsic redshifts of QUASARs are variable.
I should have said "a simpler explanation for the variable redshifts (in quantized steps) of quasars".
Goldminer wrote: What Arp discovered is that the shifts are progressing toward neutral [unshifted] as the distance from the AGN increases.
Arp's work is monumental, and affords us the chance to resolve otherwise intractable problems. Quasi-stellar objects got their name from the fact that they have the spectrum of a star, but the luminosity of a galaxy, and thus could not possibly be either. Bringing the quasars a lot closer, by proving that they are related to elliptical galaxies at much lower redshifts, means that quasars are actually putting out a lot less power. This puts them within the limits of stellar theory. So I consider them to be stars, not galaxies, and not proto-galaxies.
Goldminer wrote: As the distance from the AGN increases, (along a vector, not an elliptical curve) the redshift decreases, and the QUASAR begins assuming the characteristics of a more or less normal galaxy or sometimes a BL Lac object.
In what sense are quasars similar to galaxies? The spectrum of a single star is easily distinguished from that of a cluster of them, and quasars have a distinctive black-body baseline indicating that they are single stars, not clusters. In a cluster, the stars will all have different temperatures, and this doesn't produce the distinctive black-body curve. I think that the whole "quasar proto-galaxy" thing is the vestigial remains of the conventional conception of quasars as galaxies, due to their grossly overestimated luminosity, coming from the misinterpreted redshift. Take that out of the picture, and there's actually no reason to think of quasars as galaxies, or baby galaxies, or AGNs, or anything like that. They become stars. If they are related to a galaxy, or a companion galaxy, then they are members of that galaxy. Its doesn't mean that the galaxy formed around them, or that the quasar ejected the other stellar members to create the galaxy. The quasar is just one of the star types within the cluster of stars.
Goldminer wrote: Their velocity is along a straight path out from the minor axis, not an elliptical path.
I'd like to see the data for this, to determine if it's accurate enough to distinguish between the possibilities. I'm saying that quasars are in elliptical orbits with a high aspect ratio, such that they spend a lot of their time traveling parallel to the galactic magnetic lines of force.
If it just ain't so, because the distance estimates are quite precise, then it's back to the quasar drawing board for me. But I need to see the data, not just a verbal statement by someone acknowledging the proximity to the minor axis, but not considering a high-aspect-ratio elliptical orbit.
Goldminer wrote: The intrinsic red shift is not velocity related, since QUASARs ejected towards Earth still have the intrinsic redshift. Your theory doesn't seem to take, among several other aspects of his evidence, the morphing of the ejecta into account.
Here you have to distinguish between data & theory, and this goes for how you interpret what I'm saying, as well as Arp's work. Arp's interpretation of the Karlsson periodicity is that it isn't velocity related, but rather, evidence of elementary particles gaining mass in quantum leaps. And roughly equal quantities of quasars moving away from the AGN along the minor axis said to Arp that quasars are formed in a fissioning event that splits a larger object into two smaller ones, each going in opposite directions. I have a different interpretation of the same data that doesn't require rewriting the physics textbooks, starting in the freshman year. The positive & negative intrinsic redshifts indicate to me that the quasars are moving away from the AGN, at the same speed if they're at the same distance from the AGN, which would make sense if they're both in highly elliptical orbits, and need to be maintaining similar speeds if they're not going to fall into the AGN. Roughly equal numbers going in both directions might just be evidence of a large population of stars, in which a certain number of them are quasars, half of them on one side of the minor axis, and the other half on the other side. And I'm attributing the radiation from quasars to charge recombination in their bipolar jets, where the Karlsson periodicity comes from the quantization of degrees of ionization. At present, all I have is a concept sketch, which will require a lot more work to assimilate all of the data. But I haven't found the fatal flaw yet.
I'm sure that there are many details that I'm missing here, since I'm no expert on quasars. But to get to the guts of these issues, we need to get back to the raw data. It is not the obligation of my model to "take into account" somebody else's interpretations. It is the job of a model to completely & accurately explain all of the data, whether it is consistent with somebody else's model or not.
Goldminer wrote: The mass of the QUASAR increases as it looses momentum relative the AGN, perhaps the lost momentum is transferred to the newly forming stellar systems within the morphing proto-galaxy.
These are model assertions, not raw data.
Goldminer wrote: It's been a while since I have reread Arp's books...
Please let me know what I'm missing here — I don't want to sound like I've locked down on a position, because I haven't, and typically don't. Maybe my quasar "model" (such as it is) is already fatally flawed. But like I said, we have to separate fact from interpretation. The reason why I don't take the "weight gain" hypothesis at face value is just that I'm a big believer in giving proven physics a chance before tossing it in the garbage can and reinventing the whole discipline. This is just good classical scientific method, and since it's been a long time since anybody applied such a method to astronomy, I think that it's time to give it a chance. It doesn't mean that the answer has to fall within the limits of known physics. It just means that known physics has to be ruled out before concluding that it can't handle it.
Goldminer
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Charles, more power to ya. I'm not really arguing, just recollecting. Arp didn't come to his conclusions from observing just a few QUASAR/AGN situations. He is still the world's most respected authority on irregular galaxies. Some of his successive observations of the same galaxy over decades provide proof of the motion. I am sure you understand the difference between intergalactic stellar distances, and extragalactic distances. It looks from your drawing that you are showing stellar distances for the apo? . . . father end of the ellipse. Arps plates show extragalactic distances for the farthest QUASAR locations from their presumed AGN source, as I recall.
His plates show at intermediate distances, and intermediate redshifts, not a point like star forming, but fuzzy intermediate looking diffuse structures that resolve into galactic structures, at further extragalactic distances, out along the minor axis of the AGN. Hey, I was wrong once before . . .
(I can't seem to recall the suffix to add to "apo" when naming that farthest distance along the major axis of an ellipse)
CharlesChandler
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Apoapsis.
BTW, I'm still brewing this idea about quasars in elliptical orbits (while you're still loading your plasma gun ), and now I'm thinking that if I'm right about the field-aligned elliptical orbit, I'm wrong that it will remain elliptical. I'm saying that as the quasar is gravitationally attracted to the AGN, its movement within the galaxy's magnetic field induces rotation. Well, let's consider the implications of that. Suppose that the faster and faster the quasar is falling toward the AGN, the faster and faster it rotates. OK, so what happens at the periapsis? All other factors being the same, the object would have rounded the corner, and dutifully followed an elliptical path back out. But I just got done saying that its motion in the galactic magnetic field induces rotation. Well, if its motion toward the periapsis developed a huge amount of angular momentum that agreed with the magnetic field, then if it rounds the corner and heads back out, all of that angular momentum now disagrees with that same magnetic field, because now the quasar's translational vector is in the opposite direction. So what's going to happen?
I'm starting to think that once all of that angular momentum has built up, the quasar isn't going to round the corner at all. Rather, it's going to blow right past the AGN, and shoot out the other side. Analogously, consider drilling a hole through the Earth big enough to drop a helicopter into, and you be the pilot who is going to carefully auto-rotate the rotors, to develop a bunch of angular momentum. On the way down, you're converting gravitational potential into angular momentum in the rotors, and linear motion of the chopper. When you get to the center, you can use those two flavors of momentum to propel you back up to the surface on the other side of the Earth.
I'm thinking that maybe this is what the quasar does — it goes straight through the center, and out the other side. On the way in, it converts gravitational potential, via the Lorentz force, to angular momentum, and on the way back out, it pushes itself along with the conversion of angular momentum to gravitational potential on the other side. But it doesn't round the corner in elliptical form. Its gyroscopic force won't allow the alteration of its axis of rotation, and the rotation generates a thrust that contributes to its existing linear momentum. So it follows the magnetic lines of force in a straight line, and quasars aren't in "orbits" at all — they're on a gravito-magnetic see-saw.
I'm also thinking that coming back out the other side, the quasar is closer to the galactic axis. The gravitational tug at the periapsis is trying to get the quasar to round the corner, but the magnetic forces are trying to get it to go straight through the center. Split the difference between those forces, and something on an elliptical orbit coming in winds up on the axis coming back out. (I'll do a diagram of this, if the idea survives my lunch break.)
Goldminer
Re: CC's Theory Debate
"Apoapsis," yeah, thanks. It was somewhere amongst the cobwebs. Sounds more like a disease than a place on the ellipse.
Plasma gun, gotta get me one.
Lloyd
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Charles, looks like you got a couple more new very promising insights: _galactic magnetically induced rotational velocity increase in quasars, thus inducing increased magnetic fields in the quasars too (?); _and see-saw elliptical orbiting of quasars, with two apoapses and no perisapses. Seems like they would still be elliptical orbits, but just with the foci moved to one point, one focus, in the center of the ellipse, instead of two foci. I suppose the shape of the ellipse would be a bit warped too.
Hey, are you inventing new physics with that kind of orbit? I AM more inclined to buy that unusual orbital motion than I am a new law of mass or gravity, although there seems to be plenty still not understood about the origin and nature of mass.
So, would a star, or star-forming nebula, start out normal as the first polar elliptical orbit begins, and then get transformed into a tokamak star (quasar) by the galactic magnetic field's pushing up the proto-quasar's rotational velocity? Could the stars on elliptical orbits in the Milky Way center get pushed into much higher orbits and would the orbits become aligned with the galactic axis? I'm not sure the Milky Way center is where they say it is, since it doesn't look like a large plasmoid as in other spiral galaxies. Does it? Anyway, have you figured out how quasars would initially get kicked into such high polar orbits? Did you say it could occur as a result of im/explosion cycles during the Peculiar stage of development? If so, do you have that explained a bit more thoroughly?
Your model has cascading im/explosion cycles. I wonder if the see-saw orbiting could cascade as well, getting longer each cycle. The other cascade effect we're considering is in aggregation of dust grains in ISMs, via cascading electric discharges, or similar electric effect, where the grains gain size which increases their negative charges, so they attract over greater distances etc.
CharlesChandler
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Here's the diagram that I came up with, to explore the idea that the elliptical orbit would get transformed into a straight-line cycle. Starting at the top, from the apoapsis of an existing elliptical orbit, the dashed green line shows the proposed path of an object picking up spin, and therefore coming under the influence of the galaxy's magnetic field.
Lloyd wrote: Hey, are you inventing new physics with that kind of orbit?
I don't think so — I can't really think of anything quite like it, except Birkeland currents following magnetic field lines, just that this is a star, not particles.
Lloyd wrote: So, would a star, or star-forming nebula, start out normal as the first polar elliptical orbit begins, and then get transformed into a tokamak star (quasar) by the galactic magnetic field's pushing up the proto-quasar's rotational velocity?
Yes, that's the idea at this point.
Lloyd wrote: Could the stars on elliptical orbits in the Milky Way center get pushed into much higher orbits and would the orbits become aligned with the galactic axis?
I'm thinking that there would be two basic "sweet spots" for a star to find. First, there are the majority of stars rotating around the major axis. They contribute to the galactic magnetic field, and likewise are held in place by it. But then a star could be too close to the minor axis to join the main rotation, and instead, it would fall into this see-saw motion.
It looks like the see-saw motion would eventually resolve into a perfectly linear, reciprocating oscillation, right through the center of the AGN. That, of course, would make the AGN a very violent place, if all of these reciprocating oscillations were passing through the very center — sooner or later, there's going to be a collision, and it would be a very violent one — two quasars colliding at hundreds or thousands of km/s. Hey, maybe that's what puts the "active" in a "galactic nucleus"! Rather than a "black hole" producing all of the EM radiation, which is just wrong for "black holes", maybe those are stellar collisions?
Lloyd wrote: I'm not sure the Milky Way center is where they say it is, since it doesn't look like a large plasmoid as in other spiral galaxies. Does it?
Yes, the Milky Way doesn't have an elliptical bulge like other spirals. Scientists don't really know why not.
Lloyd wrote: Anyway, have you figured out how quasars would initially get kicked into such high polar orbits?
I guess I'm just kinda thinkin' that ellipticals have a whole bunch of semi-random rotations, where the major axis dominates, but there's a little bit of everything. Stars that happened to be in highly elliptical orbits on the minor axis would become candidates for promotion to quasars.
Lloyd wrote: Did you say it could occur as a result of im/explosion cycles during the Peculiar stage of development?
Yes, I think that all galaxies start out as peculiars. The evolution into ellipticals is explained on my Galaxies page, but I haven't updated that recently, so if it was poorly explained, it still is.
Lloyd wrote: I wonder if the see-saw orbiting could cascade as well, getting longer each cycle.
I "think" that the quasar would come out of the AGN with the same amount of energy it had to start.
Goldminer
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Lloyd wrote: Charles, looks like you got a couple more new very promising insights: _galactic magnetically induced rotational velocity increase in quasars, thus inducing increased magnetic fields in the quasars too (?); _and see-saw elliptical orbiting of quasars, with two apoapses and no perisapses[sic]. Seems like they would still be elliptical orbits, but just with the foci moved to one point, one focus, in the center of the ellipse, instead of two foci. I suppose the shape of the ellipse would be a bit warped too.
As I recall, an Ellipse with one focus is a circle. What Charles is describing is more like a yoyo orbit. Look up that one! QUASARs show no sign of such motion, to my knowledge. They seem to obtain a Goldilocks position as they age, defying gravity, i.e. the new galaxy does not fall all the way back to the plasmoid, but remains at a respectable galactic distance from there, as it accepts its new position in the visible Universe.
Arp's plates show anomalous evidence which needs explanation, so there is nothing wrong with suggesting things that might work. Just be ready to abandon them when contradicting evidence shows up. Don't rub the evidence off the plate, as one of his peers did right in front of him!
nick c
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Charles Chandler wrote: I rather think that quasars are just stellar systems orbiting the AGN. The variable speed of an object in an elliptical orbit, especially with a high aspect ratio, provides a simpler explanation for the variable redshifts of quasars, depending on the proximity of the quasar to the AGN. Close to the center, the quasars will display a high intrinsic redshift, while far away, it will be low, just due to the orbital velocity.
It seems that, unless I am mistaken, your model for quasars demands that the orbiting quasar conforms to Newtonian dynamics. Is this an assumption or is there some data in support? Newtonian gravity fails on the galactic scale in other instances. For example, stars in the spiral arms do not orbit the galactic center in accordance with Newton; also, galactic morphology is in violation of Newtonian gravity - hence the need for the ad hoc addition of unobserved dark matter. Why should a quasar conform to the conventional theory of gravity when nothing else about galaxies does?
CharlesChandler
Re: CC's Theory Debate
Goldminer wrote: What Charles is describing is more like a yoyo orbit.
Yes, if "orbit" is even the right word here.
Goldminer wrote: QUASARs show no sign of such motion, to my knowledge.
I'm willing to accept that, if somehow the data demonstrate it.
Goldminer wrote: They seem to obtain a Goldilocks position as they age, defying gravity, i.e. the new galaxy does not fall all the way back to the plasmoid, but remains at a respectable galactic distance from there, as it accepts its new position in the visible Universe.
Defying gravity takes an opposing force. Perhaps this is the magnetic force, where the quasar picked up a spin, and once it made it out the other side of the galaxy, it's still spinning. The magnetic pressure from this spin would oppose gravity. So your comment isn't a refutation — it's a potential proof! And then it's not a yoyo orbit, but an elliptical orbit that got converted to a one-way linear motion that doesn't repeat — after one spinning pass through the AGN, the quasar comes to rest at far end of the line. Perhaps other quasars accumulate there, and perhaps this is how companion galaxies are formed. In other words, maybe companion galaxies are like Herbig-Haro objects, except that they're not the end of the line for plasma jets, which are bad at condensed matter, but rather, they are accumulations of stars that got an extra boost from their magnetic thrusters, and thus escaped the gravity of the parent galaxy?
Goldminer wrote: Just be ready to abandon them when contradicting evidence shows up.
Absolutely! All scientific progress is built on the rubble layer of failed attempts!
nick c wrote: It seems that, unless I am mistaken, your model for quasars demands that the orbiting quasar conforms to Newtonian dynamics. Is this an assumption or is there some data in support? Newtonian gravity fails on the galactic scale in other instances. For example, stars in the spiral arms do not orbit the galactic center in accordance with Newton; also, galactic morphology is in violation of Newtonian gravity - hence the need for the ad hoc addition of unobserved dark matter. Why should a quasar conform to the conventional theory of gravity when nothing else about galaxies does?
Newtonian mechanics isn't wrong — it's incomplete. So it always needs to be taken into account. When gravity alone fails to explain the phenomena, most people just toss the whole physics book in the garbage can, and they start inventing stuff, like CDM, or dark energy, or weight gain, or whatever. My point is that before we start inventing stuff, we should at least check to see if one or more of the other forces, such as magnetism or electricity, can help explain. Those forces need to be taken into account, just like gravity. Then, and only then, if there are still anomalies on the table, you have proof of a new force. But you have to check the known forces first, or you haven't proved anything at all. Furthermore, there might be a new undiscovered force in there somewhere, but if you don't rule out the existing forces, your conception of the "new force" might be a nonsensical blend of new and old forces. For example, maybe CDM exists. But I can demonstrate that a big part of what is currently attributed to CDM is actually just the electric force in the "like-likes-like" configuration. If you don't rule that out, you've got CDM that has EM properties, and some sort of new property, and you'll never get that unraveled. So in order to build a solid foundation for further inquiry, you have to make a thorough review of all of the known forces. It's been a long time since anybody tried this, and I think that this is why I'm finding so much low lying fruit, so to say.
IMO, Arp's demonstration that high redshift quasars are associated with low redshift elliptical galaxies is brave, brilliant, and key in understanding cosmology. But attributing the Karlsson periodicity to quantum leaps in mass was just Arp's attempt to do what he had to do to get his work accepted by the mainstream. If it doesn't break physics, the mainstream isn't going to like it. But I'm not the mainstream, so I can build on the rigorous work that he did, and somebody else can see what they can make of broken physics.
nick c
Re: CC's Theory Debate
CC wrote: Then, and only then, if there are still anomalies on the table, you have proof of a new force.
I don't think there is any need to conjure up a "new" force to explain galactic motion and morphology. It's just that assuming that gravity is the dominant force has created the necessity for some absurd ad hoc suppositions. Once it is understood that we are dealing with plasmas (with EM forces, double layers, etc.) that are capable of reducing the puny force of gravity to insignificance, we can understand Alfven's statement (and I paraphrase): gravitational systems are the ashes of past electrical systems. My point being that I see no reason to assume that quasars orbit a galaxy governed by Newtonian mechanics, when everything else about galaxies is observed to not conform to Newtonian dynamics. And the supposed clockwork regularity which we observe locally (our solar system) does not seem to be in effect at the galactic scale.
But I need to see the data, not just a verbal statement by someone acknowledging the proximity to the minor axis, but not considering a high-aspect-ratio elliptical orbit.
Goldminer wrote:Here you have to distinguish between data & theory, and this goes for how you interpret what I'm saying, as well as Arp's work. Arp's interpretation of the Karlsson periodicity is that it isn't velocity related, but rather, evidence of elementary particles gaining mass in quantum leaps. And roughly equal quantities of quasars moving away from the AGN along the minor axis said to Arp that quasars are formed in a fissioning event that splits a larger object into two smaller ones, each going in opposite directions. I have a different interpretation of the same data that doesn't require rewriting the physics textbooks, starting in the freshman year. The positive & negative intrinsic redshifts indicate to me that the quasars are moving away from the AGN, at the same speed if they're at the same distance from the AGN, which would make sense if they're both in highly elliptical orbits, and need to be maintaining similar speeds if they're not going to fall into the AGN. Roughly equal numbers going in both directions might just be evidence of a large population of stars, in which a certain number of them are quasars, half of them on one side of the minor axis, and the other half on the other side. And I'm attributing the radiation from quasars to charge recombination in their bipolar jets, where the Karlsson periodicity comes from the quantization of degrees of ionization. At present, all I have is a concept sketch, which will require a lot more work to assimilate all of the data. But I haven't found the fatal flaw yet.), and now I'm thinking that if I'm right about the field-aligned elliptical orbit, I'm wrong that it will remain elliptical. I'm saying that as the quasar is gravitationally attracted to the AGN, its movement within the galaxy's magnetic field induces rotation. Well, let's consider the implications of that. Suppose that the faster and faster the quasar is falling toward the AGN, the faster and faster it rotates. OK, so what happens at the periapsis? All other factors being the same, the object would have rounded the corner, and dutifully followed an elliptical path back out. But I just got done saying that its motion in the galactic magnetic field induces rotation. Well, if its motion toward the periapsis developed a huge amount of angular momentum that agreed with the magnetic field, then if it rounds the corner and heads back out, all of that angular momentum now disagrees with that same magnetic field, because now the quasar's translational vector is in the opposite direction. So what's going to happen?
