Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Sparky » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:09 am

Back to the sun... ;)

Charles,
You may have explained it and I forgot, but how do you explain a supernova? I've seen it explained as more energy released than what was there to begin with... :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:25 pm

Lloyd wrote:So what do you think, Charles, does Tassos seem to have it right, or do you think your additional ideas may improve his theory?
Very interesting article! I wasn't able to get all of the way through it before becoming completely over-saturated, and I can't honestly say that I fully understood all of it. But it certainly sounds like he has clearly identified the problems with the existing models. His points about the heavily fractured crust not being able to build up the elastic pressure necessary for earthquakes sounded pretty convincing to me. But the whole "iron expansion" thing was underdeveloped. I guess he was basically saying that the Universe is expanding, so the Earth is expanding, and therefore, iron from inside the Earth expands outward, and the electrons shoot ahead into micro-fractures, and resonate, creating the EM pressure for earthquakes.

Without pretending to understand that, I can offer up some conjecture on where the two ideas might overlap. I did a quick search and found a number of references to earthquakes being statistically related to lunar cycles, where quakes are more likely when the Moon is closest to the Earth, and even more likely when the Moon and the Sun are in line, so their gravitational forces combine. So the triggering mechanism is an uplift. My idea was that the uplift would reduce the compressive ionization, allowing charge recombination, and thus the release of heat. Tassos is talking about electrons flowing through micro-fractures. Put the two ideas together, and you get a tidal uplift allowing charge recombination, where the electrons flow easily through micro-fractures, but as they do, they'll generate heat, turning the micro-fractures into plasma discharge channels. On a large enough scale, the combined hydrostatic pressure from all of these discharges could be the source of the energy released in the quake.

But then why would this be an episodic thing? Tassos' proposed mechanism (i.e., an expanding Earth) is running at a steady rate all of the time. Mine kicks in twice a day. So what makes earthquakes so rare? Perhaps Tassos was too quick is dismissing plate tectonics. Perhaps he was right, that a fractured crust doesn't have the elasticity for a catastrophic energy release. But perhaps plate tectonics creates the fracturing that creates the micro-channels that provide the pathways for electric currents (due to compressive ionization and charge recombination). So perhaps it's a combination of factors.
Sparky wrote:How do you explain a supernova?
The quick answer is, "I don't." :D This is not something that I have studied in depth. Maybe one day I will. But it's possible that a supernova has nothing to do with the stellar life cycle -- it might be caused by a collision with another star, or with a large planet. One of these days I'll try to see if anybody has estimated the rate at which stellar collisions occur, compared to the frequency of supernovae.

Another possibility is that a star still gaining mass might develop the pressure necessary for nuclear fusion in its core. My calcs show that the Sun isn't massive enough for this, but a star 2~3 times bigger might. With the plasma confined simply by the inertial forces of the overlying plasma, it's theoretically possible that a runaway thermonuclear explosion could occur. But I think I agree with Thornhill that the explosion would have to start at the very center of the star for the explosion to get back-loaded perfectly, resulting in a large-scale explosion. For the explosion to start right in the center, the star would have to be in a perfectly quiescent state before the explosion, or the explosion would have started wherever there was a random peak in pressure, which wouldn't likely be perfectly in the center. The Sun certainly isn't quiet enough for that.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Sat Nov 10, 2012 5:45 pm

BTW, the same mechanism (charge recombination after compressive ionization) might also help explain the explosive nature of certain types of volcanoes. Part of it has to do with gases trapped in the magma that can expand greatly when they get the chance. But another interesting thing about lava is that it's electrically charged. This is typically attributed to triboelectric charging in the magma vents, but what if it's also compressive ionization? When the caldera opens up, the pressure is relaxed. And then there's this huge secondary explosion. Perhaps the reduced pressure allowed charge recombination deeper in the magma chamber, and the secondary explosion was caused by all of the additional heat from the current flowing into the magma. If it was all just hydrostatic pressure from the gases trapped in the magma, there wouldn't be the erratic eruptions for which volcanoes are so famous. In other words, you could expect a sort of "mentos in the diet coke" effect as soon as the lid blows. But you wouldn't expect a little bit of an eruption, and then nothing for a day or two, and then a catastrophic eruption. This means to me that there is a secondary process, triggered by the primary eruption. Charge recombination deep in the magma chamber would certainly have these characteristics.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:29 pm

Moon Effect
Charles: I did a quick search and found a number of references to earthquakes being statistically related to lunar cycles, where quakes are more likely when the Moon is closest to the Earth, and even more likely when the Moon and the Sun are in line, so their gravitational forces combine.
I haven't read James McCanney for a few years, but he was saying that the reason earthquakes occur at the new moon is that the Moon temporarily blocks the solar wind, I think, and when Earth is no longer in its shadow or wake, the renewed wind exerts enough force to produce quakes. He also said that when planets are aligned, the electric current moves through the planets and the Sun with less resistance, which also has effects on the planets.

Plate Tectonics
Charles: But then why would this be an episodic thing? Tassos' proposed mechanism (i.e., an expanding Earth) is running at a steady rate all of the time. Mine kicks in twice a day. So what makes earthquakes so rare? Perhaps Tassos was too quick is dismissing plate tectonics. Perhaps he was right, that a fractured crust doesn't have the elasticity for a catastrophic energy release. But perhaps plate tectonics creates the fracturing that creates the micro-channels that provide the pathways for electric currents (due to compressive ionization and charge recombination). So perhaps it's a combination of factors.
I haven't read anything myself that seems persuasive about expansion of planets or of the universe and I think continental drift was a rapid, catastrophic event a few thousand years ago, like http://newgeology.us contends, but there does seem to be still significant enough tectonic activity to produce quakes. But the tectonic activity seems to have a number of possible causes too, including McCanney's ideas.

I didn't remember Tassos discussing Earth expansion, but I remember his mention of iron plasma or something acting within microfractures. I thought he also said earthquakes occur much deeper than generally admitted. Actually, I guess I got that mixed up with another theory. It's a hollow Earth theory at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierr ... ueca_9.htm. Remember that Brant considers the Sun to be possibly hollow and I think the reason is the shadow of the core on the side of the Sun away from p- or s-wave generation. You used the same reasoning to say that the core is solid, but a hollow core may be possible too, although it would screw up your model. But, if you get time, see what you think of the diagrams in the above link for Jan Lamprecht's theory. They show p-waves, I guess, and the shadow effect on the Earth from the hollow or solid center. But I haven't tried to reread it yet to see how strong a case he may make for hollow.

Fizzy Volcanoes
Charles: BTW, the same mechanism (charge recombination after compressive ionization) might also help explain the explosive nature of certain types of volcanoes.
You still sound like an authority to me, even though you say you're too ignorant to do more than lurk. What you really means is you don't have time for anything but lurking in much of the forum. Now how deep are those fizzies again? And what elements are they made of in the Earth? And are they molecular or atomic?

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:24 am

Lloyd wrote:Now how deep are those fizzies again? And what elements are they made of in the Earth? And are they molecular or atomic?
What I mean is that this whole thing about compressive ionization, as applied to earthquakes and volcanoes, is a brand-new idea, so I don't have "answers", but only epiphanies. ;)

It's interesting to note that while conventional wisdom has earthquakes caused by tectonic plate conflicts, which are just in the lithosphere (?), which is less than 200 km deep, Tassos is saying that earthquakes go as deep as 700 km. [Tassos, pg. 73] Searching for a cause at such a depth takes him out of the brittle crust, and into the plastic mantle. While I find his dismissal of elastic rebound in the crust to be convincing, I didn't get a good sense of how a catastrophic release of elastic force could come from the mantle. So I'm wondering where the compressive ionization threshold would occur. My earlier epiphany was that it was at the Moho layer, at a depth of 5~90 km below the surface. But the Moho is deeper under the continents than under the oceans. The compressive ionization threshold would occur higher under the greater mass of the continents. So something isn't right about that. Perhaps the Moho is just the transition between the solid, brittle crust and the hotter, more plastic substrate. Tassos says that earthquakes are the consequence of EM pressure in the micro-fractures. My interpretation is that these are superheated discharge channels, with currents motivated by a release of pressure below, which enables charge recombination. So the earthquake occurs above the ionization threshold.

To take it the next step, we could envision an entire process that results is a complex combination of shock waves. Tidal uplift enables charge recombination at the depth of the compressive ionization threshold. (How deep is that?) This produces heat, and the pressure pushes up on the overlying rock from below, while tidal forces are pulling up from above. Fractures in the uplifted rock allow the passage of the electric current with much less resistance, which greatly increases the current density. The greater current increases the temperature in the discharge channels. With no outlet, the pressure in these channels can become incredible. Now the rock has a force trying to blow it apart, in addition to the uplift, from below and above. This would be the runaway reaction that produces an instantaneous increase in pressure, resulting in the initial quake. But the process is unstable. The increased pressure in that shock wave closes the discharge channels, cutting off the current, and re-ionizing the rock. Then the low-pressure trough of that wave re-opens the channels, and re-enables charge recombination. This sets up an oscillation that produces a series of waves. Tassos notes that lithospheric rock is bad at oscillating. Scientists attempted to create such oscillations by detonating a nuclear bomb underground. [Tassos, pg. 57] All they got was one shock front, but no wave train. Hence the rock doesn't have the elasticity for reverberations. To get this effect, we need to look for instabilities, where the process has positive and negative feedback loops that compete, with an unsteady power output. If the high-pressure side of the wave ionizes the rock, but closes the discharge channels, and if the low-pressure side enables charge recombination and the resultant release of heat, which causes pressure, this might constitute the right kind of competing forces that would oscillate.

Volcanoes would be an even more complex process. Magma forcing itself up through the lithosphere will create little seismic events as the overlying rock gets fractured. This creates the possibility of electric currents. But until the lid is blown, the pressure in the magma chamber remains high, so the compressive ionization is maintained. Then the magma breaches the surface. Pressure is reduced, which enables charge recombination. Electric currents flow through the micro-fractures, heating and weakening the rock. Charge recombination in the magma chamber generates more heat, which increases the pressure. Now there's more pressure, and the rock is weaker, which could result in the catastrophic failure of the rock, and an explosive eruption. Then again, it might just create another minor eruption, setting the stage for the main event by further weakening the rock. Hence the capricious nature of tremors, quakes, and major/minor eruptions can only be evidence of some sort of complex process that sputters. It cannot possibly be simple hydrostatic pressure, which would build steadily, and then erupt only once.

In either case, the telltale sign of an impending event would be a huge electric flux. Does anybody have stats on changes in electric fields just before earthquakes and/or volcanic eruptions? If all of this conjecture is correct, this might give people a minute or two to react. That's not enough time to evacuate the area, but it is enough time to get out of buildings that might collapse (if it's an earthquake) or get inside buildings so as to not get hit on the head by ejecta (if it's a volcano).

All of this is pure conjecture. You guys know more about this than me. Is any of this making sense?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:41 am

Experts
Your reasoning, as much as I can follow, makes sense to me, as usual, but an expert to ask might be Web (Webolife). He has a considerable background in geology. Kim is another expert.

Electric Prediction of Quakes or Eruptions
Charles: Does anybody have stats on changes in electric fields just before earthquakes and/or volcanic eruptions?
Skimming through this paper, Micro Cracks Associated with the Great Tohoku Earthquake, at
http://www.emsev-iugg.org/2012program/s ... /1-10p.pdf, I see that there seems to have been electrical activity about 4 days before the quake. Wikipedia discusses this a little at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_prediction. There are a bunch of references papers listed here: http://seismonet.org/page.html?id_node=168. This paper discusses related issues: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijgp/2012/270809/. That's as far as I searched so far.

Tornadic Star & Planet Formation
The Hollow Planets online book is fairly interesting at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierr ... %20HISTORY by Jan Lamprecht (from HollowPlanets Website).
Contents
PART I – HOLLOW PLANET BASICS
CHAPTER 1 – Hollow Planet History
CHAPTER 2 – Newtonian Gravity Revisited
CHAPTER 3 – Seismology and Geology
PART II – THE INNER PLANETS
CHAPTER 4 – The Cold Winds of Mercury
CHAPTER 5 – Luminous Venus
CHAPTER 6 – Cusps, Horns, Notches and Collars
CHAPTER 7 – The Shape Shifting Planet
PART III – THE EARTH
CHAPTER 8 – Doubting the Dynamo
CHAPTER 9 – The Inner Sun
CHAPTER 10 – The Aurora
CHAPTER 11 – Underground Radio Waves
CHAPTER 12 – Strange Meteorology
PART IV – POLAR MYSTERIES
CHAPTER 13 – Gigantic Polar Holes
CHAPTER 14 – Religion and Legends
CHAPTER 15 – The Mysterious Arctic
CHAPTER 16 – The Missing Continent
CHAPTER 17 – The Hole Through The earth
In Chapter 1 it discusses the fact that large planets rotate faster than small ones and suggests that the reason is they form by tornadic motion and forces. Larger tornadoes rotate faster (?) and, if stars and planets form that way, they develop hollow interiors. Since normal tornadoes involve electrical forces, and since your and the other Electric Sun models do too, it seems that it would not be impossible that cosmic bodies could be formed tornadically with hollow interiors. Chapter 1 and 2 are short, so, if you get a chance, I suggest you read them and see if you think there could be anything to that. Chapter 2 questions conventional calculation and effects of gravity, similar to the way Brant does. If you can find a fatal flaw in that, I think it would be worthwhile to find it. And, if not, it could be very significant for your model. Is it possible for your tokamak to be compatible with tornadic motion? Offhand, they seem to be opposites, since the first makes matter dense and the second makes it sparse at the center.

Did Tassos also mention that earthquakes occur as keep as 700 km? That’s what Lamprecht said too and he had a good histogram for that. If you read Chapters 1 and 2, you should compare it with his article, Hollow Planet Seismology Vs Solid Earth Seismology at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierr ... ueca_9.htm. And tell us what you think about it.

Maol
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Maol » Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:35 pm

To further illustrate the potential of the Sun’s electric phenomena to influence piezoelectric behavior of planetary bodies, consider the information in this post.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 131#p49131

Observe that the gust of mass/energy density, bow shock, however you choose to describe it, of a large CME, struck the Earth at precisely the moment - at the very minute - of the magnitude 9 earthquake on 3/10/11 in Japan.

This link http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/fig350.png is to a one-hour snip of data from the Proton Monitor on the SOHO satellite, centered on the time of the earthquake.

Then, to add another twist to this:---=> Supercritical fluids are employed in industrial processes to dissolve and form crystalline materials by precipitation. Interesting possibilities are suggested when that is scaled up to the size of planets and stars.

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:57 pm

Lloyd wrote:Webolife has a considerable background in geology. Kim is another expert.
I don't know who Kim is, but I'll PM Webolife after doing a little background research, just so I can explain what we're doing here, unless you beat me to it. :) But yes, let's definitely bring in the experts! I'm still going through Tassos' references, but the "Micro Cracks Associated with the Great Tohoku Earthquake" paper is an excellent resource! We're not alone in this. I think we should pursue this line of reasoning, as we might be striking while the iron is quite hot, as they say. The magnitude of the devastation in Japan is the kind of thing that can cut through all kinds of political red tape, and loads of progress can be made in times like these. So it looks like there are many people, including professional scientists, who are not scared to consider electromagnetism as an important factor in geological processes. But it doesn't look like they have the conceptual framework for understanding why there are E-field changes associated with seismic events. This means that they're just guessing at how to interpret the data. If we're onto something here, we could help.
Lloyd wrote:Is it possible for your tokamak to be compatible with tornadic motion? Offhand, they seem to be opposites, since the first makes matter dense and the second makes it sparse at the center.
Yes, tornadoes are a type of vacuum vortex, which gets its energy from a low pressure aloft. The low pressure wouldn't be significant if it were not for the ambient atmospheric pressure. So the pressure gradient supplies the energy for the flow. Out in space, it's all a vacuum, so there isn't any pressure gradient, and hence, no vortexes. So if the "natural tokamak" thing is correct, it's magnetic confinement due to relativistic velocities of charged particles, and fundamentally different from vacuum vortexes.

As concerns "hollow planet" theories, I'm not sure that I fully understand them. Lamprecht is correct that centrifugal force increases with distance from the center, assuming solid body rotation, meaning that the tangential velocity is greater. He's also correct that gravity increases with distance from the center, out to the edge of the planet. And he's right that this might initially form a ring-like structure, or a planet with "open poles" as he calls it. But how do the poles get closed into a sphere with a hollow center?
Maol wrote:This link http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/fig350.png is to a one-hour snip of data from the Proton Monitor on the SOHO satellite, centered on the time of the earthquake.
Somebody should do the math to figure out exactly how far away SOHO was from the Earth, to see how long the proton storm would have taken to get to Earth. According to the Interplanetary Shocks page, it left the Sun at 2011-03-07 19:43 UTC, and hit SOHO 58 hours later, at 2011-03-10 05:45 UTC. The earthquake occurred at 2011-03-11 05:46 UTC, which was 24 hours later almost to the minute. So if somebody feels like calculating the speed, and finding out the SOHO-to-Earth distance, we could see what kind of correlation this actually is. Also, if it happened once, it should have happened again. So there might be other quakes that correlate, even though we don't have proton storm data going back that far.
Maol wrote:Supercritical fluids are employed in industrial processes to dissolve and form crystalline materials by precipitation. Interesting possibilities are suggested when that is scaled up to the size of planets and stars.
Yes, a supercritical fluid under fluctuating pressures would be an excellent crystal-building environment. I couldn't keep up with the "deep hydrocarbons" thread, but there could certainly be a lot of fancy things going on under our feet. :)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:38 am

Experts
Charles, you can contact Kim via this post: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 840#p60018. She may not respond to a PM, since she probably doesn't come to the forum much, if at all any more, but you can email her via that post too. Web's easier to find, since he posts on this forum frequently, but to make it even easier, you can contact him via this post: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 165#p72771.
- I'm glad you found the "... Tohoku Earthquake" paper helpful. I couldn't tell how informative it was just from skimming through it a bit and looking at some of the diagrams. It just looked a bit promising.
You said: it doesn't look like they [geologists] have the conceptual framework for understanding why there are E-field changes associated with seismic events.
Maybe geologists are more mechanically minded than physicists, so maybe, if they were to read your model of star and planet formation, many of them would see the logic of it and would then develop the needed conceptual framework for understanding the E-fields. Web and Kim should be your guinea pigs.

Tornadic Star Formation
tornadoes are a type of vacuum vortex, which gets its energy from a low pressure aloft. The low pressure wouldn't be significant if it were not for the ambient atmospheric pressure. So the pressure gradient supplies the energy for the flow. Out in space, it's all a vacuum, so there isn't any pressure gradient, and hence, no vortexes. So if the "natural tokamak" thing is correct, it's magnetic confinement due to relativistic velocities of charged particles, and fundamentally different from vacuum vortexes.
How sure are you that tornadoes cannot form in the "vacuum" of space? How thin does air or gases have to be before they are incapable of hosting tornadoes? The atmosphere of Mars is said to be less than 1% as dense as Earth's and yet huge dust devils form there I think as much as 5 miles tall; sometimes numerous such dust devils form in a line and move across the surface, shrouding much of the planet in dust. Would not a nebula in space be capable of becoming as dense as Mars' atmosphere?
- And how do planets and stars get their rotational motions? Would your tokamak model tend to produce rotation? I don't recall offhand if you addressed that on your site, but I imagine you well may have. Anyway, would not tornadoes be capable of forming at some stage in your model? Might there be a tendency for them to form at a stage before the tokamak is formed, or even at some point within or near the tokamak? Does your tokamak form only toward the center of a nebula, or would the entire nebula become a tokamak?
- (I'm not convinced that a tokamak would be incompatible with a plasma gun either, since at least some stars (and planets?), called run-away stars, and maybe all quasars, appear to be shot out of something.)
As concerns "hollow planet" theories, I'm not sure that I fully understand them.
Assuming that at least one such theory is sound, you probably will understand, if you keep reading and thinking.
- I'm surprised that you say Lamprecht is ... correct that gravity increases with distance from the center, out to the edge of the planet.
Doesn't conventional gravity theory say gravity increases toward the center of a body? Okay, if Wikipedia states conventional theory, it shows on this graph http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tyPREM.jpg that gravity is zero at the center, increases to the maximum strength at half the radius, then tapers off just a little up to the surface, then decreases by almost 90% by 1 radius above the surface and continues to decline gradually above that height.

How Polar Openings Close?
And he's right that this might initially form a ring-like structure, or a planet with "open poles" as he calls it. But how do the poles get closed into a sphere with a hollow center?
Do you consider bead lightning and or ball lightning to be plasmoids? If so, do you have a well-developed theory about how they form in or near lightning? I've read a little about Marklund convection, which seems to apply to lightning, although I'm not certain that it does. My impression is that the helical motion of charges around the lightning channel would cause the beads or balls that form to rotate, starting as cylindrical shapes, but then becoming spheres, maybe at points along the channel where there are bends or restrictions.
- Fred Jueneman got the idea from Peratt that the Earth in its journey through the galaxy, trailing behind former dwarf star Saturn, was squeezed in a magnetic pinch, making the Earth prolate or oval. When the magnetic pinch relaxed, gravity changed the shape to spherical, which produced the appearance of continental drift. So, if Earth originally formed tornadically, as a cylindrical plasmoid, then was magnetically morphed into an oval, then gravitationally into a sphere, all of those forms seem to be a plausible evolutionary order.
- As an aside, Lamprecht argues in some of his chapters that the polar openings sometimes or always remain open, although rather small, I think. He suggests that North American weather sometimes is greatly modified by air currents from within the north polar opening near Alaska, causing unexpected storms out of nowhere. I don't know where he thinks the opening could be, but he thinks the breathing of Venus' atmosphere is also due to air currents from its polar openings. I only skimmed through those chapters, so I don't know how well he supports that idea. But I don't consider it very plausible so far. On the other hand, the hollow core aspect of the theory seems more plausible.

Maol
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Maol » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:07 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
Maol wrote:This link http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/fig350.png is to a one-hour snip of data from the Proton Monitor on the SOHO satellite, centered on the time of the earthquake.
Somebody should do the math to figure out exactly how far away SOHO was from the Earth, to see how long the proton storm would have taken to get to Earth. According to the Interplanetary Shocks page, it left the Sun at 2011-03-07 19:43 UTC, and hit SOHO 58 hours later, at 2011-03-10 05:45 UTC. The earthquake occurred at 2011-03-11 05:46 UTC, which was 24 hours later almost to the minute. So if somebody feels like calculating the speed, and finding out the SOHO-to-Earth distance, we could see what kind of correlation this actually is. Also, if it happened once, it should have happened again. So there might be other quakes that correlate, even though we don't have proton storm data going back that far.
The SOHO is at the L-1 Lagrange point with several other satellites. L-1 is about 1,500,000 km from Earth.

I think the apparent 24 hr. difference in date in the SOHO data is because it was still the 10th here in the US when the quake occurred. 24 hours to the second is not likely just an amazing coincidence.

Maol
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Maol » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:34 pm

Lloyd wrote:- As an aside, Lamprecht argues in some of his chapters that the polar openings sometimes or always remain open, although rather small, I think. He suggests that North American weather sometimes is greatly modified by air currents from within the north polar opening near Alaska, causing unexpected storms out of nowhere. I don't know where he thinks the opening could be, but he thinks the breathing of Venus' atmosphere is also due to air currents from its polar openings. I only skimmed through those chapters, so I don't know how well he supports that idea. But I don't consider it very plausible so far. On the other hand, the hollow core aspect of the theory seems more plausible.
The “polar openings” in Earth's magnetic field are where the mass from the CME’s and the solar wind enters the atmosphere. The protons, electrons and oxygen nuclei combine forming H2O when they de-ionize as they cool after being caught in the magnetosphere in the shadow of the planet. If the sun didn’t replace the water the solar wind blows away, and this planet wasn’t in the “Goldilocks Orbit” so water can exist in the liquid state, Earth would be as dry as Mars.

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:14 pm

Lloyd wrote:How sure are you that tornadoes cannot form in the "vacuum" of space? How thin does air or gases have to be before they are incapable of hosting tornadoes? The atmosphere of Mars is said to be less than 1% as dense as Earth's and yet huge dust devils form there I think as much as 5 miles tall; sometimes numerous such dust devils form in a line and move across the surface, shrouding much of the planet in dust.
Suction vortexes are evidence of a pressure deficit. In a pure vacuum, there isn't any way of getting the pressure any lower. :) As concerns Martian dust devils, that's an interesting observation, and yet another one of those things that isn't mentioned much in the literature, because there isn't an existing explanation. Indeed, how that much mechanical work is done, in such a thin atmosphere, is an interesting question. In my paper on tornadoes, I maintain that this can only be evidence of a photo-ionized surface, where the electrons that escaped were captured by CO2 molecules, which then create a dense double-layer clinging to the surface. The energy that drives the dust devil is then regular hydrostatic pressure, plus thermal energy that builds up from the CO2 being close to the surface. But the CO2 can only break away from the surface if it mixes with positively charged dust from the surface, which effectively neutralizes the charge. The flashes that we see at the base of such dust devils are from charge recombination, between the negative CO2 and the positive dust. So unlike a standard suction vortex, the energy source isn't at the top of the vortex, where a low pressure motivates the flow field, but rather, it's at the base of the vortex, and there is no "top" -- the vortex randomizes above the surface. Tornadoes have a similar energy conversion at the surface, where charged air is clinging to an induced opposite charge in the Earth, and lofted dust and/or an electric current inside the vortex neutralizes the charge, allowing the air to break away from the surface. But tornadoes usually also have a low pressure aloft. So they are a cross between a standard vacuum vortex and a dust devil.
Lloyd wrote:Would not a nebula in space be capable of becoming as dense as Mars' atmosphere?
I'm not sure about the density of a nebula. I'm just looking for the energy sources and conversions, and wondering what's gonna happen next. ;)
Lloyd wrote:And how do planets and stars get their rotational motions?
Good question. I know of two possible answers.

First, if there is an external magnetic field, a radial inflow will get an induced rotation due to the Lorentz force. In other words, if our Sun condensed from a dusty plasma, it did so in the presence of the Milky Way's magnetic field, which runs parallel to the spiral arms. For this reason, everything in our solar system rotates on an axis that is less than 30 degrees from being parallel to the spiral arm. Similarly, the axes of planetary nebulae are aligned with the external magnetic field. So the first answer is the Lorentz force.

Second, we have to answer for why there was rotation, before there was rotation to generate external magnetic fields. :) For this I looked at the magnetic forces just in the radial inflow. With everything converging straight toward the center, there will be magnetic pressure between the lines of convergence, because they are not parallel. If the implosion falls into a spiral, the magnetic pressure is relaxed. Here's the image, that (sorta) shows the clash of magnetic fields:

Spiral Induction

I actually think that this would be a weak force, where the inertial forces of the matter would be far greater. So I'm thinking that it would take several or many implosion cycles for the angular momentum to build up. But I think that this is the origin of all rotation in the Universe. I'm convinced that in The Beginning, there were nothing but peculiar galaxies. If these imploded, the explosion would be just about as random as the stuff was before the implosion. But a little bit of angular momentum would have been imparted, due to magnetic conflicts, and this momentum would be preserved through the explosion. So the next implosion would begin with just a little rotation. I'm not going to guess how many times this would have to happen, for a peculiar to get organized into an elliptical galaxy, and then ultimately into a spiral galaxy. I "think" that if the galaxy ages are anywhere near correct, 13.7 billion years is nowhere near enough time. 72% of all galaxies are spirals, wherein almost all of the motion has been converted to angular momentum. And these are thought to be at least 5 billion years old. If it took 3 implosion/explosion cycles, that would be 15 billion years, and I think it would take many more than 3 cycles. So something isn't right. (Some would say that there isn't anything that isn't wrong about standard cosmological chronologies, but anyway...)

So once you get the galaxies rotating, and generating external magnetic fields, smaller-scale rotations (planetary nebulae, our solar system, etc.) are induced by the Lorentz force.
Lloyd wrote:Does your tokamak form only toward the center of a nebula, or would the entire nebula become a tokamak?
The "tokamak" part of the whole system is just the toroidal plasmoid at the very center, where relativistic circular speeds are accomplishing magnetic confinement, and nuclear fusion. The accretion disc is the fuel supply feeding in along the equator, and the bipolar jets are the exhaust.
Lloyd wrote:Wikipedia states [...] that gravity is zero at the center, increases to the maximum strength at half the radius, then tapers off just a little up to the surface, then decreases by almost 90% by 1 radius above the surface and continues to decline gradually above that height.
Oops, I said that gravity increases all of the way out to the edge, and then starts falling off. Thanks for the clarification.
Lloyd wrote:Do you consider bead lightning and or ball lightning to be plasmoids?
I don't know about ball lightning.

As concerns bead lightning, one theory is that the "beads" are merely brightenings that correspond to the stepped leaders which advanced the discharge channel. At the ends of the existing channel, relativistic electrons slam into STP air. The high-energy collisions produce x-rays, gamma rays, and free neutrons, which suggest that the initial collisions are energetic enough for nuclear fusion. The stepped leaders are actually something like 100 meters long, so the electrons still have enough energy, even after the initial collisions, to extend the arc discharge 100 meters. The next surge of electrons zips through all of that, and then slams into the STP air at the end of the new channel, extending it another 100 meters. It's possible that the "beads" are just hotter temperatures at the beginning of each stepped leader. I don't have anything to contribute to that.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by webolife » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:38 pm

Thank you for inviting me to this topic :)
However an "expert" is a drip under pressure which has finally been silenced... :lol: :roll:

Piezoelectricity in earthquake formation has long been an interest of mine. Lab experiments show a significant amount of pressure generated charge in granitic type materials... Even before these experiments were done I was pointing to piezoelectricity as causative of telluric currents, and have been trying to find data that would correlate telluric measurements with earthwquake zones. This is not an area that has received much attention relative to earthquake prediction in past decades, so I'm hoping to see more information coming out of this new study. As for a source of the pressure changes, I think the barycenter is a good place to begin investigation. As anyone knows who has read any of my posts, I believe that all systems are acted upon by a unified pressure field working at all scales. The barycenter, while some might think it is a mathematic contrivance, is the focus of the universal centropic pressure in our planetary neighborhood. The fact that it rotates through the outer core/mantle region roughly every 24 hours suggests a constant source of instability which episodically may lead to critical buildups of pressure which contribute to seismic release and vulcanism. In addition the earth's revolution through the solar electric field adds an additional pressure changing/ionizing agent. This seems very plausible to me. Though I am not well versed in the solar/stellar aspects of piezoelectricity, the unification of the two aspects has great appeal to me.

I will be studying up more on this and try to post more over time.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:47 am

Hi Web. Glad to have you join the discussion.

Where we took a detour from discussing the electric Sun model to the electric Earth model was at this post a couple pages back, http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =45#p72575, where I said the Sun seems to be a storage battery and I asked Charles if there might be a way to make such a battery at our scale that would be usable. And his reply made it sound like the Earth may be a similar battery. So we started discussing Charles' electric Earth model. So I hope you can have a look at the discussion from that post till now and let us know what you can add to hopefully help complete the model.

By the way, Charles, getting back to tornadic activity in your initial nebula, do you contend that there would be none of that at all at any point within the nebula? Or, even if there were tornadic activity there somewhere, do you contend that such activity would be incapable of forming plasmoids into hollow spheres? And how do you think geodes form? Have you seen any of the TPODs on geodes, concretions etc? They of course always say everything is formed by electrical forces. Do you contend that lightning is non-tornadic?

Maol
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

Unread post by Maol » Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:16 pm

webolife wrote:Thank you for inviting me to this topic :)
However an "expert" is a drip under pressure which has finally been silenced... :lol: :roll:

Piezoelectricity in earthquake formation has long been an interest of mine. Lab experiments show a significant amount of pressure generated charge in granitic type materials... Even before these experiments were done I was pointing to piezoelectricity as causative of telluric currents, and have been trying to find data that would correlate telluric measurements with earthwquake zones. This is not an area that has received much attention relative to earthquake prediction in past decades, so I'm hoping to see more information coming out of this new study. As for a source of the pressure changes, I think the barycenter is a good place to begin investigation. As anyone knows who has read any of my posts, I believe that all systems are acted upon by a unified pressure field working at all scales. The barycenter, while some might think it is a mathematic contrivance, is the focus of the universal centropic pressure in our planetary neighborhood. The fact that it rotates through the outer core/mantle region roughly every 24 hours suggests a constant source of instability which episodically may lead to critical buildups of pressure which contribute to seismic release and vulcanism. In addition the earth's revolution through the solar electric field adds an additional pressure changing/ionizing agent. This seems very plausible to me. Though I am not well versed in the solar/stellar aspects of piezoelectricity, the unification of the two aspects has great appeal to me.

I will be studying up more on this and try to post more over time.
To me, it seems obvious that the action of piezoelectric materials to respond to external electrical oscillation with mechanical oscillation, in addition to similar behavior in ferromagnetic materials in response to external magnetic oscillation (magnetostriction), that a planet sized body will respond to solar EM oscillations by acting as a very large transducer, like a transducer in an ultrasonic cleaner or a piezo tweeter in an audio system, the frequencies and amplitudes relative to the size of the Sun-Earth system and characteristics of the EM forces involved.

It’s easy enough to extrapolate from this that a sudden jolt of solar EM forces on a planet could excite expansion and contraction of all or some portion of the body and be the tipping point resulting in an earthquake.

Phenomena such as the Taos hum could a harmonic of piezoelectric or magnetostriction activity in the local basalt.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests