Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

[CharlesChandler]

I didn't notice you mention anything about quasars accreting matter and growing into galaxies until now.

I don't think that quasars (or BL Lacs) grow into galaxies. I think that they are exotic stars, in the same category as black holes, pulsars, and white dwarfs.

My understanding of this is that when scientists first observed quasars, they naively misinterpreted the power output as being greater than that of a typical giant galaxy (because they didn't consider that the energy was mostly in a tight beam, and they assumed that all of the recessional velocity was from the Big Bang, where redshift = distance). So they called them quasi-stellar objects, with the properties of a star, but at a scale that exceeds all of the limits of stellar theory. Better telescopes revealed smaller stars clustered around the quasars, forming elliptical galaxies. So the quasars got demoted to "active galactic nuclei". Then Arp said that he had found quasars associated with ellipticals (despite the redshift differences), but the quasars were not in the centers of the ellipticals. If we let quasars retain their galactic status, then if they are not in the centers of ellipticals, they must be proto-galaxies. The mainstream still considers quasars to be pretty much synonymous with AGNs, while Arp et al. call them proto-galaxies. But I'm further demoting quasars, all of the way down to just individual stars. If there are other stars in the vicinity, that doesn't mean that they came out of the quasar, or even that the quasar scavenged them from the intergalactic medium. It just means that other stars condensed in the general vicinity, for roughly the same reasons, but perhaps on a smaller scale.

Your idea that quasars are tokamak stars on highly elliptical orbits around ellipsoid AGNs seems to make some sense, but I wouldn't think that an orbit could extend 2 million lightyears away. Do you think so?

I dunno.

By the way, if you're right about other stars being on elliptical orbits too, why couldn't the quasars collect them into galaxies?

A large electrostatic/gravitational source, such as a quasar, could pull in stuff from its surroundings, some of which could contribute to the size of the quasar itself, while other stuff could persist in orbit around the quasar, forming a stellar cluster. But going from a stellar cluster to a galaxy will take a long time!

You don't seem to have accounted yet for the fact that quasars tend to exist in pairs on opposite sides of central galaxies and the pairs tend to have the same redshifts.

"Pairs" might be reading too much into it, as if they were created together, and then each went its own way. I have a different concept of it. In a giant elliptical galaxy, there are billions of stars in elliptical orbits around the center. A very small percentage of these are exotic stars, with their beams pointed straight at us. The most powerful of these are called quasars. Some of them are coming toward us, and are blueshifted, while others are going away, and are therefore redshifted. For a given distance from the center, the -shifting is the same, whether it's blue or red, while the greatest -shifting is nearest to the center, and the least -shifting is furthest from the center. If the quasars are in elliptical orbits, the velocities are the greatest nearest the center, and the least out at the far end of the orbit. This will produce -shifting that will vary with distance from the center. In a large enough sampling, there will be roughly equal quantities of stars coming toward us and going away from us. But that doesn't mean that they are "created in pairs".

Are they able to tell which direction each quasar is moving with respect to each other?

I think that we just know where they are now, and whether they getting closer or further away, by the -shifting. But the Doppler effect doesn't give us any information on lateral movement, and I think that in our lifetimes, these things won't move far enough to plot the trajectories.

They're promoting the EU theory that stars form within Birkeland current filaments due to magnetic z-pinches of the filaments.

The evidence is that the Universe is full of filaments, and stars tend to be found... guess what... in filaments. So it isn't necessarily that stars "manage to get within such filaments". It could be just that stars tend to form wherever matter is found. The real question is, "What forms the filaments?" Gravity doesn't prefer filaments, and hydrostatics hates them. So this is definitely evidence of electromagnetism. One hypothesis is that it's electrodynamics (i.e., z-pinches). But I don't think that this isn't correct. If both positive and negative charges are traveling in the same direction, like charges get pushed together, and opposite charges get pushed apart. This doesn't cause condensation. Rather, it causes the reduction of condensed matter to plasma. If positive and negative charges are traveling in opposite directions, they'll both get pinched together. But the combined relativistic velocities will result in extremely violent collisions, producing extreme temperatures that will preclude condensed matter. Either way, I don't see how z-pinches will do the job. So I'm going with electrostatics, because that looks like it's going to work, and because it appears to be the only remaining possibility. The "like-likes-like" force can pull matter together. If there is also a tensile force acting on the matter, the matter will be drawn into filaments. Within the filaments, the same LLL force can then finish what it started, and create stars that look like beads on a string.

[Sparky]

Charles, I appreciate your work, and explanations, but I keep thinking, what about planets and moons. Are they growing to become suns?

[CharlesChandler]

If I looked up at the sky on a clear day, and I saw an accretion disc, I'd say yes, the Earth is growing, and if it gains enough mass from all of the in-falling material, it might one day undergo stellar ignition. But it looks like it's mainly empty space up there, the Sun having already gobbled up 99.8% of the mass in the solar system. So I think that the Earth missed its chance to be a star... The good news is that this is not why real estate values keep declining.

[CharlesChandler]

Recently on this thread (i.e., in & after this post), we briefly discussed supernova and red giants. The basic idea is that if it is compressive ionization that is holding a star together, and if, over time, mass loss reduces the pressure, and thus the ionization, eventually the star will get to the point that the pressure will not be sufficient to sustain the ionization. Then the glue holding the star together will fail. Any remaining ionization will then get neutralized in a brief flare-up, and then the star will be back to being a dusty plasma. The "brief flare-up" stage might explain red giants, and perhaps even supernovae.

Interestingly, we have rough numbers for the total amount of energy released in supernovae, since they come and go in a measurable period of time (i.e., days or weeks), unlike red giants, which seem to burn out over a period of a million years or so, meaning that it will take a million years to measure the total energy released. So we'll leave that for future generations to calculate, once they have the numbers. But we can do the calcs for supernovae now.

For typical supernovae, it's about 1046 Joules. So I got to thinking that I could double-check that against the energy budget of a star within my model. The total energy of the star should be greater than the energy finally released in the supernova, since the star was releasing energy through its entire life. This seemed to be a legitimate challenge to my model, since 1046 Joules seems like a lot of Joules (i.e., enough that the supernova temporarily outshines its entire galaxy!). So is there actually more energy than that in a normal star?

Indeed there is, at least in my model. The total amount of energy in a star can be estimated from the thermal energy that was in the dusty plasma before it collapsed (not including the thermalization of the collapse itself). The Sun condensed from a dusty plasma with a volume of something like 7.48 × 1037 km3. The temperature would have been roughly 10 K. The volume of the Sun is 1.41 × 1018 km3, meaning a compression ratio of 5.31 × 1019. If we multiply 10 K by that ratio, we get an expected temperature of 5.31 × 1020 K. (Elsewhere I demonstrate that most of that thermal energy gets converted to electrostatic potential, via compressive ionization. But to do the energy budget calcs, we don't need to know where the energy got stored. We just need to measure how much went in, and how much came back out.)

So we've got 1.41 × 1018 km3 running at 5.31 × 1020 K. How do we calculate the Joules from that?

Actually, we don't go by the volume. Rather, we have to look at the mass. And since (elsewhere) I demonstrate that there are a wide variety of elements in the Sun, and since each element has a different specific heat capacity, the mass of each element has to be multiplied by its specific heat index to get the Joules for that element, and then all of the Joules can be added up to get the total. So I went back to the calcs that I did to determine the elemental abundances and the dimensions of the double-layers within the Sun. I already had the volumes of all of the elements, and the densities. (See this for more detail.) So I just had to multiply those to get the masses of each layer. Then I multiplied that by the specific heat capacities for the respective elements, and added it all up. And guess what?

The total comes out to 2.48 × 1053 Joules. So that's 7 orders of magnitude greater than the 1046 Joules in a supernova. Hence the star begins life with 10 million times more energy. During its lifetime, it radiates most of that in a nice, steady dispersion of heat & particles. But when the compressive ionization finally fails, it comes apart, possibly releasing whatever it had left in a catastrophic flare-up that briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. (You just have to respect a star who decides to go out with a bang like that. )

Anyway, if anybody is interested, I can do a better job of annotating the calculations. But at least for now, here's the folder with all of the various pieces to the puzzle: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7957.

And at least for now, the model in question has passed another test.

[Sparky]

Charles, this may be relevant .
http://news.yahoo.com/solar-systems-mys ... 18851.html

[CharlesChandler]

Well that's interesting! It will take me a little while to work through it, but they talked about a "magnetorotational instability" that decelerates the inner portion of an accretion disc, and accelerates the outer portion. The implication for Chandrasekhar was that it allows the gravitational collapse in accretion discs that should have had too much centrifugal force. The implication for the authors of the article you cited is that there might be ohmic heating in the accretion disc, due to the electric currents. The implication for the toroidal plasmoid model of exotic stars is that it's a way of generating relativistic angular velocities in the outer layers, necessary for the magnetic confinement that produces nuclear fusion. That's a lot of implications!

[nick c]

Charles, this may be relevant .
http://news.yahoo.com/solar-systems-mys ... 18851.html

It may not be of any relevance at all. Chondrules (chondrites) probably have nothing in the least to do with the formation of the solar system.
see:
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/com ... orites.txt

[Sparky]

.
.
.
.

Have not seen that document...strong argument.....thanks for the link...

[Sparky]

Charles, Have you seen this? http://youtu.be/CGZ1GU_HDwY

[CharlesChandler]

Ummm... I didn't understand much of that. I get confused just comparing cellphone calling plans. Now I know why they can't come up with simple terms -- the guys who work on the satellite technology use GR just to figure out what time it is! Whoa!!!

[seasmith]

Brilliant.
Some argument with proposed orders of procession (ref. aetheric cycles/circuits™ posts), but the gist naturally resonates.
What Mr. Hatch variously refers to as "shear, oscillation, compression, gradient, force and potential (mins. 35-36); may be schematized conceptually as a [quadru-orthoganal Infin. symbol ∞], with electricity ie all EM-ES forces at center as common lead transformer.

but i jest about the ™ inparallel

[Sparky]

Well, didn't understand much at all, but since I got such a late start in math and physics, I'm going to keep watching until I think I understand.

Mr. Hatch seems to be saying gravity creates electricity, but I sure may be wrong.

[seasmith]

CC, i see what you mean about the "calling plans"


http://youtu.be/CGZ1GU_HDwY

RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS | EU 2013

Brilliant.
Some argument with proposed orders of procession (ref. aetheric cycles/circuits™ posts), but the gist naturally resonates.
What Mr. Ron Hatch variously refers to as "shear, oscillation, compression, gradient, force and potential (mins. 35-36); may be schematized conceptually as a [quadru-orthoganal Infin. symbol ∞], with electricity ie all EM-ES forces at center as common lead transformer.

but i jest about the ™ inparallel

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 165#p82094


∞

The many clock and ruler gedankans are fascinating mental exercises (and are dealt with admirably by Goldminer and others elsewhere), but it's not necessary to get tangled up in the weeds of Lorentz Transformations and GPS debates to appreciate the breadth of R. Hatch's vision.
Although the math & mechanics of GPS are his expertise, it's his view of the prime elementals:
aether, mass/matter, gravity and light, from an EU perspective, that is the more interesting here.

Not surprisingly, given his background, Hatch takes gravity = mass as his starting point (mentioning that "gravitational energy comes from rest mass structural energy" and that "matter is made up resonant spinning blobs of aether") [mins.11-12].
Gravity and mass he then relates to motion as:
"structural" and kinetic energies resulting from a "compressional ether gradient" and a "shear gradient" (ie mass in motion).
Provisionally, he posits EM potentials/forces as derivatives of the above; so it all actually seems to hinge on an aetheric substrate.
And, he likes Halton Arp.

My numerous posts re an "aetheric cycle/circuit" merely try to make a coherent case for Electricity,
in all its EM/ES manifestations, as the common lead, in parallel, for conducting or conducing the transformations between the (4) primary phases/modes of our local cosmos.


Ω≈ç√∫˜µ≤≥÷åß∂ƒ©˙∆˚¬…æœ∑´®†¥¨ˆøπ“‘¡™£¢∞§¶•ªº–≠

[seasmith]

supplemental info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS5e_mWdOQ8

[seasmith]

Charles,

Re your internal rotating toroidal layers, does any of this tie in ?
[I apologize if this is old news, have just now stumbled upon it.]

Intercalation and Lattice Exclusion Versus Gravitational Settling and Their Consequences Relative to Internal Structure, Surface Activity, and Solar Winds in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, in press) provides the ability to add structure to the solar interior.

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -33-L4.PDF