Most Thorough Model

[Bomb20]

For the purpose of information:
In a thread about Pulsars on this German forum about the Plasmauniverse I (Hannes) mentioned ideas of the Thunderbolts and Mr Charles Chandler in mid-October 2014. Some lines of CC came under heavy criticism by a member named "Bambi" (18 Oct 2014, 15:48), another participant (wl01) of the discussion felt his own ideas/model supported by CC´s ideas.
See: http://viaveto.yooco.de/forum/show_thre ... 135689&p=3

[CharlesChandler]

So here we are again, back for another year of open-minded exploration... Cheers to all!

I think the star systems where exoplanets have been found have not shown more than 2 or 3 stars within them, so I doubt still that star systems would start out crowded, as you contend.

There again, it depends on how you define a star versus a planet. If those exoplanets are just stars that have already burned out, or never quite got to the ignition pressure, then we already have evidence of "stellar systems" with many more members than just 2 or 3.

B- 3. Supernova electric shock waves knock the sheaths off the grains, leading to filamentation and a powerful implosion.

If each Debye cell is a negative dust grain surrounded by a positive sheath, multiple Debye cells actually repel each other, because the positive sheaths are like-charged, and they are the nearest aspects of neighboring cells, so the inverse square law dictates that the repulsion between the like-charged sheaths will dominate. With only 1 charged particle in 1016 neutrals, the net electrostatic repulsion is 5 times greater than the net gravitational attraction. But if something, such as a gas cloud collision, or the ejecta from a supernova, blows the sheaths off of the dust grains, the electrostatic configuration changes.

Before (net repulsion):
PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP

After (net attraction):
NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN

With the positive sheaths repositioned to the space between the negative dust grains, all of the dust grains are attracted to the positively charged space between them, yielding a net attractive body force over 1000 times more powerful than gravity. And since gas cloud collisions have a directionality to them, the electric lines of force will be aligned to the vector of the collision, causing the plasma to collapse parallel to the vector of the collision (i.e., in filaments). I can go into more detail on that if you want.

A-C 5. Further layers may be induced or accreted, forming a planet or star, containing several CFDLs, or current-free double-layers.

And regarding the fifth point, if you contend that the smallest body formed in accretion is a star, I question exactly what it is that would prevent smaller CFDL bodies from accreting directly within various parts of GMCs.

I no longer think in terms of "accretion", as in vapor deposition, or gravitational collapses, because I don't think that gravity is strong enough, and the hydrostatic pressure should preclude it. And if it's an ionized gas (i.e., plasma), electrostatic repulsion between Debye cells will definitely preclude it. But I definitely think that smaller CFDL bodies can form, perhaps down to the size of the larger moons in our solar system. It just depends on how homogeneous the implosion is. If it all implodes on precisely the same point, you get one star, and no planets or moons. Then again, irregularities in the imploding plasma might result in multiple centroids, and thus multiple objects getting formed. Now, how many of those are stars, versus planets or moons? That depends on your definition of stars, planets, and moons. I agree with Jeffrey that there is not a difference in kind between these. But I could say that if the object is large enough that charge recombination produces visible radiation, it's what most people would call a star. If it's like the Earth, with charged double-layers but where there aren't any sustained discharges at the surface, it's what most people would call a planet. So my "crowded stellar systems" are what others would call just a single/double/triple stellar system crowded with planets. Still, if gravity is insufficient to build aggregates, that means that it can't build stars OR planets OR moons, and we have to look elsewhere for a mechanism up to the task. That's where the imploding dusty plasma comes into play, because it can overshoot the hydrostatic equilibrium, and ram the plasma together forcefully enough to separate charges via electron degeneracy pressure, and thus create CFDLs that cling together, preventing the hydrostatic rebound.

A- 6. The CFDLs explain most features of the Sun and several features of planets.

Yep.

Charles, do you happen to know of any images of supercritical plasma in a lab, like that in the photosphere, that shows a distinct surface in double layers? I'd like to have images to show the difference between a distinct electric plasma surface and a fuzzy gravitational atmosphere.

In the laboratory, the only way to get supercritical fluids is with pressure supplied from all sides, so you're not going to get a "surface" like there is on the Sun. The closest that you can come to this effect is just to show double-layers that build up around any charged object. For instance, if you apply a couple thousand volts to a needle grid, you'll get a corona in the air surrounding it, possibly visible as a glow discharge. That's a charged double-layer. But it's nowhere near supercritical. Inside the Sun, supercriticality is only achieved when you get down to 4 Mm below the surface, where the combined electric and gravitational loading have accumulated to the point that the pressure is sufficient. (In the standard model, gravity alone does the work, and supercriticality isn't achieved until you get down to 125 Mm below the surface.) But I could try to scare up some images of coronas -- I'll look for images in hydrogen, which should produce a more distinct "surface" due to its high ionization energy.

For the purpose of information:
In a thread about Pulsars on this German forum about the Plasmauniverse I (Hannes) mentioned ideas of the Thunderbolts and Mr Charles Chandler in mid-October 2014. Some lines of CC came under heavy criticism by a member named "Bambi" (18 Oct 2014, 15:48), another participant (wl01) of the discussion felt his own ideas/model supported by CC´s ideas.
See: http://viaveto.yooco.de/forum/show_thre ... 135689&p=3

Can you briefly summarize the points, for the English speaking crowd here?

[Lloyd]

MGC Dust Grains & Sheaths

CC said: But if something, such as a gas cloud collision, or the ejecta from a supernova, blows the sheaths off of the dust grains, the electrostatic configuration changes.
- Before (net repulsion):
PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP
- After (net attraction):
NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN
- With the positive sheaths repositioned to the space between the negative dust grains, all of the dust grains are attracted to the positively charged space between them, yielding a net attractive body force over 1000 times more powerful than gravity.

Does the line of "PNNP"s mean a line of N's surrounded by P's, where N is Negative dust grain and P is Positive sheath?

Does the line of "NN --P--P--"s that forms after the "PNNP"s get hit mean that the N's, or dust grains, clump together, while the P's, or sheaths, repel each other between the grains?

Have you calculated approximately all of the major forces and energies involved from beginning to end of a GMC formation and implosion all the way to the formation of star systems? Like how much energy is involved in the ionization of dust grains and sheaths phase, in the supernova shockwave phase (or the collision phase between two GMCs, or between GMCs and something else), and in the implosion phase?

The energy has to remain the same (input and output) throughout the whole process. Doesn't it?

Filaments

And since gas cloud collisions have a directionality to them, the electric lines of force will be aligned to the vector of the collision, causing the plasma to collapse parallel to the vector of the collision (i.e., in filaments). I can go into more detail on that if you want.

Yes, more detail would probably help. It sounds like you're describing filament formation that is similar to the EU model, except that it's not the magnetic z-pinch that causes star formation, but electric forces in charge-separated filaments, that does so by implosion. Is that right? And with the directionality of the filaments, would it be possible for several planets/stars to form and then travel in a line until they get captured by a star system, as per the Saturn Theory?

Planetoids

If it all implodes on precisely the same point, you get one star, and no planets or moons. Then again, irregularities in the imploding plasma might result in multiple centroids, and thus multiple objects getting formed. Now, how many of those are stars, versus planets or moons?

I'm satisfied with that explanation, esp. if you'd say even very small planetoids could or should form that way. Have you determined that all stars/planets that form in the implosion would start out with thick atmospheres, which would make the small planetoids appear initially much larger than the solid central objects?

[CharlesChandler]

MGC Dust Grains & SheathsDoes the line of "PNNP"s mean a line of N's surrounded by P's, where N is Negative dust grain and P is Positive sheath?

Yes.

Does the line of "NN --P--P--"s that forms after the "PNNP"s get hit mean that the N's, or dust grains, clump together, while the P's, or sheaths, repel each other between the grains?

Yes -- the dust grains ("NN") still stick together, but the sheaths around them get shifted off of the nuclei, and they were never sticking together anyway, so I'm showing them as "--P--P--". Since I have covered this in greater detail elsewhere, I thought I could get away with being terse. Anyway, the result is that the negative nuclei are attracted to the shared positive charge between them, creating a net body force that causes the implosion of the dusty plasma.

Have you calculated approximately all of the major forces and energies involved from beginning to end of a GMC formation and implosion all the way to the formation of star systems? Like how much energy is involved in the ionization of dust grains and sheaths phase, in the supernova shockwave phase (or the collision phase between two GMCs, or between GMCs and something else), and in the implosion phase?

I have done most of that. At the very beginning, how much UV radiation from a supernova it would take, to get how much ionization in the Debye cells, would be a good topic for a research effort. I based all of my calculations on one charged particle in 1016 neutrals, because that's all it took for the electric force to be more powerful than gravity. And that's a very small charge. You have more of a surface charge than that with respect to the air surrounding your skin right now, and you're (probably) not sitting under a UV lamp. Anyway, the next missing piece is how much friction in a gas cloud collision would cause how much separation between the sheaths and the nuclei. This would be tough to calculate to any degree of precision. Slight variations in the velocities and trajectories of the gas clouds could have dramatic effects on the friction. And of course any randomization would be chaotic turbulence. This brings to mind a famous quote:

I am an old man now, and when I die and go to heaven there are two matters on which I hope for enlightenment. One is quantum electrodynamics, and the other is the turbulent motion of fluids. And about the former I am rather optimistic.

Another issue that I'm knocking around is whether or not the Debye nuclei would form into lines -- I think that they would. Imagine two armies marching through each other, without friction, as long as the rank & file of the one can slip through the rank & file of the other. I "think" that the electrostatic forces would favor this in a collision of two masses comprised of Debye cells. If so, the sheaths would get stretched into comas, and the comas would be pointing right at the next nuclei in the line. As such, the body force would be linear, running parallel to the vector of the collision. This would make for a linear collapse. In other words, if each soldier was surrounded by an insulating halo, filling up the space between each soldier, when the two armies march through each other, these halos will get streamlined down the files of soldiers going in each direction. And if the halos are providing the mutual attraction between the soldiers, the files will collapse length-wise, not width-wise. So this is what I mean by the gas cloud collision favoring filaments that collapse, instead of spheres that collapse.

Unfortunately, simulating this would take a supercomputer. So I was satisfied just with having identified a force far more powerful than gravity, and which only required one charged particle in 1016 neutrals. Then I ran out the numbers for how fast the plasma would actually get going, which turned out to be 86% of the speed of light! We know that EM forces can do this, since speeds above 99% of the speed of light have been achieved in particle accelerators using EM forces, and that's in a much shorter period of time. Anyway, from there, the energy budget works out just fine, having double-checked it several different ways. So I'm satisfied that the general paradigm is correct, and I "think" that the next step will be simply to start putting more attention into the presentation of these ideas, with better writing and illustration.

And with the directionality of the filaments, would it be possible for several planets/stars to form and then travel in a line until they get captured by a star system, as per the Saturn Theory?

Theoretically, yes. It's possible that a filament collapsed, while some of the stuff made it through the implosion without actually hitting anything substantial, and came zipping out the other side. Interestingly, there would even be reason to believe that a collection of them would have formed into a single file. If my idea about "Debye sheath comas" is correct, then any body with an oppositely charged atmosphere will get that atmosphere stretched into a coma if there is any friction at all, and a cluster of bodies traveling in the same direction would tend to form into a single file, because there would be less friction that way, and because each body would be attracted to the coma of the body in front of it, which would keep it from straying. In time, the bodies would space themselves out in this single file, since they would be attracted to the positive charge between them, in the comas, but they would repel each other, favoring a specific distance between them.

Now, how do you get the Sun to capture this single file "planet parade" and convert the highly elliptical orbits into near circular orbits? This is when you have to start talking about attractive and repulsive forces, that set up distributions, which will result in each planet falling into a discrete orbit. The electrostatic forces in my model have that property -- the bodies are only attracted to each other up to a point, but if they get too close, the attraction turns into repulsion. If you were allowing gazillions of years for this, I'd say "maybe".

Planetoids Have you determined that all stars/planets that form in the implosion would start out with thick atmospheres, which would make the small planetoids appear initially much larger than the solid central objects?

I'm not sure.

[Lloyd]

"MGC Dust Grains & Sheaths" above was supposed to be "GMC Dust Grains and Sheaths", where GMC means giant molecular cloud.

[Lloyd]

Rain and Snow Making
In your other thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 66#p103238 you explained that water molecules in the air need dust in order to condense, because of its opposite charge. I assume that's how cloud seeding works then. They used to seed them with silver iodide crystals, if I remember right (and judging by a cursory web search, that's right). That seems expensive. Can you think of any cheap ways to seed clouds to make rain or snow etc? Silicon dioxide (sand) might be the cheapest, but I guess it's unlikely to provide the needed charge. Water molecules supposedly have positive and negative poles. So why wouldn't they attract each other's opposite poles? I've heard of rain makers who use smoke or something and others who use orgon energy. Would a laser help precipitation by ionizing molecules? Or are normal air molecules too small?

[CharlesChandler]

Rain and Snow Making
In your other thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 66#p103238 you explained that water molecules in the air need dust in order to condense, because of its opposite charge. I assume that's how cloud seeding works then. They used to seed them with silver iodide crystals, if I remember right (and judging by a cursory web search, that's right). That seems expensive. Can you think of any cheap ways to seed clouds to make rain or snow etc?

Cloud seeding with silver iodide has been done operationally since the late 1940s in the US, and I suppose that they have already tried different chemicals, finding that silver iodide still works the best. Seeding a cloud only takes 10–50 grams of it, so I suppose that the plane & pilot cost more than the chemicals, and they're not looking for a cheaper chemical. (?) The basic idea was developed by Irving Langmuir and Vincent Schaefer, who used dry ice, while Bernard Vonnegut was the one who realized that silver iodide would work better. This is because it has a hexagonal crystal similar to water ice, while if I'm right, it also has to do with how easily silver accepts free electrons, thus producing a negative ion that will attract positively ionized water vapor. BTW, Vonnegut was the one who went on to be the primary proponent of electric tornado theory for 40 years, and who collected the data that lays the foundation for all of my work on the topic.

Water molecules supposedly have positive and negative poles. So why wouldn't they attract each other's opposite poles?

If those were all point charges, they would. But the electrons, with their high velocities, act as space charges (i.e., distributed charges) surrounding the atoms. So in my model, the "atmosphere" of negative charge surrounding the positively charged atomic nuclei produces the Debye cell repulsion (due to the inverse square law) that accounts for why water molecules don't spontaneously nucleate, and rather require the presence of an existing solid (because it can become a negative ion that attracts +ions).

Would a laser help precipitation by ionizing molecules? Or are normal air molecules too small?

Ionization is a necessary part of the process, since you need the dust grain to get negatively charged from free electrons, in order to attract the +ions that gave up those electrons. At the top of the cloud, there is plenty of UV radiation from the Sun to ionize the molecules. Inside the cloud, the UV has already been blocked, being easily absorbed by aerosols above it. Ground-based UV emitters would work the same way, but would have the same problem -- the ionizing radiation would get absorbed by any raindrops below the target altitude. So you'd really need to get the UV emitter up inside the cloud.

[Lloyd]

Halley's Comet Inclination

At http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 66#p103266 CC said: I "think" that it [electric attraction/repulsion] would help circularize the orbits, but not in a thousand years. Halley's Comet was first observed in 240 BC, and has been observed a total of 30 times in just over two thousand years, and it has a highly elliptical orbit. My guess is that the circularizing would take at least 3.79 RLT, where RLT = "Really Long Time".

The image here https://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/help/images/helio3.gif shows that Halley's Comet is out of the plane of the ecliptic quite a bit, so it looks to me like that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized. Don't you agree?

Saturn System Planetary Comas

CC said: If we knew what kind of atmospheres the planets had, and how fast they were traveling, we could start guessing at the length of the comas, the robustness of which would determine the strength of the attractive force between the planets. In other words, if the planets are negatively charged, and the atmospheres are positively charged, and if the atmospheres are swept into comas by friction with the interstellar medium, you've got rubber bands connecting the planets, made of the attraction of negatively charged planets to the shared positive charge between them in the comas.

At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-ballo ... -lightning Thornhill said: Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.

Is that the planetary coma you were talking about?

Proof the Planets Were Captured

At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/planet-birthing he said: Extrasolar planets [] have strange, highly elliptical orbits. They are also far closer to their stars than equivalent planets in our Solar System [] most at a distance of less than 2 astronomical units. [] In terms of mass, the new planets are similar to Jupiter, weighing between one-tenth and ten times as much — the majority fall between 0.75 and 3.0 jovian masses.

At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/assemblin ... lar-system he said: At the 39th annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas, Kevin McKeegan (UCLA) announced that the Sun has proportionately far more oxygen-16, relative to oxygen-17 and -18, than is present in terrestrial seawater. There’s a serious mismatch. Instead, the solar ratios follow the same trend seen in primitive meteorites. Suddenly, Earth is the odd planet out.
- [] A final word about meteorites, comets and asteroids. They have nothing to do with the Sun. They are born at intervals from captured bodies in their cometary phase and during close electrical encounters between planets and moons in the process of capture and orbit stabilization. In 1988 I wrote that chondritic meteorites show all of the features to be expected of material that has been subjected to flash heating, acceleration, collision and ion implantation in a spatially restricted and compressed plasma stream, followed by sudden cooling. Isotopic modification by neutron bombardment and intense radiation are simply explained as the effects of a z-pinch plasma discharge. I predicted that the features of the enigmatic chondrule shells could be reproduced in the lab in a plasma oven. That remains to be tested.

How Planets Were Captured

CC said: Now, how do you get the Sun to capture this single file "planet parade" and convert the highly elliptical orbits into near circular orbits? This is when you have to start talking about attractive and repulsive forces, that set up distributions, which will result in each planet falling into a discrete orbit. The electrostatic forces in my model have that property -- the bodies are only attracted to each other up to a point, but if they get too close, the attraction turns into repulsion. If you were allowing gazillions of years for this, I'd say "maybe".

Planets' Inclinations
Inclinations to Sun's Equator: (H = Hermes = Mercury)
H 3.38°, V 3.86°, E 7.155°, M 5.65°, J 6.09°, S 5.51°, U 6.48°, N 6.43°

Inclinations to Planets' Average Orbital Plane:
H 6.34°, V 2.19°, E 1.57°, M 1.67°, J 0.32°, S 0.93°, U 1.02°, N 0.72°

Are the inclinations good evidence that the planets were captured by the Sun and not formed with the Sun? Do the inclinations also suggest that all of the planets came in single file from outside the solar system? I suppose some would likely have much different inclinations otherwise. In ancient myths it looks like Saturn, Venus and Mars were seen in front of Earth (as well as possibly some moons around Saturn), but Jupiter could have been in front of Saturn, while the Moon, Uranus and Neptune could have trailed behind Earth and not been seen. So, if all of the planets were in a line and entered the solar system close to the Sun's equatorial plane, and if they took 5,000 to 15,000 years or so to spiral in toward the Sun, could they not have arrived at their present circular orbits due to electric attraction and repulsion during each orbital conjunction? Or wouldn't spiraling in be possible? Halley's Comet would not have been influenced by these forces much since it's not in the planetary plane. Is this getting plausible?

Squashed Star
At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/squashed- ... lar-theory Thornhill discussed findings about a squashed star. Can the CFDL model accommodate squashed stars in which the equatorial diameter is say twice the polar diameter?

[CharlesChandler]

The image here https://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/help/images/helio3.gif shows that Halley's Comet is out of the plane of the ecliptic quite a bit, so it looks to me like that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized. Don't you agree?

What would the ecliptic have to do with it?

At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-ballo ... -lightning Thornhill said: Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.

Is that the planetary coma you were talking about?

Yes. It would be interesting to see if there are any associated "gravitational anomalies".

Extrasolar planets [] have strange, highly elliptical orbits. They are also far closer to their stars than equivalent planets in our Solar System [] most at a distance of less than 2 astronomical units. [] In terms of mass, the new planets are similar to Jupiter, weighing between one-tenth and ten times as much — the majority fall between 0.75 and 3.0 jovian masses.

It might just be that very massive planets in highly elliptical orbits are easier to detect, so they dominate the statistics.

At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/assemblin ... lar-system he said: At the 39th annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas, Kevin McKeegan (UCLA) announced that the Sun has proportionately far more oxygen-16, relative to oxygen-17 and -18, than is present in terrestrial seawater. There’s a serious mismatch. Instead, the solar ratios follow the same trend seen in primitive meteorites. Suddenly, Earth is the odd planet out.

That's interesting, but it doesn't prove capture. It might just be evidence that the Earth was once a star, and that all that is left is the core, and it has heavier isotopes than are found at the surface of the Sun, which is still an active star. Maybe there are greater abundances of the heavier isotopes deeper inside the Sun. So solar and terrestrial abundances might be an apples-and-oranges comparison.

In 1988 I wrote that chondritic meteorites show all of the features to be expected of material that has been subjected to flash heating, acceleration, collision and ion implantation in a spatially restricted and compressed plasma stream, followed by sudden cooling. Isotopic modification by neutron bombardment and intense radiation are simply explained as the effects of a z-pinch plasma discharge.

Do solids rain down on the Earth after a lightning strike? If not, why not? That's definitely a z-pinched discharge. The bare-faced fact is that although the discharge does have an inward force (i.e., the z-pinch), as soon as the discharge stops, the inward force goes away. That leaves the superheated plasma free to expand. That's the opposite of condensation.

Are the inclinations good evidence that the planets were captured by the Sun and not formed with the Sun?

I would sooner conclude that the planetary preference for the ecliptic favors in situ evolution instead of capture, though I don't consider it to be proof.

So, if all of the planets were in a line and entered the solar system close to the Sun's equatorial plane, and if they took 5,000 to 15,000 years or so to spiral in toward the Sun, could they not have arrived at their present circular orbits due to electric attraction and repulsion during each orbital conjunction? Or wouldn't spiraling in be possible?

What was the braking mechanism? Any object approaching the Sun from outside the solar system will surely be subject to the Sun's gravity. But just as surely, without any friction, it will exit the solar system with precisely the momentum that it had on entering. In other words, it will do a fly-by. To actually get captured, you need more than just gravity -- you need to eliminate some of the momentum. And the interplanetary medium appears to be virtually frictionless.

At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/squashed- ... lar-theory Thornhill discussed findings about a squashed star. Can the CFDL model accommodate squashed stars in which the equatorial diameter is say twice the polar diameter?

The CFDL model, all by itself, rather goes the other way, providing the additional inward force to eliminate oblateness, and therefore explains the Sun's lack of it. But I have another model for a totally different type of star, which has properties that do not intersect with main sequence stars: the "exotics" rotate very rapidly, producing extremely powerful magnetic fields, and they sometimes produce detectable bipolar jets. IMO, the "exotics" can only be explained as toroidal plasmoids. If we could resolve the forms of such stars, they wouldn't be spheres like the main sequence stars -- they'd be toroids. I'm considering the possibility that main sequence stars can get spun up into toroidal plasmoids, if something (such as passing through an external magnetic field) was accelerating the rotation. Perhaps the squashed star is in that transition.

[starbiter]

Charles asked,


Thornhill wrote:
In 1988 I wrote that chondritic meteorites show all of the features to be expected of material that has been subjected to flash heating, acceleration, collision and ion implantation in a spatially restricted and compressed plasma stream, followed by sudden cooling. Isotopic modification by neutron bombardment and intense radiation are simply explained as the effects of a z-pinch plasma discharge.

Charles,

Do solids rain down on the Earth after a lightning strike? If not, why not? That's definitely a z-pinched discharge. The bare-faced fact is that although the discharge does have an inward force (i.e., the z-pinch), as soon as the discharge stops, the inward force goes away. That leaves the superheated plasma free to expand. That's the opposite of condensation.

Me,

Charles, have You bothered to read Worlds in Collision? Conditions in the past seem to have been different. The air was choked with dust! A plague of darkness. If the air was choked with dust and a huge positive lightning strike occurred rocks might rain from the sky. Think z pinch.

michael

[CharlesChandler]

If the air was choked with dust and a huge positive lightning strike occurred rocks might rain from the sky. Think z pinch.

Ummm... no, I don't think that rocks would have rained from the sky, no matter how dusty the atmosphere. The temperature inside lightning is over 2,500 degrees Celsius. Not much is solid at that temperature. As soon as the discharge stops, the lightning channel collapses. The imploding ambient air actually creates a much greater density than the z-pinch, which would be a likelier source of solids, except for the fact that the heat is consolidated at the axis of the collapsed channel, and the temperature shoots up to 25,000 degrees Celsius. And absolutely nothing is solid at that temperature. Far from being a condenser, the extreme temperature inside the collapsed lightning channel causes it to expand supersonically, which is what causes thunder. The people who convinced you that z-pinches can form solids just aren't familiar with the properties of arc discharges (or if they are, and they're deliberately misrepresenting them). Think z-pinch all you want, but only a vivid imagination can get electric discharges to consolidate matter -- in the physical world, this doesn't happen. Ironically, another central piece of EU theory is that electric discharges can vaporize matter, in a process known as EDM, which stands for electrical discharge machining, where "machining" is the removal of material. That much is actually true, and well understood, considering the practical applications. So think about that for a second -- if an arc discharge is hot enough to vaporize matter, how does the same arc discharge condense matter? Well, it doesn't.

[starbiter]

On a large scale stars are born. On a small scale possibly gravel. See below.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/alfven-tr ... ain-again/

The ‘father’ of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfvén, wrote in 1986:

“That parallel currents attract each other was known already at the times of Ampere. It is easy to understand that in a plasma, currents should have a tendency to collect to filaments. In 1934, it was explicitly stated by Bennett that this should lead to the formation of a pinch. The problem which led him to the discovery was that the magnetic storm producing medium (solar wind with present terminology) was not flowing out uniformly from the Sun. Hence, it was a problem in cosmic physics which led to the introduction of the pinch effect…



However, to most astrophysicists it is an unknown phenomenon. Indeed, important fields of research, e.g., the treatment of the state in interstellar regions, including the formation of stars, are still based on a neglect of Bennett’s discovery more than half a century ago… present-day students in astrophysics hear nothing about it.”
[Emphasis added]

Wal,

The constant width over vast distances is due to the current flowing along the Birkeland filaments, each filament constituting a part of a larger electric circuit. And in a circuit the current must be the same in the whole filament although the current density can vary in the filament due to the electromagnetic pinch effect. Therefore the electromagnetic scavenging effect on matter from the molecular cloud, called Marklund convection, is constant along each current filament, which simply explains the consistency of widths of the filaments. The stars form as plasmoids in the Bennett-pinches, also known in plasma labs on Earth as Z-pinches.

[CharlesChandler]

That parallel currents attract each other was known already at the times of Ampere. It is easy to understand that in a plasma, currents should have a tendency to collect to filaments. In 1934, it was explicitly stated by Bennett that this should lead to the formation of a pinch. The problem which led him to the discovery was that the magnetic storm producing medium (solar wind with present terminology) was not flowing out uniformly from the Sun. Hence, it was a problem in cosmic physics which led to the introduction of the pinch effect…

Right. I'm not questioning the z-pinch effect, in the lab or in space, nor am I questioning Marklund convection. I'm questioning whether or not the z-pinch effect, in any of its forms, can be responsible for condensed matter, such as in star formation. What you don't realize is that you're going straight from the observation of filaments in space to the conclusion that the z-pinch is compressing the matter into stars, without bothering to look at the actual properties of a z-pinch. Show me a diagram that explicitly identifies all of the forces in a z-pinch, and I'll show you why those forces preclude condensation.

[Lloyd]

Saturn Theory Filament

Thornhill wrote: In 1988 I wrote that chondritic meteorites show all of the features to be expected of material that has been subjected to flash heating, acceleration, collision and ion implantation in a spatially restricted and compressed plasma stream, followed by sudden cooling. Isotopic modification by neutron bombardment and intense radiation are simply explained as the effects of a z-pinch plasma discharge.
- CC replied: Do solids rain down on the Earth after a lightning strike? If not, why not? That's definitely a z-pinched discharge. The bare-faced fact is that although the discharge does have an inward force (i.e., the z-pinch), as soon as the discharge stops, the inward force goes away. That leaves the superheated plasma free to expand. That's the opposite of condensation.

I wanted to see if you could say if the effects Thornhill mentioned there could be explained by your model. What about that?

Lloyd wrote: Are the inclinations good evidence that the planets were captured by the Sun and not formed with the Sun?
- CC replied: I would sooner conclude that the planetary preference for the ecliptic favors in situ evolution instead of capture, though I don't consider it to be proof.

Since the plane of the planets is about 6 degrees off from the solar equatorial plane, wouldn't that be more likely explained by all of the planets having come in from off of the Sun's plane? Or would your model say 6 degrees off is to be expected? If so, would it be expected for all of the planets? What would be the maximum discrepancy expected?

Lloyd wrote: So, if all of the planets were in a line and entered the solar system close to the Sun's equatorial plane, and if they took 5,000 to 15,000 years or so to spiral in toward the Sun, could they not have arrived at their present circular orbits due to electric attraction and repulsion during each orbital conjunction? Or wouldn't spiraling in be possible?
- CC replied: What was the braking mechanism? Any object approaching the Sun from outside the solar system will surely be subject to the Sun's gravity. But just as surely, without any friction, it will exit the solar system with precisely the momentum that it had on entering. In other words, it will do a fly-by. To actually get captured, you need more than just gravity -- you need to eliminate some of the momentum. And the interplanetary medium appears to be virtually frictionless.

You said the electric force between planets may be 5 times as great as the gravitational force. Right? So, if the Sun was attractive to the string of planets, wouldn't that overcome momentum? Wouldn't it act like friction?

Lloyd wrote: The image here https://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/help/images/helio3.gif shows that Halley's Comet is out of the plane of the ecliptic quite a bit, so it looks to me like that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized. Don't you agree?
- CC replied: What would the ecliptic have to do with it?

I meant the plane of the planets. The comas of the planets are in the plane of the planets, so, since Halley's Comet bypasses the planetary comas for the most part, that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized in over 2,000 years. Could it not?

[CharlesChandler]

Thornhill wrote: In 1988 I wrote that chondritic meteorites show all of the features to be expected of material that has been subjected to flash heating, acceleration, collision and ion implantation in a spatially restricted and compressed plasma stream, followed by sudden cooling. Isotopic modification by neutron bombardment and intense radiation are simply explained as the effects of a z-pinch plasma discharge.

I wanted to see if you could say if the effects Thornhill mentioned there could be explained by your model. What about that?

I think that most meteorites are debris from the Theia~Ceres collision. The effects of flash heating, acceleration, collision, and ion implantation, following by sudden cooling, are therefore quite expected. The low densities of comets are also expected, if they were from deeper within Theia or Ceres, and were magma that cooled, forming pumice.

Since the plane of the planets is about 6 degrees off from the solar equatorial plane, wouldn't that be more likely explained by all of the planets having come in from off of the Sun's plane? Or would your model say 6 degrees off is to be expected? If so, would it be expected for all of the planets? What would be the maximum discrepancy expected?

Well, there is no preference for 6 degrees -- all of the inclinations are different. So while the forces that defined the ecliptic dominated, there were still irregularities.

You said the electric force between planets may be 5 times as great as the gravitational force. Right? So, if the Sun was attractive to the string of planets, wouldn't that overcome momentum? Wouldn't it act like friction?

No -- gravity and the electric force both are capable of accelerating objects, where potential gets converted to kinetic energy (i.e., momentum). But then the total kinetic energy of a foreign object is by definition in excess of the escape energy, because it had its original momentum, plus whatever it picked up from the attraction. In a non-lossy environment, capture doesn't happen.

The comas of the planets are in the plane of the planets, so, since Halley's Comet bypasses the planetary comas for the most part, that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized in over 2,000 years. Could it not?

Oh, I see what you mean now. Hmmm...