Most Thorough 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: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:44 am

Lloyd wrote:Fault Rilles & Sinuous Rilles: But what do you think about these possibilities?

Well, there are actually a lot of possibilities here. For example, what if an impactor breaks up just before impact, and then fractures the crust -- is it possible that the rille is both a fracture, due to an impact on a crust that was already under tensile stress, and a conduit for electrical discharges through the fracture, further excavating the rille? I think that my point here is just that I don't see a reason to lock down on an hypothesis, with so few data, and so many possibilities. It isn't going to prove anything.

Lloyd wrote:Sun's Age: I thought 378 million years was your upper limit for the Sun's age. But now you're saying that's the approximately exact age.

The latter is correct -- I'm saying that that if the Sun started out at 10,000 K and cooled according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, it's now 378 million years old (+/-).

Lloyd wrote:Are you fairly sure what size and temperature the Sun had initially?

The size is limited at the upper end by supernova theory, where anything above 1.4 solar masses would produce the internal pressure necessary for a runaway thermonuclear reaction (i.e., a Type 1a supernova). So I believe that all stars that survived the star formation process, and did not create a supernova, are < 1.4 solar masses. So that piece is contrary to some aspects of mainstream stellar theory, which allow stars to be many times more massive than the Sun, but it's consistent with conventional supernova theory, as well as nuclear physics, in that it acknowledges the well-known limits on how much pressure you can have before the runaway reaction occurs.

As discussed elsewhere, I don't know what the lower limit is, but it seems that a lot of stars begin at something like 1/3 the mass of the Sun. If the Earth was once a star, as I believe, then 1/333,000 solar masses is still possible for a star.

The initial temperature of the Sun is an interesting question. Just with adiabatic compression of the primordial dusty plasma, plus the thermalization of the kinetic energy in the implosion, it should have been a lot hotter than 10,000 K. So I'm saying that most of the kinetic energy got converted to electrostatic potential. So how did I settle on the 10,000 K figure?

If stars form at roughly the same mass (?), and if they cool according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and if they're forming at random times, then in a large population of stars, we should see specific quantities of stars at each temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires that stars cool rapidly at first, and thereafter, the heat loss levels off with time, asymptotically approaching absolute zero at an infinite time from now. So we should see just a few stars at the higher temperatures, and lots of stars at the lower temperatures. And that's exactly what we see in star inventories.

Code: Select all
class    temperature     percent
        min       max    of total
---------------------------------------
  O     30,000    ∞       0.00003
  B     10,000  30,000    0.13
  A      7,500  10,000    0.60
  F      6,000   7,500    3.00
  G      5,200   6,000    7.60
  K      3,700   5,200   12.10
  M      2,400   3,700   76.45


So I neglected the statistically insignificant O and B class stars, meaning that I would figure that most stars begin life at 10,000 K (i.e., the top of the A class). Then I found that the heat loss, per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, yielded almost precisely the quantity of A, F, and G class stars. IMO, the fit is close enough to be beyond chance.

Where the Stefan-Boltzmann curve diverged from the observations of large populations of stars was in the K class. But we know that stars in that class are flare stars, where sporadically the temperature jumps way up, and so does the heat loss rate. So a star isn't just a simple black-body radiator that will cool according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- it's a complex EMHD system that undergoes some sort of transition in the K class, and that needs to be taken into account. Then the M class falls right in line.

So most stars seem to begin with masses between 1.4 and 0.3 solar masses, and at something like 10,000 K, to produce the large population statistics that we're seeing. Any given individual star could be anywhere within the valid range.

Lloyd wrote:Isn't it possible that the Sun could have started at near it's present size and temperature?

If the Sun began at its present temperature, then why isn't it getting cooled off by radiative heat loss? I "think" that the only answer to that question would be that the Sun's heat is being generated dynamically, such as from nuclear fusion. But by my reckoning, fusion is only responsible for 1/3 of the Sun's power -- the rest is electrostatic potential getting reconverted to kinetic energy (in the form of ohmic heating). And that energy source will be reduced by radiative heat loss.

BTW, another implication of the Sun and the Earth beginning at their current temperatures is that radiometric dating should be reliable. I'm saying that it isn't, because both the Sun and the Earth used to be a lot hotter, and radioactive decay rates run faster at higher temperatures. So I can get away with saying that the Earth is a lot younger than in the standard model. ;)

Lloyd wrote:And isn't it also possible that it could have formed at one size and then accreted other bodies and gotten larger a long time later? And, if it got larger by accretion, wouldn't it also have gotten hotter? And wouldn't that mean it could be very young?

That could also be taken to mean that both the Sun and the Earth are a lot older.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:38 am

CharlesChandler wrote:As discussed elsewhere, I don't know what the lower limit is, but it seems that a lot of stars begin at something like 1/3 the mass of the Sun. If the Earth was once a star, as I believe, then 1/333,000 solar masses is still possible for a star. ...
- Where the Stefan-Boltzmann curve diverged from the observations of large populations of stars was in the K class. But we know that stars in that class are flare stars, where sporadically the temperature jumps way up, and so does the heat loss rate. So a star isn't just a simple black-body radiator that will cool according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- it's a complex EMHD system that undergoes some sort of transition in the K class, and that needs to be taken into account. Then the M class falls right in line.
- So most stars seem to begin with masses between 1.4 and 0.3 solar masses, and at something like 10,000 K, to produce the large population statistics that we're seeing. Any given individual star could be anywhere within the valid range. ...
- I'm saying that [radiometric dating isn't reliable], because both the Sun and the Earth used to be a lot hotter, and radioactive decay rates run faster at higher temperatures. So I can get away with saying that the Earth is a lot younger than in the standard model. ;)


Saturn Theory Probability
Charles, do you disagree with this Wikipedia statement under Stellar Classification? "About 76% of the main-sequence stars in the Solar neighborhood are class M stars [... but almost] none are bright enough to be visible to see with the unaided eye.... Although most class M stars are red dwarfs, the class also hosts most giants and some supergiants...."

Do you agree with Cardona that M class and other cooler dwarf stars are also flare stars, like the K class? If so, is that accounted for in your Light Curves paper?

Since there do seem to be runaway stars that escape from galaxies or star systems and since objects like the SL9 comet fragments are obviously able to follow each other in straight lines, do you think it's possible for a polar configuration of planets to exist, such as a brown dwarf star followed in a straight line by 3 or more planets all on the same rotational axis?

And the most important question for the Saturn Theory is probably this. Would it be possible for an Earth-like planet following behind a runaway brown dwarf star to be warm enough to support a thriving biosphere? Or how hot would the brown dwarf have to be for the Earth-like planet to average 0 to 30 degrees Celsius and what would be the maximum distance of the planet from its star? For example, could the planet stay warm enough at a distance of 1 or 2 million miles?

If the Earth used to be a star, how large an atmosphere could it have had? Could it have been larger than Jupiter? Could Jupiter have an Earth-sized rocky core? Thanks much for any answers.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Feb 28, 2016 10:18 am

Lloyd wrote:Charles, do you disagree with this Wikipedia statement under Stellar Classification? "About 76% of the main-sequence stars in the Solar neighborhood are class M stars [... but almost] none are bright enough to be visible to see with the unaided eye.... Although most class M stars are red dwarfs, the class also hosts most giants and some supergiants...."

No, I agree with that. Here's the light curve that I'm using for typical stars, showing that they'll spend 76% of their time in the M class...

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... es_wbg.png

If a star spends 76% of its time in the M class, then in a large population of stars that all formed at random times, 76% of them will be in the M class.

Lloyd wrote:Do you agree with Cardona that M class and other cooler dwarf stars are also flare stars, like the K class? If so, is that accounted for in your Light Curves paper?

Yes, I briefly mention that the flaring can continue on into the M class.

Lloyd wrote:Since there do seem to be runaway stars that escape from galaxies or star systems and since objects like the SL9 comet fragments are obviously able to follow each other in straight lines, do you think it's possible for a polar configuration of planets to exist, such as a brown dwarf star followed in a straight line by 3 or more planets all on the same rotational axis?

I think that SL9 was a single comet that broke up when it entered Jupiter's atmosphere, due to frictional charging, which generated an internal electrostatic repulsion that fragmented the comet. The fragments then fell into a line for fluid dynamic reasons -- the lead fragment created a bow shock, and behind it, the net flow of the perturbed atmosphere is inward, toward the path of travel of the lead fragment. Thus trailing fragments tend to fall in line behind the leader.

It's certainly possible for the same kind of thing to happen on a planetary scale. But if you're going to say that the Earth followed Saturn into the solar system, you have to read in a lot more data specific to that occurrence of the phenomenon, and the possibility might not be tenable in that case. For example, a rogue body from outside of the solar system would tend to just pass right through, and head out the other side. So how did Saturn get captured?

Lloyd wrote:Would it be possible for an Earth-like planet following behind a runaway brown dwarf star to be warm enough to support a thriving biosphere?

If the Earth was once a star, it would have had plenty of heat of its own, and after it had cooled a bit, life could have evolved, even in the absence of starlight from an external source. Now that a crust has formed, radiative heat loss from inside the Earth is very slow, and we get a larger portion of our thermal energy from the Sun. But earlier in the Earth's history, the heat was coming primarily from the Earth's interior. So if the Earth had been a rogue planet that did not form along with the Sun in situ, life could have been evolving, with or without radiation from Saturn, or from any other source. (But you still have to explain how Saturn etc. got captured by the Sun.)

Lloyd wrote:If the Earth used to be a star, how large an atmosphere could it have had? Could it have been larger than Jupiter? Could Jupiter have an Earth-sized rocky core?

Interesting questions. I definitely believe that the Earth (and Venus, and possibly Mars) would have qualified as "gas giants", before their atmospheres were whisked away. But I have no idea of how to constrain the estimates of how large the atmospheres would have been, or of how large the cores of the existing gas giants are.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:30 am

Sun Capture of Saturn
CC said: So if the Earth had been a rogue planet that did not form along with the Sun in situ, life could have been evolving, with or without radiation from Saturn, or from any other source. (But you still have to explain how Saturn etc. got captured by the Sun.)

I can think of at least 3 possibilities:
1. if Jupiter were already in the solar system, Saturn could have been captured by passing near Jupiter;
2. there might have been a thick atmosphere around the Sun a million miles deep or more, which could have slowed and captured the Saturn System;
3. there could have been a lot of debris, like meteor streams, that slowed down and captured Saturn.
Aren't those possibilities? If so, can you rank them according to approximate probability?

Determining Sizes of Rocky Cores in Gas Giant Planets
Lloyd wrote: If the Earth used to be a star, how large an atmosphere could it have had? Could it have been larger than Jupiter? Could Jupiter have an Earth-sized rocky core?

CC said: Interesting questions. I definitely believe that the Earth (and Venus, and possibly Mars) would have qualified as "gas giants", before their atmospheres were whisked away. But I have no idea of how to constrain the estimates of how large the atmospheres would have been, or of how large the cores of the existing gas giants are.

Maybe if we discuss the subject enough, we'll think of possible ways to constrain estimates. Right? Do you think Jupiter's Great Red Spot is caused by a solid surface feature, such as an impact crater (as per John Ackerman) or a mountain (as per Thornhill)? You estimated the depth of solar granule origins by their width and comparing with bubbles of boiling water. Didn't you? Can a stationary cyclone be estimated in a similar way? Neptune also has a Great Dark Spot. Both spots are about 22 degrees south of their equators. Sunspots occur within 30 degrees of the equator. Hawaii is at 20 degrees north and the Mars volcano is at 22 degrees south.

Do you think x-rays from stellar objects could show the solid cores of the gas giant planets when the planets eclipse such stellar objects? Or might UV or IR starlight penetrate their atmospheres? Do you think we should ask astronomers to look for any of that via telescope records?

I think you said Earth's clouds sometimes show gravity waves, similar to water waves or sound waves. Might such waves be related to atmospheric depth? I haven't heard of such waves detected on gas giant planets, but I'll do a search to see if there is anything on that. - I found this at http://www.space.com/30665-unraveling-saturn-ring-mystery.html: "The one thing that might produce this [series of waves (in Saturn's rings)] is that some sort of disturbance inside Saturn itself is spinning around with a period that's less than 7 hours".

Since Titan has an atmosphere thicker than Earth's atmosphere, does that suggest that Titan was once a gas giant?

Maybe studying the transition between brown dwarf stars and gas giant planets would tell something about how atmospheres develop and how thick they become. Right?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:33 pm

Lloyd wrote:1. if Jupiter were already in the solar system, Saturn could have been captured by passing near Jupiter;

It would take more than that to accomplish gravitational capture -- you need at least 3 bodies. Also, you need for the relative velocities to be slight, or the incoming body simply shoots straight through and out the other side.

Lloyd wrote:2. there might have been a thick atmosphere around the Sun a million miles deep or more, which could have slowed and captured the Saturn System;

Bolides moving through an atmosphere develop charged boundary layers that are nearly frictionless, so they tend to maintain their speed. I would think that this would be true of a planet as well.

Lloyd wrote:3. there could have been a lot of debris, like meteor streams, that slowed down and captured Saturn.

That's a possibility, but it certainly would have taken a lot of meteors to absorb all of the momentum of something as large as Saturn.

Lloyd wrote:Determining Sizes of Rocky Cores in Gas Giant Planets: Maybe if we discuss the subject enough, we'll think of possible ways to constrain estimates. Right? Do you think Jupiter's Great Red Spot is caused by a solid surface feature, such as an impact crater (as per John Ackerman) or a mountain (as per Thornhill)? You estimated the depth of solar granule origins by their width and comparing with bubbles of boiling water. Didn't you? Can a stationary cyclone be estimated in a similar way? Neptune also has a Great Dark Spot. Both spots are about 22 degrees south of their equators. Sunspots occur within 30 degrees of the equator. Hawaii is at 20 degrees north and the Mars volcano is at 22 degrees south.

Do you think x-rays from stellar objects could show the solid cores of the gas giant planets when the planets eclipse such stellar objects? Or might UV or IR starlight penetrate their atmospheres? Do you think we should ask astronomers to look for any of that via telescope records?

I think you said Earth's clouds sometimes show gravity waves, similar to water waves or sound waves. Might such waves be related to atmospheric depth? I haven't heard of such waves detected on gas giant planets, but I'll do a search to see if there is anything on that. - I found this at http://www.space.com/30665-unraveling-saturn-ring-mystery.html: "The one thing that might produce this [series of waves (in Saturn's rings)] is that some sort of disturbance inside Saturn itself is spinning around with a period that's less than 7 hours".

Since Titan has an atmosphere thicker than Earth's atmosphere, does that suggest that Titan was once a gas giant?

Maybe studying the transition between brown dwarf stars and gas giant planets would tell something about how atmospheres develop and how thick they become. Right?

I don't have answers to any of those questions. ;)
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:44 pm

Neodymium in Planets vs Meteorites
Charles, got any comments?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080319-earth-mars_2.html
One telltale signature of chondrites is an abundance of neodymium 142, a by-product of the decay of the rare earth metal samarium. In the past several years researchers noticed that Earth's crust contains too great a ratio of neodymium 142 compared to chondrites. Seeking to show that the Earth isn't an oddball, Caro and his team turned to Mars and reviewed old data from Earth's moon. "We found that Martian and lunar rocks are also characterized by an excess in neodymium 142 compared with chondrites," he said.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:17 pm

Lloyd wrote:Neodymium in Planets vs Meteorites: Charles, got any comments?

That's consistent with a hotter Sun, Earth, Moon, and Mars, which is part of my model. The higher temperatures enhanced the radioactive decay rates. If this isn't taken into account, radiometric dating will falsely report much older ages for the planets & moons. But meteorites would have cooled quickly in the frigid void of interplanetary space, and thereby would get much younger radiometric dates, even if they were formed at the same time as everything else in the solar system.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:10 pm

Nd Dating?
Charles, do you know the likely pathway for radioactive decay regarding Neodymium? If you had the data on the exact percentages of Nd on the Moon, Mars, Earth and meteorites, would you be able to find the appropriate decay rate for Nd and calculate a potential age range for each body? Should the smaller bodies have more Nd than the larger ones, assuming they all formed at the same time?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:51 pm

Erosion Dating
By the way, Charles, at present erosion rates of the continents, all of the continents should have eroded to at or below sea level well within 20 million years. Does that tell you something?

Nd Abundance for Dating
I tried to find some relevant data.
Nd Earth abundance 38 mg/kg: 142 27.2%, 144(rad) 23.8%, 146 17.2%, 143 12.2%
The primary decay products before 142Nd are element Pr (praseodymium) isotopes

MOLYBDENUM IN LUNAR SAMPLES
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984LPI....15..605N
The Mo/Nd ratio in lunar samples (0.0016, Fig. 1) is a factor of 30 lower than the Mo/Nd ratio in terrestrial samples (0.043, 1), and a factor of 1,200 lower than in C1 chondrites.
- The Mo data support evidence from other siderophile elements that the Moon almost certainly contains a metal core or pools of segregated metal.
- Fig. 1 Mo and Nd concentrations in lunar samples. The new Mo concentrations are 129 ppb 10057, 125 ppb 14259, 81.4 ppm 14305, 21.5 ppb 15495, 39.3 ppb 75035, with errors approximately 15%. A correction for the meteoritic component in the highlands samples, based on Ir content, gives the plotted intrinsic Mo concentrations: 94.7 ppb 14259, 72.2 ppb 14305.

LUNAR CHEMISTRY
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/Chapter08.pdf
Table 8.1. Concentrations of rare earth elements (REE) in chondritic meteorites and in KREEP, the two most-used standards for REE values in lunar materials.
[El] Chondrites* KREEP'
La .3190 ----- 115
Ce .8360 ----- 283
Pr .1130 ----- 35.8
Nd .6020 ----- 181
Sm .1860 ----- 48.7
Eu .0724 ----- 3.10
Gd .2590 ----- 57.0
Tb .0483 ----- 10.1
Dy .3240 ----- 64.8
Ho .0725 ----- 14.0
Er .2100 ----- 39.3
Tm .0315 ----- 5.67
Yb .2080 ----- 35.8
Lu .0328 ----- 5.48
All values are in micrograms/gram

Re-evaluating 142Nd/144Nd in lunar mare basalts with implications for the early evolution and bulk Sm/Nd of the Moon
http://www3.nd.edu/~cneal/CRN_Papers/Brandon09_GCA_Moon142Nd.pdf
The isotope 142Nd is produced by two mechanisms. First, 142Nd is produced by the nucleosynthetic p-process in supernova events, and by the s-process in the interiors of some stars during their Red Giant phase, constituting approximately 4% and 96% of nucleosynthetic 142Nd, respectively (Anders and Grevesse, 1989; Wisshak et al., 1998; Arlandini et al., 1999). This comprises the bulk of 142Nd in our solar system. The heavier Nd isotopes (143Nd, 144Nd, 145Nd, 146Nd, 148Nd, and 150Nd) are produced by the s- and r-process, the latter of which occurs in supernovae. Second, 142Nd is produced by 146Sm decay with a half-life of 103 Ma. Most of the 146Sm present in our solar system effectively decayed away by 500–600 Ma after the onset of nebular condensation (4.569 Ga, Bouvier et al., 2007), or 5–6 half-lives.

Sample
- Wt.mg Age(Ma Sm(ppm Nd(ppm 147Sm/144Nd 143Nd/144Nd Err e143Nd e143Nd.c e143Nd.i
KREEP
SAU169-1-1 7.07 (3900) 63.38 226.74 0.16910 0.5118145 0.0000013 -16.05 -15.93 -2.19
SAU169-1-2 8.12 (3900) 51.69 184.86 0.16915 0.5118149 0.0000011 -16.04 -15.92 -2.21
15386-1-1 11.82 (3850) 31.60 112.70 0.16964 0.5118268 0.0000016 -15.81 -15.50 -2.21
15386-1-2 13.52 (3850) –––––– –––––––– –––––––––– 0.5118236 0.0000008 -15.87 -15.56 -2.27
Low-Ti
LAP02205-1-1 80.07 (2990) 6.218 19.29 0.19499 0.5126349 0.0000009 -0.040 -0.005 0.54
___15555-1-1 157.7 (3320) 2.567 7.811 0.19879 0.5128394 0.0000009 +3.95 +4.00 +3.01
High-Ti
70017-1-1 99.87 (3690) 6.239 14.66 0.25750 0.5143725 0.0000009 33.85 33.87 4.81
74275-1-1 40.25 (3720) 8.671 21.36 0.24816 0.5142493 0.0000008 31.45 31.47 6.67
74275-1-2 40.81 (3720) 8.033 19.57 0.24831 0.5142524 0.0000014 31.51 31.53 6.65

Sample Wt.mg Age(Ma Lu(ppm Hf(ppm 176Lu/177Hf 176Hf/177Hf Err* n e176Hf e176Hfi
KREEP
SAU169-1-1 7.07 (3900) 7.363 50.21 0.02083 0.281726 0.000009 5 -37.09 -3.49
SAU169-1-2 8.12 (3900) 7.354 51.652 0.02022 0.281658 0.000007 1 -39.49 -4.27
15386-1-1 11.82 (3850) 3.391 28.422 0.01695 0.281491 0.000008 4 -45.40 -2.00
Low-Ti
LAP02205-1-1 80.07 (2990) 0.9100 5.490 0.02354 0.282501 0.000006 7 -9.68 11.59
___15555-1-1 157.7 (3320) 0.2760 2.221 0.01767 0.282152 0.000008 6 -22.04 13.67
High-Ti
___70017-1-1 99.87 (3690) 1.184 8.574 0.01962 0.282133 0.000006 7 -22.69 12.23
___74275-1-1 40.25 (3720) 1.247 8.577 0.02065 0.282084 0.000009 4 -24.44 8.13
*Error is the weighted average of (n) repeated measurements of the sample solution.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:16 pm

Lloyd wrote:Nd Dating?: Charles, do you know the likely pathway for radioactive decay regarding Neodymium? If you had the data on the exact percentages of Nd on the Moon, Mars, Earth and meteorites, would you be able to find the appropriate decay rate for Nd and calculate a potential age range for each body?

No, I'm not familiar with those calcs.

Lloyd wrote:Should the smaller bodies have more Nd than the larger ones, assuming they all formed at the same time?

I'm saying that cooler bodies should seem to be younger, while hotter bodies (now or in their histories) will falsely report an older age, if the accelerated radioactive decay rate at higher temperatures isn't taken into account. But I'm not familiar with the specific decay rates.

Lloyd wrote:Erosion Dating:
By the way, Charles, at present erosion rates of the continents, all of the continents should have eroded to at or below sea level well within 20 million years. Does that tell you something?

Yes -- I'm just not sure what it's saying. Basically, I'm not sure that it is explicitly saying that the continents have to be less than 20 million years old.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Mar 05, 2016 9:20 pm

Continental Erosion Dating
I think it would take almost 20 million years for the continents to erode down below sea level starting from their present heights. But there doesn't seem to have been much erosion before now, as mountains have not been greatly rounded and there's not much sediment in ocean basins. And that means that the continents seem to be very young, like a few thousand years old, as Jonathan Gray has explained via numerous points of evidence. The supercontinent, as Gordon has said, appears to have had no mountains, just hills and flat land. Impacts then broke up the supercontinent and built up the mountain ranges along with vulcanism. Conventional geology dates mountain ranges at about 5 million years, I think, and that's relatively young, much less than the 20 million years that erosion would remove them. Do you have time to think about this a little? Isn't it plausible that Fischer's theory is right that mountains formed a few thousand years ago from impact?

Capture of Saturn
You've said that a body like Saturn entering the solar system from outside should go right through and not get captured. We discussed a few scenarios, but there's another scenario I don't think I've discussed. I imagine there's a minimum velocity that such a body would have to have in order to avoid capture. Isn't that likely true? So if Saturn had a velocity below that minimum, wouldn't it have had to get captured? Wouldn't it have had to be moving below escape velocity in order to get captured?

Here's an escape velocity calculator: http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1360310353

According to this, https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3fcdu8/is_there_an_escape_velocity_for_the_solar_system/, escape velocity at Earth's orbit is about 42 km/s. At Saturn's orbit the escape velocity is 9.6 km/s. Another site, http://web.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/ae/engr370i/ch04/ch4_7/ch4_7.html, says the escape velocity at Pluto's orbit is 7.9 km/s. Suppose the Saturn System came in tangent to Pluto's orbit at a velocity less than 7.9 km/s. Wouldn't it then have to spiral inward toward the Sun? And would it then be able to stabilize at its present orbit? Or would Saturn have had to come in tangent closer to Saturn's present orbit? And, again, wouldn't meteors crashing into Saturn be able to slow it down and help stabilize the orbit?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:55 pm

Lloyd wrote:Continental Erosion Dating: Do you have time to think about this a little?

It would take me a year or two to get up to speed on all of the related issues.

Lloyd wrote:Capture of Saturn: Wouldn't it have had to be moving below escape velocity in order to get captured?

Assuming that there isn't any friction, an incoming body will get accelerated inward by the Sun's gravity, and it will pick up speed. If it doesn't impact the Sun, it zips on past it, and then all of that speed starts getting reconverted to gravitational potential. When that's done, it still has a little bit of speed left -- its initial incoming speed. So it exits the solar system at precisely the speed that it entered it, and the capture has not occurred.

If there were two large gravity sources in the center of our solar system, the Sun would deflect the path of the incoming body, and if it happened to deflect it toward the other (hypothetical) gravity source, that source might deflect the object back toward the Sun. In this way, the incoming object could get "captured". But with just one gravity source there, and without friction, the capture doesn't happen.

Friction can be neglected -- if it was a big factor, small objects (such as Halley's Comet) would be heavily influenced -- but they don't seem to be affected at all.

So you have no choice but to work it out as a 3-body problem. Maybe you could try working it out with the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn being the 3 bodies. Like suppose Jupiter deflected Saturn into a path roughly tangent to an orbit around the Sun, whereupon the Sun's gravity would take over, and turn that into an orbit. For this to happen, Saturn's incoming speed would have been quite precisely its current orbital speed. Heckuva coincidence. Then you need to get the Earth, which you have in orbit around Saturn, to get flung off of Saturn (perhaps in the sharp turn around Jupiter), and then somehow end up in its own stable orbit. IMO, no matter what you do, such a construct is going to look contrived, because without the preformed conclusion, you never would have attempted such mathematical acrobatics.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:45 am

Saturn System Capture
Charles, I don't follow your reasoning about Saturn escaping orbit around the Sun, since I was supposing that Saturn arrived at the orbit of Pluto with a velocity below escape velocity, i.e. below 7.9 km/s. It would certainly accelerate going toward the Sun, but going away, it would decelerate back to its original low velocity. Don't you agree? So, if it arrived going tangent to Pluto's orbit at a velocity below escape velocity, I don't see how it could escape the solar system.

I read that Robert Grubaugh used to work doing calculations for putting satellites into orbit. He wrote the following in the April 30, 1999 issue of Thoth Newsletter at http://othergroup.net/thoth/thoiii07.txt

My simple little model of a single planet orbiting the Sun is derived in polar coordinates. One of the principal parameters of the model is the angle between the velocity vector of the planet and the perpendicular to the radial line from the planet to the Sun. If this angle is positive the planet is moving outward from the Sun, and if negative it is moving inward toward the Sun on its elliptical path. The magnitude of this angle determines the rate at which the planet is moving through the Sun's charge field. (distance rate not time rate). For calculation I assumed that this change causes a change in the electrostatic charge of the planet which in turn causes a change in the gravity constant, G. I further assumed this change to be linear in the form

G = G0 x (1 + GAMMA )
Where G0 = Gravity constant 6.7E-08
and GAMMA = Angle between velocity vector of planet and a line perpendicular to radius from planet to the Sun.

To test this assumption in the model, I assumed the planet to attempt to orbit in an elliptical path from a perihelion of 1 AU, 1.5E+13 cm, to an aphelion of 1.8416E+13 cm [1.23 AU]. This would be the orbit with no modification of gravity by the electrostatic charge. I then calculated the orbit with the above modification to gravity.

Here's what happened: Beginning at perihelion where GAMMA is zero the planet orbited outward in its elliptical path and reached aphelion at 203 degrees, which is 23 degrees beyond the point of orbital symmetry, and where the distance was 1.683E+13 cm [1.12 AU] from the Sun, which is a considerable reduction from the 1.8416E+13 [cm] [1.23 AU] nominal.

The planet then returned to perihelion at 412 degrees from beginning and a distance of 1.649E+13 cm. It then orbited outward to aphelion at 620 degrees and 1.654E+13 cm, and in turn to perihelion at 823 degrees and at 1.653E+13 cm, where it went into circular orbit.


In early Nov. 2010 I had this exchange with Cardona at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3824#p41765.
LLOYD: Another reader, Gary N, asks if gravity would have been sufficient to capture the Saturn System and can you give a rough estimate of how long capture would have taken? - I think Robert Grubaugh has suggested that gravity alone would not be able to slow down a body so that it could enter orbit. The body would just sling-shot away in another direction, but electrical forces would slow it down so it could enter orbit. Do you concur? And do you know if Wal does?

REPLY: In that respect, Grubaugh was right and, in fact, the proto-Saturnian system is described in my work as brushing against, and bouncing off, the heliosphere several times before it actually managed to penetrate it. And yes, this one actually comes directly from Thornhill.

Charles, I guess you don't consider the heliopause to exist. Do you? What about Grubaugh's findings on electrical circularization of orbits? The fact that comets retain highly elliptical orbits over long time spans seems offhand to contradict his simulation. But maybe bodies of larger mass could be affected more quickly than those of smaller mass. Does that seem at all plausible to you?

Grubaugh had a presentation called A MODEL OF THE POLAR CONFIGURATION found at http://www.mikamar.biz/symposium/grubaugh.txt. That may be worth discussing eventually.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Mar 06, 2016 3:13 pm

Lloyd wrote:Charles, I guess you don't consider the heliopause to exist. Do you?

The heliopause exists, but it's a near-perfect vacuum, with near-infinitesimal electric & magnetic fields. Nothing bounces off of a vacuum. Sorry.
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: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:43 pm

Saturn Capture
Charles, no need to be sorry about finding truth. If nothing is likely to bounce off the heliosphere, so be it. But I hope to find an answer to the rest of my question eventually.

Huge Volcanic Eruptions
I heard mention of something about a major explosive volcanic eruption on the Science Channel a little bit ago, so I just reread your paper on Volcanoes at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10527 to see if you say anything about that. It was interesting to see that you were able to calculate the depth of the magma chamber under an African volcano and found it to be at the depth of the Moho layer. That was an interesting method you used to calculate it too. It looks like that would be a major finding in conventional science, if they could be shown such a simple way to find the depth of the magma and to realize that the magma source for all volcanoes is the Moho. Have you tried to point this out to any scientists? Have you tried to calculate the depths of magma chambers for other volcanoes too?

Can you explain why major eruptions are so much more powerful than normal eruptions? Why was Mt. St. Helens so powerful? Why were Pinatubo, Krakatoa and Thera so powerful? I think I know why the Yellowstone volcano was so huge. I think it occurred during the continental drift impact a few thousand years ago. Do you agree that conventional geology dates mountains at 5 million years ago? I haven't looked that up. I only heard that figure from someone else. Do you agree that mountain ranges formed from the continental drift impact event? Do you agree that there was probably no vulcanism before that impact event?

In the passage below from your paper, you say the Hawaiian volcanic shield originated at a subduction zone, I guess near Alaska. Why would they originate there? Gordon said the Pacific crust was likely squeezed between the American and Australasian plates as they were moving away from the impact point at the Somali Basin. Wouldn't such a squeeze tend to crack the Pacific crust and thus allow vulcanism? Where do you get the figure of 81 million years ago for the beginning of the vulcanism?

By the way, your paper says volcanic eruptions should be predictable by changes in electric and/or magnetic fields. If we wanted to give advice to governments whose people live near dangerous volcanoes, what sort of detectors would they need and do you know about what readings would indicate severe danger and for what time period?

Here's the passage from your paper.
CC said:
Now we should consider the properties of mafic flows. Without crustal deformation near a subduction zone to open up cracks for electric currents, how can the so-called "hot-spot" volcanoes get established?

The best example of this type of volcano is Kīlauea, but we should note that the magma flow didn't start there. Rather, the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount Chain began something like 81 million years ago, at the triple junction of the Ulakhan Fault, the Aleutian Trench, and the Kuril Trench. In other words, it started as a subduction zone volcano. But then it took a trip across the Pacific Basin to its present location, roughly in the center. In the "hot-spot" model, this indicates that the mantle plume has shifted. But this would have a temperature anomaly persisting for 81 million years in a good thermal conductor, and favoring the center of an oceanic basin where the radiative heat loss is the most efficient. These are behaviors that cannot be described in thermodynamic terms.

More recent research suggests that it isn't a small, vertical hot-spot, but rather, a thin, broad layer of low-viscosity magma under the crust that drives such volcanoes.18,19 This is easy to understand in thermodynamic terms. Since the oceanic crust is thinner, and if the Moho is a continuous layer of molten rock just under the crust, we can expect the lighter components to puddle on the underside of the oceanic crust. (See Figure 5.) If a volcano gets established on the edge of that puddle (in the subduction zone), and taps into the Moho, the lowest-viscosity magma under the oceanic crust will dominate the flow. But just as the volcano pulls that magma toward it, an equal-but-opposite force pulls the volcano toward the source of the fluid. Thus the subduction volcano gets pulled out to sea, and ultimately to the center of the oceanic basin. And as long as the magma channel through the crust is hotter than the surrounding rock, it remains the preferred conduit for telluric currents. The resistive heating then keeps the channel open. So we can expect the mafic flows at the end of the Hawaiian Chain to continue, as long as tidal forces keep driving telluric currents.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests