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 » Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:11 am

Lloyd wrote:You've stated in a few places that high velocity impacts produce thermonuclear explosions, which involve electrical discharges.

Thermonuclear explosions: yes, electrical discharges: not really, at least not in the EU sense, where there would be a potential between the impacter and the impactee that would do something. An explosion creates a lot of high velocity ions, and IMO, these get pinched into the spider ejecta that we see on the Moon. Such ion streams could be called electric currents of sorts, but that isn't in the EU model. And I'm not talking about any sort of pre-existing electric fields that do anything.

Lloyd wrote:Have you determined how strong the discharges would need to be or what other factors are involved to fuse radioactive elements in impacts?

The fusion would occur simply because of the extreme pressures and temperatures at the point of collision. A small, high-velocity impacter might get annihilated, while a large, slow-moving impacter might simply merge with the impactee, though at the point of collision, some heavy elements might have been fused.

Lloyd wrote:Does Walter Brown's explanation above have anything potentially correct?

I couldn't really follow the entire line of reasoning, so I can't say.

Lloyd wrote:When do you regard it as most likely that the bombardment occurred?

Since I'm estimating the age of the Earth (and everything else in the solar system) to be 378 million years, it would have been after that. But no, I don't have a specific number. Mars and the Moon had already formed crusts by the time the LHB occurred. But I haven't developed a method of estimating how long that would take.

Lloyd wrote:I looked online for radioactivity connected with impact craters, but didn't find much.

I didn't find anything either, in a quick search, but for cratered impacts, I wouldn't really expect much. The extreme pressures & temperatures occur at the interface between the impacter and the impactee. If the impacter gets annihilated in the process, everything subjected to the extreme pressure & temperature will get dispersed. I actually think that heavy elements will not be found unless the impacter persists. The high pressures & temperatures need to be created, such that heavy elements are fused. But then they need to be cooled, while still under pressure. The reason is that radioactive elements are unstable at high temperatures. So you're not going to see much in the way of heavy elements at ground zero of a nuclear explosion -- the elements might have been fused, but shortly thereafter, they got split back apart in high energy collisions. The only way for such fragile atoms to persist is if the pressure necessary to fuse them was still present, but the temperatures at which they are unstable were removed before the pressure relaxed.

Lloyd wrote:Have you written anywhere else on how impacts delivered water to the Earth?

That's in the article called Remelted Crusts. Ceres is thought to be as much as 50% water.
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: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:02 am

Thanks, Charles. By the way, I just noticed ZZ's comments from yesterday. Do you have any replies to that?

Also, I just reread Remelted Crust, where you said "the [lunar] highlands might have been chunks of solids floating in a sea of magma." I read somewhere online a few weeks or months ago that the highlands are rather thick on the far side of the moon and thin out on the near side, as if the highland material came from an asteroid that hit the far side and partly melted, flowing around to cover most of the moon. I wonder if the asteroid could have made a somewhat soft landing on the far side, like what you said about another asteroid having soft-landed on Earth to form the supercontinent. In order to soft-land, would an asteroid have to be in a slowly decaying orbit around a body?

I think you ought to make a reference in this paper to your Light Curves paper finding that the Sun and Earth are likely only 378 million years old.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:56 pm

Lloyd wrote:I wonder if the asteroid could have made a somewhat soft landing on the far side, like what you said about another asteroid having soft-landed on Earth to form the supercontinent. In order to soft-land, would an asteroid have to be in a slowly decaying orbit around a body?

That's an interesting idea. Of course, on Earth we have a lot more data, from the surface, and from seismology. So we know a lot about the chemical differentiation between the continental granites and oceanic basalts, and between them and the mantle. IMO, this necessitates a non-terrestrial origin for the granites. And we have liquid water that needs explaining (i.e., how come it didn't all boil off). On Mars and on the Moon, we have fewer data. So while I think that I have a strong case with regards the Earth, I'm not sure that such a strong case could be made for Mars or for the Moon. But perhaps you should pursue it.
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: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:17 pm

Missing Cepheids in Inner Milky Way
Charles, a recent science news story says there's "A giant stellar void in the Milky Way"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160801210354.htm.
It says: "A major revision is required in our understanding of our Milky Way Galaxy according to an international team. Astronomers have found that there is a huge region around the center of our own galaxy, which is devoid of young stars. ...
"Pulsating stars called Cepheids ... are much younger (between 10 and 300 million years old) than our Sun (4.6 billion years old) and they pulsate in brightness in a regular cycle. The length of this cycle is related to the luminosity of the Cepheid, so if astronomers monitor them they can establish how bright the star really is, compare it with what we see from Earth, and work out its distance.
"[The scientists made] near-infrared observations ... at Sutherland, South Africa. To their surprise they found hardly any Cepheids in a huge region stretching for thousands of light years from the core of the Galaxy.
"[They] found some while ago that there are Cepheids in the central heart of our Milky Way (in a region about 150 light years in radius). [But] outside this there is a huge Cepheid desert extending out to 8000 light years from the centre."

Do you have a reasoned idea why Cepheids pulsate? They're not similar to pulsars; are they? One theorist figured the pulsation is due to planets that orbit these stars and cause their light to dim cyclically as they block some light when between the star and our view of it, but that wouldn't seem to explain how the luminosity is related to the period of the pulsations. Since you found a seemingly much better way to determine the ages of stars, which shows the Sun is under 400 million years old, do you think the conventional estimates of ages of Cepheids is likely to be way off as well? Do you have any idea why Cepheids would exist in the galactic center, but not in the region just outside the center?

Wikipedia has this image of one of the brightest Cepheid in Puppis. Do you have an idea what the cloud is around the Cepheid and why it has concentric rings, which perhaps match the pulsations?
Image
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:15 pm

Lloyd wrote:Do you have a reasoned idea why Cepheids pulsate?

I'm favoring the idea that they're still just reverberating from the initial implosion, gradually settling down into the equilibrium. But no, I don't think that they're similar to pulsars, which are fundamentally different stars.

Lloyd wrote:One theorist figured the pulsation is due to planets that orbit these stars and cause their light to dim cyclically as they block some light when between the star and our view of it, but that wouldn't seem to explain how the luminosity is related to the period of the pulsations.

Well, an obscuring planet would affect the luminosity, but that wouldn't explain the corresponding change in color. At the bright end of the cycle, the Cepheid is bluer, and at the dim end, it's redder. A planet in transit wouldn't do that to the stellar radiation. But a compressed star would be brighter and bluer, while a less dense star would be dimmer and redder. So I think that it's just reverberations.

Lloyd wrote:Since you found a seemingly much better way to determine the ages of stars, which shows the Sun is under 400 million years old, do you think the conventional estimates of ages of Cepheids is likely to be way off as well?

Probably.

Lloyd wrote:Do you have any idea why Cepheids would exist in the galactic center, but not in the region just outside the center?

An absence of young stars in the center of a spiral galaxy isn't uncommon, so I'm not sure what the surprise would be. And the presence of some young stars along the galactic axis doesn't really contradict that, since those are well-known stellar nurseries. The cores of spirals galaxies are similar to elliptical galaxies, with their old, yellow stars, their absence of much interstellar material, and with new stars still being born on the axis, in the so-called "active galactic nuclei" (AGN).

Lloyd wrote:Do you have an idea what the cloud is around the Cepheid and why it has concentric rings, which perhaps match the pulsations?

I'm not sure, but that sounds reasonable.
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: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:58 am

Cepheid Reverberations
Implosion formation reverberations sounds plausible for Cepheid luminosity pulsations. Does that mean you agree with the article that they're young stars?

I found that the cloud around the bright Cepheid is called a circumstellar envelope and I found an interesting abstract about it.

The circumstellar envelopes of the Cepheids L Car and RS Pup - Comparative study in the infrared with Spitzer, VLT/VISIR and VLTI/MIDI
Pierre Kervella (LESIA), Antoine Mérand (ESO), Alexandre Gallenne (LESIA, ESO)
(Submitted on 10 Feb 2009)

[Abridged] - Context: Circumstellar envelopes (CSEs) around Cepheids are particularly interesting as they could impact the Cepheid distance scale, and imply stellar mass loss. Aims: Our goal is to establish the spatial and spectral properties of the CSEs of L Car and RS Pup. This is done through a parametrization of the envelopes in terms of fractional flux (with respect to the star) and angular size. - Methods: We retrieved archival Spitzer images of the two stars (3.5-70 mic), and obtained new imaging with the VLT/VISIR camera in BURST mode (8.6-11.9 mic), as well as interferometry with VLTI/MIDI (8-13 mic). This combination allows us to probe the envelopes over arcminute to milliarcsecond scales. - Results: The CSE of RS Pup is resolved at 24 and 70 mic by Spitzer, and around 10 mic by MIDI and VISIR. The compact envelope of L Car is resolved only in the VISIR and MIDI observations. However, the properties of the IR excesses differ considerably : a warm component is present around both stars at a spatial scale of a few 100 to a few 1 000 AU, but RS Pup presents in addition a large (several 100 000 AU) and cold (~40 K) dusty envelope. - Conclusions: We propose that the reflection nebula surrounding RS Pup has an interstellar origin, while the warm CSEs of both stars were created by ongoing stellar mass loss. Such warm circumstellar envelopes are probably common around Cepheids.

Do you agree with their conclusion? I don't see any potential confirmation there of the idea that the concentric rings are produced by the Cepheid pulsations. Do you? Do you think your reverberation model is very simple? Offhand, it seems like it might be simple, because it seems it may be similar to a dense object falling into water, causing it to make a series of waves at the point of initial contact, so that the water surface there bounces up and down for a while.

Jet Streams & Gas Giants
I read your interesting paper on Earth's jet streams at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=17795 and your discussion on this TB forum. I looked for solar jet streams on your site and didn't find anything in your astrophysics papers. Should there be much similarity between Earth's and the Sun's jet streams? What about jet streams in other planets' atmospheres? Should they all have them? Could jet streams or anything else likely tell us how deep an atmosphere is, so that we could determine the diameters of the gas giants beneath their atmospheres?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:41 am

Lloyd wrote:Implosion formation reverberations sounds plausible for Cepheid luminosity pulsations. Does that mean you agree with the article that they're young stars?

Yes, I believe that red giants are stars being born, and Cepheids on the Asymptotic Giant Branch (of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram) are newly born stars that haven't stopped reverberating from the implosion. But I don't know how to constrain the estimate for how long it takes for a star to form and to settle down into a steady-state star.

Lloyd wrote:I found that the cloud around the bright Cepheid is called a circumstellar envelope and I found an interesting abstract about it. [...] Do you agree with their conclusion?

I don't know.

Lloyd wrote:I don't see any potential confirmation there of the idea that the concentric rings are produced by the Cepheid pulsations.

The more I think about it, the less convinced I am. Cepheids oscillate in periods of days or weeks, while those rings were probably formed with 100s or 1000s of years between them, at the very least. So they were more probably formed by irregularities in the infalling matter during the star's formation.

Lloyd wrote:Do you think your reverberation model is very simple?

It is. Elsewhere, for longer-period oscillations (such as the Sun's 11.2 sunspot cycle) I explore the properties of s-waves circumnavigating the star's equator, where competing positive and negative feedback loops result in oscillations of the wave heights. "Maybe" that mechanism could produce oscillation periods as short as a couple of days. For even shorter periods, an elastic rebound model might work better.

Lloyd wrote:I looked for solar jet streams on your site and didn't find anything in your astrophysics papers. Should there be much similarity between Earth's and the Sun's jet streams? What about jet streams in other planets' atmospheres?

I "think" that what you're talking about goes by a different name inside the Sun -- "differential rotation", which is covered here.

Lloyd wrote:Should they all have them? Could jet streams or anything else likely tell us how deep an atmosphere is, so that we could determine the diameters of the gas giants beneath their atmospheres?

I don't know.
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: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:16 am

Charles, do you have comments on any of the following sci news articles?

Mysterious Supernovas Explode Twice, Giving Birth to Powerful Magnets
http://www.space.com/33680-supernovas-explode-twice-produce-create-massive-magnets.html

Earth interacted with supernova remnants for 1 million years [This is based on conventional Earth rock strata wrong dating methods]
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160810104412.htm

Why did Tutankhamun Have a Dagger Made From a Meteorite? [from Late Heavy Bombardment?]
http://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-other-artifacts/why-did-tutankhamun-have-dagger-made-meteorite-006408

Even a dwarf galaxy with very low mass is capable of accreting smaller nearby galaxies
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-galaxies-voracious-flea.html

Astrophysicists discover [wrong as usual] mechanism for spiral-arm formation in disk galaxies
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-star-cluster-machos.html

About 20,000 kilometers beneath the sun’s surface, magnetic fields rise no faster than about 500 kilometers per hour ... implying that moving parcels of gas help steer magnetic fields toward the surface
http://www.sciencenews.org/article/magnetic-fields-sun-rise-500-kilometers-hour?tgt=nr
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Aug 20, 2016 3:48 am

Intergalactic Filaments
Charles, I noticed you were reviewing your quasar model and discussions, which latter included a science news item, called "Vast Cosmic Filament Discovered Connecting Milky Way to the Universe" at http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/09/vast-cosmic-filaments-discovered-that-link-the-universe.html. The article seems to say that globular star clusters make up the Milky Way's filament, at least in part. Have you had any thoughts about how intergalactic filaments form? And what about globular star clusters?

Here are highlights.

Vast Cosmic Filament Discovered Connecting Milky Way to the Universe

[There is] a vast filament of material that connects our Milky Way galaxy to nearby clusters of galaxies, which are similarly interconnected to the rest of the Universe. “By examining the positions of ancient groupings of stars, called globular clusters, we found that the clusters form a narrow plane around the Milky Way rather than being scattered across the sky,” said Dr. Stephan Keller of the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics at ANU.
“Furthermore, the Milky Way’s entourage of small satellites are seen to inhabit the same plane. What we have discovered is evidence for the cosmic thread that connects us to the vast expanse of the Universe. The filament of star clusters and small galaxies around the Milky Way is like the umbilical cord that fed our Galaxy during its youth,” Keller observed.

"gravity draws the material over these interconnecting filaments towards the largest lumps of matter, and our findings show that the globular clusters and satellite galaxies of the Milky Way trace this cosmic filament. Globular clusters are systems of hundreds of thousands of ancient stars tightly packed in a ball. In our picture, most of these star clusters are the central cores of small galaxies that have been drawn along the filament by gravity.

“Once these small galaxies got too close [to] the Milky Way the majority of stars were stripped away and added to our galaxy, leaving only their cores.

“It is thought that the Milky Way has grown to its current size by the consumption of hundreds of such smaller galaxies over cosmic time,” he concluded.

---

Comments:
Maybe the plane can be explained by galaxy spin -- a sort of intergalactic gyroscope that brings galaxies together along its angle of rotation rather than from above or below its axis. Filaments would naturally form from stretching, due to spaghettification -- the most distant ends of galaxies would tend to remain at rest, while the parts nearest to one another would accelerate closer/faster. There is no need to invoke dark matter or claim there is some invisible web that holds galaxies in clusters. Perhaps it's more complex than falling off a log, but no more complicated than falling toward a black hole.

how do we know that the filaments are not the over lapping boundaries of super nova waves crossing each other from all directions. In many cases since the waves would come from all directions it makes sense that many would in fact sort of cancel out others speeds as well as interact gravitionally and eventually collapse. If you look at those structures in the largest available scales it even looks like that could explain it.

our findings show that the globular clusters and satellite galaxies of the Milky Way trace this cosmic filament.

My Comment
I thought globular clusters were found mainly in the Milky Way's halo, which is above and below the galactic disk. But this says they're in the plane of the galaxy. Or at least those in the intergalactic filament are in the plane, where the disk is also. I guess I'll have to look around and see if I can find out more surely where globular clusters are found.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:34 am

Lloyd wrote:Charles, do you have comments on any of the following sci news articles?

I didn't see anything in there that would be a game changer.

Lloyd wrote:Have you had any thoughts about how intergalactic filaments form? And what about globular star clusters?

I haven't studied anything above the level of the galaxy. In the article you quoted, I could just replace gravity with the electric force, and it would be no different from things that I have studied, such as the body force that causes dusty plasmas to collapse into stars, and that keeps spiral galaxies from flinging their arms out into intergalactic space. But note that it's an electrostatic model, not an electrodynamic one -- it isn't electric currents running through these filaments that constitutes the binding force -- it's just the electric force between opposite charges.
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: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:44 pm

Programmers Think Tank
Charles, as a programmer, could you help with a Think Tank for ending science corruption, as proposed at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16421? I figure, since a kid can use programming to help people get out of paying parking fines, and is now working on using programming to help homeless people, perhaps similar algorithms could help end science corruption in government. What do you think?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:50 pm

Lloyd wrote:Programmers Think Tank
Charles, as a programmer, could you help with a Think Tank for ending science corruption, as proposed at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16421? I figure, since a kid can use programming to help people get out of paying parking fines, and is now working on using programming to help homeless people, perhaps similar algorithms could help end science corruption in government. What do you think?

I did a lot of work to support online collaboration, in the interest of furthering scientific progress. But in the end, it was just a big wild goose chase, since nobody wanted to collaborate.
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: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:04 pm

I wanted to collaborate and still do. We haven't asked programmers yet to collaborate. Besides, this may be a more effective approach, focusing on the government's role and using programmers' skills. Anyway, I'll see if anything seems liable to happen.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model: Quasars

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:16 am

Quasars
Charles seems to have updated his quasar paper quite a bit. Seems like very sensible conclusions as usual. My comment is in red within this quote from his paper in blue.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9273
CC: Finally, we should consider the larger environment in which quasars form. While some quasars, especially at the highest redshifts, have not been associated with galaxies, most have, and the galaxies are typically ellipticals. (Quasar-like stars occurring in spiral galaxies are weaker, and are known as Seyferts.) The quasars form near the minor axis, and tend toward the center. In the NT [CC's Natural Tokamak] model, an external magnetic field is important in separating the charges in the imploding filament into oppositely charged strands, and orienting the strands for head-on collisions with oppositely charged strands from the other direction. (See Figure 12.) There is no reason to be surprised that the far more powerful magnetic field in the center of an elliptical galaxy would be good at forming these most powerful NTs. But we should acknowledge that it will take extra force for the charged particles to move across the magnetic field. This might require that the filament be particularly robust if it is still to implode with enough momentum to form an NT. All other factors being the same, charged particles prefer to travel parallel to magnetic lines of force.

With that as the problem, another curious fact about quasars might be the solution: over one third of the host galaxies have small, close companion galaxies, implying that there had been a recent collision.9§2 (Seyfert galaxies show the same relation.9§2) The significance is that the collider might have been moving perpendicular to the elliptical's magnetic field, and in a collision between two dusty plasmas, the body force that will cause filaments to implode will be parallel to the motion of the particles. (See the section on Filaments.) Thus the filaments that imploded into quasars might have been the comas trailing behind the collider. The strong statistical correlation between galactic collisions and quasars also tells us that the quasars didn't last long after the collisions (~500 million years9§3), or both of the colliders wouldn't still be near each other. This isn't terribly surprising — NTs will burn the brightest with the initial batch of light elements as fuel, but fusing heavier elements into something even heavier requires more energy. So it's just a matter of time before fusion inside the tokamak can no longer support the jets that beam the light our way. The spectral lines are showing 1st, 2nd, and 3rd period elements (H, He, C, N, O, Ne, Mg, and Si), but not much that is heavier. In the 4th period, fusion starts consuming more energy than it releases, so that might be what shuts down the reactor. Recent research reveals that the extinction can occur rather quickly, with dramatic reductions in luminosity in just 10 years.13 This is not a prediction of the standard model, because it would require the accretion disc to terminate abruptly, while dusty plasmas in the standard model should have indistinct boundaries. In the NT model, the quasar isn't feeding on an inflowing accretion disc, but rather, on its own initial angular velocity. This will be attenuated by friction between the counter-streaming charges within the tokamak. While relative velocities are high, the electrical resistance is low, and thus the friction will be slight. But as the particles decelerate, the resistance increases, further encouraging the deceleration. When the relative velocities are no longer strong enough to generate a magnetic pinch capable of nuclear fusion, the tokamak falls apart.

We should also note that quasar formation hit a peak about 12 billion years ago. (See Figure 13. It isn't known whether the fall-off in detection older than that is because there were fewer of them, or because they are harder to find. But the fall-off since then is reliable.) The significance of this within the NT model has yet to be determined. Elliptical galaxies typically have little interstellar matter, so it's possible that only when the galaxies were younger, when there were more dusty plasmas available, could the quasars form. It's also possible that there were more galactic mergers back then, if the Universe had a larger number of smaller galaxies interacting more frequently. Another possibility is that this statistic is dictated by redshifts inside the quasars, and doesn't actually indicate age.


LK: I show two statements underlined above. The first says quasars seem to last about 500 million years. The second implies that the oldest existing quasars are now over 12 billion years old. If they tend to last half a billion years, then I'd say it's pretty safe to suspect that the dating of the quasars is way wrong, usually by billions of years too much. The oldest should be about half a billion years old. If they're half a billion light years away, we'd be seeing them as they were half a billion years ago. But there seems to be good reason to doubt conventional distance calculations too. Anyway, maybe Charles or anyone will come up with a way to determine the average size of a quasar, the average speed of rotation of its torus and the average amount of initial friction between the counterstreaming charges to be able to estimate the average and maybe maximum lifespan of a quasar.

CC: Finally, the standard model of quasars has black holes at their centers, with gravitational acceleration being the energy source. The NT model shows that the more plausible energy source is the implosion of a dusty plasma. If there isn't any need for black holes to power quasars, is there any need for them at all? There are certainly some instances of some large, non-radiating gravity sources. But there is no evidence of such objects possessing any sort of exotic properties, such as event horizons. A large, non-radiating gravity source might just be a large dark star. Or it might be a star with such a thick atmosphere that all of the radiation is scattered.

To summarize,

Quasars have collimated bipolar jets, and highly focused EM radiation.
Compensated for focusing, the power output is in the stellar range, not the galactic. So quasars are stars, not galaxies, AGNs, or galactic seeds.
The radiation is generated by counter-streaming charges in the bipolar jets.
The high redshift is not from the relative motion of the entire quasar, but rather, from the relative motion of the photon emitters in the bipolar jets, which have been accelerated away from us by electron drag.
The redshifts are quantized by the mass of the +ions.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4414
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model: Quasars

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:04 pm

Lloyd wrote:LK: I show two statements underlined above. The first says quasars seem to last about 500 million years. The second implies that the oldest existing quasars are now over 12 billion years old. If they tend to last half a billion years, then I'd say it's pretty safe to suspect that the dating of the quasars is way wrong, usually by billions of years too much. The oldest should be about half a billion years old. If they're half a billion light years away, we'd be seeing them as they were half a billion years ago. But there seems to be good reason to doubt conventional distance calculations too. Anyway, maybe Charles or anyone will come up with a way to determine the average size of a quasar, the average speed of rotation of its torus and the average amount of initial friction between the counterstreaming charges to be able to estimate the average and maybe maximum lifespan of a quasar.

I agree that conventional cosmological datings are suspect anyway, and with regards to quasars, they're especially suspect, since as Halton Arp demonstrated, the quasars are clearly associated with galaxies that have much lower redshifts. So the distance should be gauged by the parent galaxy, not the intrinsic redshift of the quasars. Then the interpretation of the galactic redshifts themselves is still open to debate. Everybody believes that redshift equates to distance, but not everybody (including me) believes that redshift is a sign of an expanding Universe -- the redshift might just be "tired light" or something similar. But I haven't studied cosmology enough to offer an alternative dating algorithm.

As concerns the sizes of quasars, I'm not convinced that there is an average size. For main sequence stars, the upper limit appears to be something like 1.4 solar masses -- anything more than that and the gravitational loading will initiate a runaway thermonuclear explosion that will end in a supernova. The lower limit seems to be something like .3 solar masses. But my "natural tokamaks" don't have any gravitational loading, so going supernova isn't a problem, and I'm not sure that there is a limit to how big they can be.
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: 1794
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests