Most Thorough Model

[Lloyd]

This thread is for discussing anything in Charles Chandler's alternative EU model.
Here are the main topics to date (where I add the words electric and magnetic to show that they are not mainstream theories, but truly electric/magnetic):

Astrophysics & Geophysics
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6031.html
Accretion (Electic)
Galaxies (Electic, Magnetic)
Black Holes (Magnetic)
Pulsars (Magnetic)
Quasars (Magnetic)
Nebulae (Electic)
The Sun (Electic)
Star Types (Electic, Magnetic)
The Planets (Electic)

Geomagnetism (Electic, Magnetic)
[Atmospheres (Electic)] [not posted yet]
Tidal Forces (Electic)
The Moho (Electic)
Earthquakes (Electic)
Volcanoes (Electic)
Seneca Guns (Electic)

Meteoric Airbursts (Electic)
Racetrack Playa Rocks! (Electic)
Electric Levitation
Magnetometry
Inferior Mirages (Electic)

My Route to CEU (Chandler's EU model)
My college roommate in 1969 showed me Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision. He seemed to find it interesting and said his Art teacher had asked the class to read the book. I read it and really liked it and looked for other books by him. I found Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos. The latter was a little interesting, but argued for revising ancient history chronology, which was hard to follow. But the other 2 books showed a lot of interesting evidence for global cataclysms in ancient historical times caused by close encounters with Venus and Mars at different times.

I was confused why I didn't see any mention of Velikovsky's findings in science literature. When I saw a book called the Velikovsky Affair, I assumed it showed that Velikovsky's claims were wrong, so I didn't bother to read it. I just assumed that there was nothing to his ideas, even though they seemed interesting. Only later did I find out that that book supported Velikovsky and condemned mainstream science.

I read Dave Talbott's magazine, Pensee', for 3 years covering 10 issues, from 72-75 after I saw it advertised in Intellectual Digest in 1971. When it ended there was mention of Kronos magazine coming out in 76, which I then read for the next ten years. Ralph Juergens' articles about the Moon and Mars and the Sun were the most interesting to me, but Cardona's articles about ancient myths were very good too. I read some issues of Catastrophism and Ancient History and Aeon magazines in the late 80s and early 90s. In the late 90s the Thoth email newsletter, a Yahoogroup, came out, started by Dave Talbott, I think, and lasted about 8 years. It's still available on the Saturnian Cosmology website, I think. Dave, Cardona, Wal Thornhill and several others wrote a lot of good stuff for that. After Thoth ended they started this website, first with just TPODs, from 2004-7. In 2007 they started this forum, but it crashed after less than a year. But they salvaged some of the best threads. Thornhill's holoscience website also came out about the time this one did.

So I liked Juergens, Thornhill and Cardona the most. But 3 years ago I had discussion with Charles on this forum about tornado theory. I thought Peter Thompson's electric tornado theory was probably the best, but Charles was able to show that his own model was probably much better. Then two years ago, early 2012, I wanted to understand the electric Sun model better, so I asked Charles, Brant (Upriver) and Michael Mozina to discuss together. Brant had his Aether Battery Iron Sun model, Michael had Oliver Manuel's Neutronium Iron Sun model and Charles had an undeveloped model. I asked others to join the discussion too, like Don Scott, Thornhill, Oliver Manuel and quite a few other forum members, but they all declined.

It turned out that all 3 of them had cathode Sun models, instead of anode Sun ones like Scott's and Thornhill's. We had weekly discussions for about 3 months, which are still available to read on this forum. We discussed Scott's and Thornhill's models too. The 3 of them explained why the Sun must be a cathode instead of an anode. Charles' explanations seemed most thorough and convincing. He made a lot of progress on his own model at that time. I don't remember how much he had already determined before the discussion began. Charles continued to answer questions from me and many others after the initial discussion and has continued to make quick progress in developing his model. You can see in the Contents above that it's rather thorough.

I hope in this thread or some other way, the EU team and supporters will provide detailed reasons why any of Charles' conclusions are wrong and will be open-minded enough to consider the possibility that the underpinning assumptions of the EU model may be wrong. The main point of contention seems to be whether or not galactic electric currents power the stars.

But we can discuss here anything relating to the CEU model.

[Lloyd]

Origin of the Continents

I enjoyed reading CC's page on the Moho layer yesterday http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/11093.html. He says there that the continents appear to be of more recent origin than the rest of the planet, that they must have resulted from an impact. Here's a quote.

While the oceanic crust is similar to the composition of the mantle, the continental granites are different enough to suggest an extra-terrestrial origin. If they simply bubbled up to the surface when the Earth was considerably hotter, the lower and upper boundaries of the granite layer would have leveled quickly under the force of gravity — as fast as irregularities in the surface of a lava lake disappear — producing a near-flat layer. Only an ET impact, after the Earth had cooled sufficiently to not completely re-melt the granite, could have left the Earth with such surface differentiation. So it's possible that a large ET object impacted the Earth (such as the hypothesized Theia), thereafter slowly pancaking into the original super-continent of Pangaea, which then rifted into the modern continents. The fact that Pangaea doesn't appear to have been radially symmetrical suggests that the impact wasn't perfectly perpendicular to the Earth's existing surface. It's even possible that Pangaea was the skid mark left by a collider that wasn't completely consumed. If the Moon was involved in this event, perhaps it wasn't just the spatter from the impact — perhaps it was the impactor itself. So Theia, with a volume of 2.95 × 1010 km3, would have left its mark on the Earth by donating 7.58 × 109 km3 of granite for its continents,3 while retaining 2.20 × 1010 km3 to become the current lunar volume, and losing enough momentum in the collision to become a candidate for gravitational capture by the Earth.

I've read elsewhere that the sediments on the seafloors and continental shelves can only be a few thousand years old, if the erosion rate on the continents has been about the same as now. That would conform with Cardona's findings about the Saturn flareup and Mike Fisher's findings about a major impact having caused the supercontinent to break up, leaving the continents as they are now after sliding apart on the Moho layer.

[Lloyd]

Star Formation

Looks like CC has a little more work to do to finish this part of the model.
At http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5972.html CC made these statements.

.39_Recent research has shown that a spherical dusty plasma first resolves into filaments, and then the filaments collapse into a star.8,9,10

.40_In the more general sense, the Universe is full of filaments of various sizes and shapes.11,12

.41_Both gravity and gas pressure object to this form, so this is a prime candidate for EM treatment.

.42_[In] a random distribution of charges, [] there is repulsion [] between like-charged dust grains, and between like-charged +ion clouds, where lines of force from like charges collide with each other.

.43_Now look what happens if the spherical dusty plasma is stretched into a filament, as in Figure 5.

.44_There is no repulsion anywhere in that configuration!

.45_All of the electric lines of force close on the nearest neighbor, which is oppositely charged.

.46_So it's all attraction and no repulsion.

.47_From this we can conclude that the net attractive force in the linear configuration is much greater, and thus the chances of accretion are much greater.

.48_So it makes sense that spherical dusty plasmas don't tend to collapse, but if the plasma resolves into filaments, the chance of collapse is much greater.

.49_So then we just have to look for things that would encourage filaments to form, and then the rest happens automatically.

.50_We have already recognized that supernovae are important triggers for star births, and we acknowledged that the UV radiation increases the degree of ionization, which increases the "like-likes-like" body force.

.51_It's possible that irregular jets from the supernovae are creating turbulence in the dusty plasmas, and the velocity differences are stretching the plasma into filaments.

.52_Once formed, they'll snap together. like grabbing a balloon and stretching it into an oval. the rubber [snaps back].

At http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 95#p100371 he made these statements.

.53_To understand why dusty plasmas collapse, we have to take a close look at the precise conditions in which they collapse, because they don't just do this at random.

.54_Rather, dusty plasmas only collapse when there is a nearby supernova, or when two clouds collide.

.55_So what is that going to do? It will strip the halos off of the nuclei.

.56_The following illustration shows the resting condition on the left, with neatly-organized positive halos around each negative dust grain.

.57_(This is the condition in which there is a slight repulsion between the cells.)

.58_On the right, the halos have been stripped off of the dust grains by the collision of two clouds, or by a cloud absorbing the ejecta from a supernova.

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

.59_So I went back and recalculated the electrostatic forces, and found that when the halos get stripped, the net force goes from slightly repulsive to insanely attractive.

.60_This is because with the halos stripped, all of the repulsion between halos is gone.

.61_With the halos in the space between the nuclei, there is nothing but attraction.

.62_The nearest neighbors to all of the positive halos are negative nuclei, and opposites attract.

.63_And the force is way, way more powerful than gravity.

.64_Since we know that dusty plasmas [] normally they don't collapse, and since we know that cloud collisions are the trigger, and since the maths show a massive body force when the halos get stripped off of the nuclei, there is little doubt that this is the force that causes dusty plasmas to collapse into stars.

[Lloyd]

What I meant in the above post is that CC's accretion model says Debye cells in space form filaments, I think, and the filaments then snap together in an implosion that forms stars, but in the second part from a post of his, he found that if halos are stripped from dust grains by shock waves calculations show that the charge separation would lead to a powerful implosion. So it looks like he needs to tie the halo stripping and filaments together.

Also, someone pointed out elsewhere that he doesn't seem to explain where the dust grains would come from. Or maybe it's mentioned in a different paper, or maybe I overlooked it. I assume they'd come from supernova explosions, or something similar. I don't think he has a paper that explains supernovas yet.

[Lloyd]

Discussion?

Does anyone want to discuss Origin of Continents, Star Formation, or any of the other topics listed in the OP?

Or whether there is any other fairly Thorough Model?

[Sparky]

This would suggest that CC's ocean floor age is off.: http://youtu.be/S4WetyROVvk

The continents are much older. http://youtu.be/bNhCWasoxLw

[Lloyd]

Erosion Rates Show Young Continents

This would suggest that CC's ocean floor age is off.: http://youtu.be/S4WetyROVvk

The continents are much older. http://youtu.be/bNhCWasoxLw

Age Estimate. I don't think CC gave an estimate of the age of the Earth, the seafloors, or the supercontinent. I guess you're referring to my estimate.

Seafloor Sediments. Does either video address the subject of the seafloor sediments? At the present rate of continental erosion, the continents would have completely eroded to below sea level in less than 20 million years. And the amount of seafloor sediments that is present now is what would have accumulated after only a few thousand years.

River Erosion. The Mississippi River is known to be less than 10,000 years old, based on delta and gulf sediments and the present rate of river erosion. The soil on the flood plains is carbon-dated to under 20,000 years, as I recall. Carbon dating is likely less accurate beyond 5,000 years. Some other rivers have been similarly dated.

Site. Also, have you checked out Fisher's site, http://NewGeology.us?

Supercontinent Origin. And did you read Charles' explanation in my second post about why the supercontinent must have come from a large impact body after the Earth's surface layers had already smoothed out? That's likely why the supercontinent did not form as a thin layer over the whole Earth. (He says above that the Moon may have collided with Earth and about a third of the present Moon volume, 7.6 billion cubic km, became the supercontinent, with the remaining 22 billion retained by the Moon.) It's still in the process of thinning out by surface erosion. As Fisher's site above shows, the supercontinent was likely broken up by a later smaller impact north of present-day Madagascar. Though it was much smaller than the supercontinent impact, it was larger than any other impact that hit the supercontinent or the later continents.

Continental Drift Striping. Fisher's site also explains that continental drift likely occurred in less than two days after the impact event, because the continents slid over the plasma Moho layer with very little friction. And it explains why magnetic striping on seafloors would have occurred during that short period of continental movements, as the magnetic field (which CC says is caused by Earth's electric double layers, CFDLs) would have been fluctuating due to the impact shocks etc.

This also meshes with Cardona's Saturn Theory.

[Sparky]

http://newgeology.us/ Maybe so, but more than one mechanism may have or may be at work. Expanding Earth has it's most persuasive evidence in the near fit of continents with each other. That's about all that I need to know. Shock? Maybe. Subduction? Maybe.

[Lloyd]

Earth Expansion Limits

Sparky, any Earth expansion would surely have been very limited, like the limited expansion involved when water freezes into ice. If the Earth expanded under the supercontinent, the expansion wouldn't tend to pull the supercontinent apart and push the pieces (continents) apart much. It would be like if there were a board in an empty pond and it were filled with water from a nozzle under the board. As the water level rises, the water would push the board upward, but it wouldn't pull the board into pieces. There would be very weak horizontal forces. The strong forces would be vertical.

Fisher's site shows that all of the movement of continents was away from one central point north of Madagascar, where a large crater is found. Expanding Earth wouldn't have a central point on Earth's surface like that and wouldn't be centered on a large crater. Expanding Earth also wouldn't push continents over obstructions like the East Pacific Rise. That rise is similar to the Mid Atlantic Ridge. North America was pushed so strongly that it slid over the Rise, which is where the San Andreas fault is under California. And the continental plate built up sludge all the way from the coast to Colorado, where the mountain ranges called the continental divide is located. Several large lakes formed which later drained catastrophically, two of which formed the Grand Canyon in a short period of time, while the rock strata were still soft.

Fisher's model explains nearly every major feature on Earth: the mountain ranges, cratons, how the supercontinent formed and broke up, the magnetic striping on seafloors, the submarine canyons, etc. CC's model fills in the blanks, like why the Moho layer is frictionless as plasma, how the magnetic field forms etc.

And no theory is sufficient that fails to explain why seafloor sediments are so shallow. They're shallow because this all occurred only a few thousand years ago.

[Sparky]

Sparky, any Earth expansion would surely have been very limited,

A very hasty conclusion! Like I said before, there are probably several mechanisms working. If Earth is expanding, I would suggest it is growing in mass, and assumptions as to how that would play out are highly speculative. We only have continents that appear to have been in near proximity.

[Lloyd]

Fred's Shape-Shifting Earth

I've studied expansion theories and saw Neal Adams' videos, but the evidence never impressed me much, esp. after seeing Mike Fisher's model for continental drift and reading Fred Juenemann's idea. Fred proposed that Earth was in a magnetic z-pinch when it was following Saturn from outside the solar system. That caused Earth to be oval or ellipsoid shaped, with the poles at the pointier ends of the ellipsoid. His idea was that the magnetic pinch eventually went away, perhaps when Saturn entered the solar system, or when the Saturn system broke up, and Venus, Mars and Earth separated from Saturn. Without the magnetic pinch, the Earth then would have changed from ellipsoidal to spherical. Earth's diameter through the poles would then have shrunk, but its equatorial diameter would have expanded, until both diameters were about the same. So the expansion would have been due mainly to Earth changing shape from ellipsoid to spheroid. He pointed out that even the polar areas would have expanded at their surfaces, since the pointier ends would have flattened out.

I wrote about this in the Earth Was a Moon of Saturn thread a few years ago on the Planetary Science board.

[Aardwolf]

Earth Expansion Limits

Sparky, any Earth expansion would surely have been very limited, like the limited expansion involved when water freezes into ice. If the Earth expanded under the supercontinent, the expansion wouldn't tend to pull the supercontinent apart and push the pieces (continents) apart much. It would be like if there were a board in an empty pond and it were filled with water from a nozzle under the board. As the water level rises, the water would push the board upward, but it wouldn't pull the board into pieces. There would be very weak horizontal forces. The strong forces would be vertical.

Fisher's site shows that all of the movement of continents was away from one central point north of Madagascar, where a large crater is found. Expanding Earth wouldn't have a central point on Earth's surface like that and wouldn't be centered on a large crater. Expanding Earth also wouldn't push continents over obstructions like the East Pacific Rise. That rise is similar to the Mid Atlantic Ridge. North America was pushed so strongly that it slid over the Rise, which is where the San Andreas fault is under California. And the continental plate built up sludge all the way from the coast to Colorado, where the mountain ranges called the continental divide is located. Several large lakes formed which later drained catastrophically, two of which formed the Grand Canyon in a short period of time, while the rock strata were still soft.

Fisher's model explains nearly every major feature on Earth: the mountain ranges, cratons, how the supercontinent formed and broke up, the magnetic striping on seafloors, the submarine canyons, etc. CC's model fills in the blanks, like why the Moho layer is frictionless as plasma, how the magnetic field forms etc.

And no theory is sufficient that fails to explain why seafloor sediments are so shallow. They're shallow because this all occurred only a few thousand years ago.

An an advocate of plate tectonics it should therefore be relatively simple to answer the following two questions using the linked map below;

1) What direction is the African plate moving?
2) What direction is the Antarctic plate moving?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Pl ... ct2_en.svg

[Sparky]

Fisher's model explains nearly every major feature on Earth

I don't know enough about ,"nearly every major feature", so since I understand expanding Earth, I'll stick with that until my interest changes to explore something else.

[Lloyd]

Aardwolf said: An an advocate of plate tectonics it should therefore be relatively simple to answer the following two questions using the linked map below;
1) What direction is the African plate moving?
2) What direction is the Antarctic plate moving?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Pl ... ct2_en.svg

Looks like the illustration is implying that they're not moving.
Have you managed to take a look at Fisher's model?

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf said: An an advocate of plate tectonics it should therefore be relatively simple to answer the following two questions using the linked map below;
1) What direction is the African plate moving?
2) What direction is the Antarctic plate moving?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Pl ... ct2_en.svg

Looks like the illustration is implying that they're not moving.

What do you determine the arrows to mean?