Solar System and Planet Formation

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu May 15, 2014 11:02 am

dougettinger wrote:I have a feeling that the EU society analyses new discoveries and data very well, but only wants to use their analysis to dispute the standard model and not begin to propose their own models or hypotheses.


Not true. Do you not read anything about EU?

dougettinger wrote:My intuition definitely leads me away from the proto-Saturn polar alignment concept which the EU definitely supports without recognizing any other possible options.


All of EU doesn't support proto-Saturn.

dougettinger wrote:EU is supporting its own paradigm.


And that is a bad thing? How? Whose paradigm should EU support?

dougettinger wrote: NASA releases new data and tries to propose how it may fit into the standard model, but listing reservations.


Most press releases from NASA do not "list reservations" but instead assume their standard model is correct. Any anomalies to this and NASA attempts to shoehorn the anomalies into the standard model or they hand waive it away.


dougettinger wrote: EU interprets the new data as fitting into the electromagnetic interpretations and concepts, but never proposing any source or trigger for events that the new data reveals.


That's entirely false. You would do well to read more information about this site and about EU in general. What would be purpose of proposing a theory such as EU if the theory offered no explanation for anything?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Thu May 15, 2014 11:37 am

Hello Viscount Aero,

I am expressing my feelings or intuition. I have only learned about the EU recently. I will also do some more re-reading.

Doug Ettinger
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu May 15, 2014 11:50 am

dougettinger wrote:Hello Viscount Aero,

I am expressing my feelings or intuition. I have only learned about the EU recently. I will also do some more re-reading.

Doug Ettinger


Yes I can see that.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Inconstant Radioactive Decay Startles Physicists

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat May 17, 2014 2:25 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N76lx-4fN-g

Published on Jun 14, 2013

For many years a scientific controversy has been brewing far from the spotlight of mainstream media. How constant are physical constants? For decades the scientific consensus has been that "true constants", such as the speed of light and the gravitational force, remain unchanged over time. But in recent years more and more evidence has challenged this assumption. A telling example is now posed by observed changes in supposedly constant radioactive decay rates in relation to solar flares.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

more evidence falsifying core accretion theory

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat May 17, 2014 6:21 pm

The "Impossible" Exoplanet | Space News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4MIFnpWG4s

A newly discovered exoplanet poses a radical challenge to the consensus theory of planet and star formation. The massive exoplanet is eleven times the size of Jupiter yet it circles its parent star at a distance that is 650X the average distance between the Earth and the Sun (versus Neptune which is 30X the average distance between the Earth and the Sun). In the conventional theory, which imagines stars forming gravitationally in a collapsing cloud of gas and dust, such a giant planet cannot form at such a vast distance from its star.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

fallacy of crater dating

Unread postby viscount aero » Sat May 17, 2014 7:06 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbsGxrEXvlI
Real Mars Mysteries for NASA's Curiosity | Space News

With the successful landing of the Mars rover Curiosity, NASA scientists will have new opportunities for discovery on the Martian surface. But will investigators be willing to question longstanding assumptions?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: more evidence falsifying core accretion theory

Unread postby dougettinger » Sun May 18, 2014 3:19 pm

Hello Viscount aero,[

quote="viscount aero"]The "Impossible" Exoplanet | Space News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4MIFnpWG4s

A newly discovered exoplanet poses a radical challenge to the consensus theory of planet and star formation. The massive exoplanet is eleven times the size of Jupiter yet it circles its parent star at a distance that is 650X the average distance between the Earth and the Sun (versus Neptune which is 30X the average distance between the Earth and the Sun). In the conventional theory, which imagines stars forming gravitationally in a collapsing cloud of gas and dust, such a giant planet cannot form at such a vast distance from its star.[/quote]

I do not believe in the nebular hypothesis because the rules for gravity simply cannot organize a star system like our own. Electromagnetic phenomena is required. My ideas are expressed in EttingerJournals.com.

The planet mentioned in Space News could have been captured during a star burst activity that produced stars and dwarfs and planets in close proximity before being dispersed. Also, certain random orbital configuration of a star system could have ejected a planet like a "sling shot" mode but not enough to escape the gravity/magnetic field of the parent star.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: more evidence falsifying core accretion theory

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun May 18, 2014 10:34 pm

dougettinger wrote:Hello Viscount aero,[



I do not believe in the nebular hypothesis because the rules for gravity simply cannot organize a star system like our own. Electromagnetic phenomena is required. My ideas are expressed in EttingerJournals.com.

The planet mentioned in Space News could have been captured during a star burst activity that produced stars and dwarfs and planets in close proximity before being dispersed. Also, certain random orbital configuration of a star system could have ejected a planet like a "sling shot" mode but not enough to escape the gravity/magnetic field of the parent star.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA


I also agree with Wal Thornhill that our planets are not from the same origin. Some are clearly migratory bodies that did not exist here at a "beginning."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Recovered: ELECTRICITY involved in the formation of plan

Unread postby jone dae » Mon Aug 11, 2014 12:26 pm

Below is the missing webpage of the MPI cited in the comment below:

bboyer wrote:Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:51 am Post subject: ELECTRICITY involved in the formation of planets?
OP "davesmith_au"


Giday all.

After following the links from lite-brite's post here: <old forum link no longer valid> to the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics; http://www.mpe.mpg.de/pke/PKE/Results1_e.html I kept reading the article and came across one of the experiments with plasma being carried out on the International Space Station:

coagulation_sm.jpg


During this experiment the plasma is turned off. Within a fraction of a second after the injection some 100,000 particles get together to form a big agglomerate (big blob in the center, magnified in the right image [below]) together with many smaller clusters (with totally the same mass as the big one). This result indicates a "run-away process". Further investigations showed that the clusters were charged, positively or negatively.
http://1drv.ms/1oEdmdR

DustyPlasmacoagulationcloseupBE22Ca.gif


th_DustyPlasmaoscillations.gif


http://1drv.ms/1kXcMgu . http://1drv.ms/1kXcYwu
(original caption) Superposition of several video frames. You can clearly see the oscillations of
single particles, which means that they carry an electric charge...


Due to this experiment we might soon understand what happens in the early phase of planetary formation in a protoplanetary disk and how from microscopic particles finally planets like the Earth form - with the help of electrical charging.


I think Science Apologist and a few of his mates are going to soon have to re-think their notion of "There is electricity in space, but it doesn't do anything..."

Thoughts, anyone?

Cheers, Dave Smith.
_________________
PlasmaResources.com
"If you are not prepared to think outside the square, you will always be confined within it..." Dave Smith.


-the link for the Max Planck Institute above is dead/broken. Here is what that page looked like in 2005:

PKE Nefedov

More Results (1)


Koagulation Koagulation
Coagulation Experiment
The following movies show a charge enhanced coagulation process as it has been observed during an experiment of PKE Nefedov on board the International Space Station.

Download MPEG movie: low quality (3.5 MB), high quality (11.5 MB).

During this experiment the plasma is turned off. Within a fraction of a second after the injection some 100,000 particles get together to form an agglomerate (big blob in the center, magnified in the right image). We assume that a charge enhanced enlargement of the particles' cross section leads to this run-away growth ('gelation'). http://1drv.ms/1oEdmdRhttp://1drv.ms/1oEdmdR

Oscillating particles Phase-shifts
http://1drv.ms/1r5H8Qo
Superposition of several video frames. You can clearly see the oscillations of
single particles, which means that they carry an electric charge (left). A
comparision of the oscillation phases shows that there exists nearly the
same number of positive and negative charges (right).

Due to this experiment we might soon understand what happens in the early phase of planetary formation in a protoplanetary disk and how from microscopic particles finally planets like the Earth form - with the help of electrical charging.

Further experiments on coagulation are planned.

De-charging of particles
In the "decharging experiment" the rest charge on the microparticles was measured after the plasma was switched off. To measure this, the particles were exposed to a sinusoidally varying electric field (at low frequencies around 0.5 Hz) and - if they remain charged - one can simply determine the charge from the oscillation amplitude shown in the figures below.
http://1drv.ms/1r5H8Qo . http://1drv.ms/1kwSrhI
Vertical position Oscillation amplitude
Figure a) shows the particle motion upwards separately for particles
in the periphery and the centre. The time when the plasma is switched
off is shown in the graph. Subtracting the thermophoretic from the
oscillatory motion we receive the oscillation amplitude in b).

On Earth such a measurement is practically impossible - the particles fall down too quickly and charge measurements are consequently very difficult to perform. This decharging experiment showed that the particles are not totally discharged after the plasma is turned off. They retain a "frozen" charge after the plasma electrons and ions have disappeared. This is a new insight from complex plasma physics and might be important for many other processes, including industrial applications.

Publication: A. Ivlev, M. Kretschmer, M. Zuzic, et al., Phys. Rev. Letters Vol.90 No.5, Feb. 2003

Updated: 2004-11-11
Contact: Michael Kretschmer mail
Home up




-Dr. Jone Dae.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

EU's Method for Earth Formation

Unread postby JeffreyW » Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:52 pm

I have searched Electric Universe for over 3 years now and have not found anything that addresses the formation of the Earth.

Will someone please help me out? I will not post my own theory here, but it would be in the best interest for EU to make some sort of statement concerning the formation of the Earth.

For those who state things such as

1. Electrical fissioning
2. Expanding Earth

Then fine, but I have questions right off the bat to address those:

1. How does the "electrically fissioned solid mass exit a gaseous mass without mechanism, esp when both masses gravitational fields would prevent escape?"

2. What mechanism creates matter out of nothing in the center of the Earth?
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: EU's Method for Earth Formation

Unread postby Metryq » Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:22 am

JeffreyW wrote:1. How does the "electrically fissioned solid mass exit a gaseous mass without mechanism, esp when both masses gravitational fields would prevent escape?"

As an armchair scientist, I see several things wrong with this question:

—What makes you say a star is a gaseous mass? That's the establishment assumption. No one really knows what lies below the photosphere. Our only peek below are sunspots. I was under the impression that the photosphere was an electrical artifact, hence the problem of the Sun being "too round."

—"Without mechanism"? Donald Scott's THE ELECTRIC SKY lists two probable types of fissioning: a cell-like mitosis, and an "onion-skin" sloughing of a layer. Both (or either) are due to electrical stress. The onion-skin idea sounds more probable to me, as plasma is like a fluid (an electrically charged fluid with its own exotic behaviors). Perhaps there is a solid mass inside the Sun, below the photosphere, that can be excited to a plasma state.

—"Gravitational fields would prevent escape." All EU literature emphasizes the relative weakness of gravity to electrical forces, as well as the difference in their drop-off distances. Surely something fissioning under electrical stress would barely notice gravity.

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, or missed the point of your question. The mainstream deals in volcanoes and collisions, hence the reason mainstream scientists scoffed at "Velikosky's" suggestion that Jupiter simply spat out Venus with a "Ptui!" like some giant phlegm glob.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

A Strong Magnetic Field Shaped the Early Solar System

Unread postby leo vuyk » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:34 am

A Strong Magnetic Field Shaped the Early Solar System
see:
http://scitechdaily.com/strong-magnetic ... ar-system/

New research reveals the first experimental evidence that our solar system’s protoplanetary disk was shaped by an intense magnetic field that drove a massive amount of gas into the sun within just a few million years.
leo vuyk
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:49 am

Re: A Strong Magnetic Field Shaped the Early Solar System

Unread postby leo vuyk » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:36 am

Now we only have to look for the origin of that Magnetic field right?
leo vuyk
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:49 am

Re: A Strong Magnetic Field Shaped the Early Solar System

Unread postby leo vuyk » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:39 am

Perhaps the original Herbig Haro object, with two jets and two hotspots?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93308747@ ... hotostream
leo vuyk
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:49 am

Re: A Strong Magnetic Field Shaped the Early Solar System

Unread postby paladin17 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:49 am

I think that EU can provide an alternative explanation. When the asteroids were born (torn away from rocky planets during the catastrophic discharges), those chondrules were formed inside of them (pretty much like C J Ransom's martian "blueberries"). The iron (olivine etc.) particles, first kind of molten, and then being cooled down at the time of exposure to the mother-planet's magnetic field. Because of that they've obtained an appropriate magnetic field moments. And so they've flown into space ever since.
Occasionally they were bombarding our planet, where now we can corkscrew those magnetic fields and study them.

By the way, note how often you see those chondritic meteorites. They are like 85% of all the meteorites that are found on the Earth. I think this is also one strong point towards the EU ideas, if we can develop a blueberry-like mechanism for them.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests