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: Planet Formation

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:17 am

JohnMT-
I can only understand the above 'cathodic star' description by the concept of 'degrees of negativity' as mentioned by Ralph Juergens, but in this case is it perhaps 'degrees of positivity'?


With Juergens, i wouldn't be too committed to the positive-negative model.

If ions are not first cause, then these flows may be viewed in light of "relative polarity" ;
or what others on forum have called charge separation.

s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby JohnMT » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:13 am

With Juergens, i wouldn't be too committed to the positive-negative model.

If ions are not first cause, then these flows may be viewed in light of "relative polarity" ;
or what others on forum have called charge separation.



Thanks for your reply.

It would appear then that the 'positive-negative model' and 'degrees of negativity' concepts suggested by Juergens have been replaced/upgraded by 'relative polarity'

Either way no matter (not a pun), I think it all adds up to 'charge separation' as you have suggested.

As you know, Wal has said with respect to 'Charged Planets' that "Gravitationally induced dipoles tend to separate charge - planet acts like an electret"
For myself at least, understanding the idea of 'gravitationally induced dipoles' is the key I think, in that all sub-atomic particles contain orbiting electric charges (subtrons) that sum to the charge on that particular particle.
When these charges align, due to an induced electric field, we have what is known as 'gravity'.
Of course there is much more, but it does make some measure of sense to me.

In my research over the years, I concur with the idea that given time, most stars beget smaller stellar companions, which themselves beget giant "gaseous" planet/s, which further beget rocky planet/s, moons and much other associated debris etc...all in the cause of achieving electrical stability with their environments.
Further, that in some cases, a close third-body inclusion within a relatively stable system can also achieve similar results by occasionally birthing moons, but mostly begetting much smaller debris such as cometary-type nuclei, asteroidal objects, proto-meteor debris, dust, gas and the development of external ring systems.
At least thats my take on the subject.

John
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:51 pm

Lloyd wrote:STARS MAKE HEAVY ELEMENTS
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf
In addition to scavenging elements, stars produce electrically in the high-energy electrical discharges of their photospheres all of the elements required to form rocky planets. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements does not require a supernova explosion.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES
Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine. Those discharges synthesize "metals" that continually rain into the star's depths. ... Stellar interiors become enriched in heavy elements.

BROWN DWARFS OR GAS GIANTS EJECT ROCKY PLANETS
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf
Planets are then born by electrical expulsion of matter from the body of the star in the form of giant mass ejection events, like we see in miniature in solar outbursts. Large stellar flares and nova outbursts probably signal the birth of planets. Disks of matter encircling stars are not due to gravitational accretion but to electrical expulsion.


Hmm, would it seem an intuitive progression to have synthesis of atmosphere (lighter elements / molecules) by the rocky planets, due to a similar process? New 'charged body' --> gets expelled --> settles into new host --> atmosphere synthesizes due to reaching equilibrium with new host. I guess i'm reaching as to why the 'young' object Venus contains the thickest atmosphere. Could this be a measure of electrical-position age, and atmosphere synthesis activity? I don't want to rule out Volcanism, but it's hard to interpret mainstream literature with the balance EU eye of electrical scarring. hmmm

The "BROWN DWARF FLARES MAKE NEW SATELLITES & DEPOSIT MATTER", would seem common to all hosted bodies in a system no? Inherent charge differential of the 'ejected body', would account for far more individual features. Nature(planetary genetics) Vs Nurture(surrogate environment).

Gee it would be handy to scrap down a few stratum of our neighbor planets.

Thanks for this series Loyd, I hope i haven't polluted it with too much lay-conjecture here.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:11 pm

* Jarva, What does this mean: "New 'charged body' [rocky planet?] --> gets expelled --> settles into new host --> atmosphere synthesizes due to reaching equilibrium with new host"? What's the new host? The sun? What sort of equilibrium are you talking about?
* My surmise has been that some of the atmosphere from the brown dwarf [or gas giant] is pulled along with the rocky body that's being ejected from the dwarf. That seems to jive with the notion that Venus is the youngest offspring of Saturn, while Titan would be probably somewhat older and Earth and Mars would be older still. Smaller bodies would lose atmosphere the most quickly, while larger ones would hold onto them longer. Charge exchange between planets via discharges would reduce atmospheres, but volcanism would increase them somewhat. Mars lost most of its air this way apparently and some EU theorists say Earth had a thicker atmosphere in the past too. The main gas given off by volcanoes is H2O, with smaller amounts of CO2, SO2, HCl, HF, H2S, CO, H2, NH3, CH4, and SiF4. We don't know of any definite volcanoes on Mars, do we? What about Venus? And how much atmosphere could be produced via volcanism? Both Venus and Mars atmospheres are over 90% CO2. Venus has some H2SO4, perhaps from SO2 and H2 or H2S, if there has been volcanism.
* Should I ask Wal about this? I'll try to.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:49 pm

Lloyd wrote:* Jarva, What does this mean: "New 'charged body' [rocky planet?] --> gets expelled --> settles into new host --> atmosphere synthesizes due to reaching equilibrium with new host"? What's the new host? The sun? What sort of equilibrium are you talking about?


Lets say Venus was a rock ejected from somewhere (ie Saturn birthed). This ejected rock now carries a 'charge' (whatever that may be).

As the rock-with-charge flings out to it's new position, lets call this a stabilising, but initially-irregular-orbit around the sun, it is now a charged object that is 'reaching charge-equilibrium', much like an electric comet's eternal glowing effort. Do you now have the energies available for some electro-synthesis processes? Who knows this may still even be going on.

So if we take the 'great comet' of Venus whizzing along, are we saying that *all* of the atmosphere came with? I certainly don't deny that *some* of the atmosphere will be retained from ejection, just wondering if we can indeed speculate that it would be retained in a violent event such as this? Is this the plasma-protection layering protection we are relying on here.
Charge exchange between planets via discharges would reduce atmospheres, but volcanism would increase them somewhat.

Was Venus not involved in a monumental charge exchange? Does this raise a contradiction? hmm.

And... given the time-frame of what EU might be suggesting of Venus's 'age', is Volcanism enough to build the 'thickest' atmosphere in 2-4k years? Caviate, i may be putting something out there that is total nonsense, I am just trying to build the picture of the EU *young* Venus having the thickest atmosphere, whilst bearing in mind an EU skeptical view of Olympus Mons sized 'volcano's'.... given Mainstream believes Venus is 4.6 Billion Years Old!

I guess we have a few possibilities.
* Ejecta-Rentension of atmosphere carried with body, since time of ejection. (can it survive the trip?)
* Volcanism, ie atmosphere coming from beneath the stratum. (is 5k years long enough?)
* Synthesis (which i guess i've defined here as, an electrical comet like process, with retention of the production of light-er molecules (H+ O-)). (is this even possible?)
* others? celestial in the sky 'great flood' type event, dumping gas/liquid on a planet?

My suggestion is, considering the wildly differing ages of MS vs EU of this body, are there other electrical processes available to EU, when we consider these ejected planets are themselves charged bodies on a wild trip.

Maybe some of these questions are beyond available evidence... i dunno... Volcanism and Ejecta-Retention seem to run into a couple of hurdles for me.

Lloyd wrote:Should I ask Wal about this? I'll try to.

I'd be interested of how EU explains the dense atmosphere from above or other processes, or if it has been discussed before. or if conjecture exists.
Last edited by Jarvamundo on Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:28 pm

FORMATION OF ROCKY PLANETS' ATMOSPHERES
* Here are some excerpts from Wals' site on formation of atmospheres.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=f16tg4w1
All planets and moons are born fully formed from their parent body — usually a flaring dwarf star (or gas giant planet). The birth process involves intense plasma discharging between the parent and its departing newborn satellite, which modifies the infant’s atmosphere and ‘spark etches’ the surface electrically, forming circular craters and distinctive Lichtenberg figures of canyons, or rilles. Subsequent near encounters with other bodies result in further electrical scarring, matter transfer and atmospheric modification.

* In June 2004 at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=f16tg4w1 Wal said as follows. And the underlined phrase in red letters is where he seems to say most clearly that rocky planets get their atmospheres directly from parent gas giants, or brown dwarfs, during ejection.
Venus; its slow retrograde spin; its hellish temperature, having [been] born recently from the core of a brown dwarf star; its thick atmosphere inherited from the brown dwarf and subsequently modified by cosmic discharges;
- Titan also has a global layered haze like Venus. (Haze layers seem to be the condensed form that non-polar molecules take in an electrified atmosphere. They are quite distinct from the vertically moving clouds that polar molecules, like water, form). And just as Mars has a whiff of the Venusian atmosphere, with carbon dioxide and nitrogen as major constituents, we may expect to find that the Titan atmosphere has some of the smell of Venus about it.
- [M]any of the satellites [of Saturn] are comprised of a large proportion of water ice, as are Saturn’s rings. It offers an explanation for the origin of the Earth’s amazing abundance of water. So we should not be surprised if, under the orange haze, that Titan has copious ice or water. We must await the descent of the Huygens probe into Titan’s atmosphere for answers. That raises the obvious question; why doesn’t Venus have much water? When performing comparisons, we must allow for the fact that the Venusian atmosphere is being modified continually by electric discharge activity on the surface of that planet. It has increased the carbon dioxide content of the Venusian atmosphere at the expense of nitrogen and water vapor. Scientists think that most of Venus’ water must have split into hydrogen and oxygen and all the hydrogen was lost to space. But if so, where is the oxygen that was left behind? The four Pioneer probe craft didn't find it in the atmosphere. The answer is that it has combined with carbon monoxide to form a heavy atmosphere of carbon dioxide. The process I envisage is this:
- Venus probably began with an atmosphere more like Titan’s and the Earth’s, where nitrogen dominates, and with more water. It suggests that Saturn must have considerable nitrogen at depth in its atmosphere. The icy rings and satellites of Saturn and abundant water on Earth also point to water on Saturn. On the Venusian surface, nitrogen molecules are converted to carbon monoxide molecules by a catalytic nuclear reaction in the presence of red-hot iron. The brilliant French chemist, Louis Kervran, when investigating carbon monoxide poisoning of welders, discovered this surprising nuclear transformation. The carbon monoxide reacts at the hot surface of Venus with water vapor to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. It is a well-known industrial process. The hydrogen produced escapes from Venus. This process explains the puzzling discovery made by Venus-landers that the water vapor concentration diminished as they approached the Venusian surface. - Like Venus, Titan seems not to have a magnetic field and yet it has a distinct magnetotail.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/wateronmars.html
Being a small body, Mars suffered terribly in its planetary electrical exchanges. It lost most of its atmosphere in the process and gained a little in return. So present day measures of water and carbon dioxide on Mars do not represent billions of years of evolution. Indeed, the dominant constituents of its atmosphere, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, could have been predicted from the global accounts of the entanglement of Mars with the distended atmosphere of Venus. Also, it has been known since the first space probes descended into the infernal atmosphere of Venus that the measurements of isotopic ratios in its atmospheric gases contradict the standard evolutionary model of planet formation. The reason is that interplanetary discharges are powerful enough to cause nuclear transformations. In particular, they are copious generators of neutrons. So the anomalously high levels of the heavy isotopes of carbon (13C), nitrogen (15N) and hydrogen 2H, in the Martian atmosphere may be understood simply as due to neutron capture in the gases stretching between Mars and Venus during one of their celebrated battles.
- The tornadic circumpolar winds mentioned above were capable of moving heavy sand grains and forming vast fields of sand dunes around the polar caps. However, the electrical interactions were capable of stripping much of Mars’ atmosphere too. The final result was a tenuous atmosphere no longer capable of moving sand dunes.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby Jarvamundo » Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:45 pm

Wow... I like it. The family life cycle of the EU is most fascinating, and coherent. Although still a little uncomfortable, I will examine further.

It seems the extra available mechanisms available to EU here are electrical discharge and modification of atmospheres, so this does provide Wal's explanation of what this body (Venus) will be going through, as Venus settles into it's new home. Re Mars, interplanetary atmosphere harvesting is indeed a spectacular and frightening area of study!

Thanks Loyd and Wal, really helping a lot of other readings to fall into place with these interviews.
User avatar
Jarvamundo
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Question for Mr. Cardona and others

Unread postby Mjmcarlson » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:59 am

I've been reading through Dwardu Cardona's 'Star' series books, and find his ideas both captivating and challenging. I'm still trying to make sense of the evidence he offers, that suggests that Earth was once a satellite of Saturn, with all its implications for geography, archeology, and comparative religion.

As I read Mr. Cardona's works, and as I study the other information provided on this website, I'm wondering whether ancient man might have witnessed the _birth_ of the giant planets from the Sun, and their progression through the solar system? If I understand the electric universe model correctly, these planets might have resulted from plasma ejections from the Sun, which could explain their fiery, flaming aspect, as well as the 'self-begotten' nature of those planetary Gods as described within the mythological record...?

I'll apologize in advance if these notions have been covered within the website or forum before: This is a large site, with a lot of dense information, and it's fair to say I'm still working through it all. In any event, I'd be grateful for whatever insights or direction the forum members might provide to my question.

Thanks for your help and time,
Michael Carlson
Madison, WI
Mjmcarlson
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Question for Mr. Cardona and others

Unread postby mharratsc » Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:55 am

Hiya neighbor! <-- next door in MN ;)

Point- the most prevalent Saturnian model suggests that Saturn was actually a dwarf star in it's own right that was electromagnetically captured by the larger star Sol.

It seems unlikely to me that the hospitable zone of any planet in a star system would survive the energetic expulsion from a nearby star coughing up a Jupiter-sized hairball... but I'm no expert on the subject, however. :\
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
mharratsc
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: Question for Mr. Cardona and others

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:35 am

* MJM, you should go to the New insights board to the Cardona Interview thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3824. He has been kindly answering my interview questions and I've been posting his answers there.
* I'll try to get your question to Dwardu soon, but I can answer your question in part. The above thread can answer many questions too.
* As Mike said, Saturn was a brown dwarf star. It likely formed outside the solar system in a Birkeland current Z-pinch, probably along with several other similar objects. When the pinches subsided, the confining electromagnetic forces were reduced, then the objects scattered, i.e. the brown dwarfs and any planetoids formed in the current scattered.
* It so happens that Saturn was formed in the Sagittarius galaxy, which was and is "colliding" with the Milky Way. The original galaxy of the Sun and the other gas giant planets is still unknown and whether the other gas giants were formed by fissioning from the Sun, or whether they formed like or with Saturn, is also unknown. But humans on Earth did not witness their formations, because Saturn did not encounter the Sun until about 10,000 years ago. The ancients did see the Sun as a distant star for a while and they saw it getting closer, but Saturn's plasmasphere brightened and the Sun and stars became invisible until the breakup of the Saturn System within the solar system about 5,000 years ago.
* You can also check out my Planet Formation thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3857, which includes many quotes from Thornhill's site and a recent quote from Thornhill on planet formation.
* The Saturn System broke up when it encountered Jupiter within the Solar System. Earth then became a satellite of Jupiter for a few centuries, apparently, before escaping from the Jupiter System. Its orbit was very elliptical initially before circularizing.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby nick c » Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:39 pm

This thread is a merger of the following threads:

Recovered: ELECTRICITY involved in the formation of planets?

Study finds missing link in how stars die!

origin of Earth

Planet Formation

Question for Mr. Cardona and others

Planet formation like cell division...

layout of the solar system during the 'alien skys' alignment

An Answer for Sparky

Model shows planetary formation theory wrong

Researchers recalculate age of Solar System

Solar systems formations
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

On The Birth Of Planets

Unread postby TheMindWars » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:45 am

Modern belief states that our planets were created during the early formation of our solar system. This scenario I believe may be incorrect and I would like to offer up an alternative proposal. I watched a video the other evening showing some strange footage taken by the stereo spacecraft. This footage has led me to believe that planets may be generated throughout the life time of a star.

I am starting to consider the possibility that planets are created through a form of electrical fusion and literally spat out by the Sun. I believe the cratering of the surface of a planet is achieved from gigantic electrical disturbances during the generation and birth of a planet. The orbital velocity and direction of spin would be proportional to the velocity of planetary ejection and gravitational influence during a planets birth.
I think it makes for a much more exciting universe!

Thoughts anyone?

8-)
TheMindWars
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:16 pm

Re: On The Birth Of Planets

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:58 pm

hmmmmmmmmm,, veeery interrresting.. :D

but, not so new nor unique.... check out the TPODS, http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... ubject.htm

The model there uses fusion to produce elements, and fission of a sun to produce brown dwarfs, then fission of that to produce planets, if my memory is correct...

maybe someone can give you a better link to planet production...
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: On The Birth Of Planets

Unread postby nick c » Thu Apr 28, 2011 2:16 pm

From the Holoscience website:
Planet Birthing - more evidence
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: On The Birth Of Planets

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:38 pm

* Thanks, Nick. This is what Thornhill says on the matter at that link:
- I argued in my earlier news item that stars "give birth" from time to time by electrical parturition. It occurs in a nova-type discharge from their charged interior. Unlike the hydrogen-bomb model of stars, there is no internal heating. Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine. Those discharges synthesize "metals" that continually rain into the star's depths. The heavy element abundance in a star's spectrum is not just an inheritance from old supernovae. Stellar interiors become enriched in heavy elements. The star "children" are gas giants or binary partners formed from those heavier elements after expulsion from the star.
- Therefore we should simply expect from the electric star model that the longer a star has been shining the more heavy elements it will show in its spectrum and the more time it has had to "give birth." So stars forming today are not more likely to have planets than earlier generations. They probably have not had time to have planetary "children." Whether a star has planetary companions or not is NOT a condition of its birth. We should expect that below a certain metallicity (that is, age) a star will not have planets. We do not expect babies to give birth! Planet formation has more to do with the growth of internal electrical stress in a star. It can be enhanced by episodes of unusual electric stress in its environment. We should be looking closely at stars that have undergone nova outbursts.

* This might give the impression that he thinks the planets in the solar system were ejected from the Sun, but elsewhere he has suggested that at least Earth, Venus and Mars were ejected probably from Saturn. Saturn doesn't have a photosphere. It is thought to have been a brown dwarf star, which is thought to be capable of fissioning under greater electrical stress.
* There's a good discussion of BIRTH OF VENUS in Thoth Newsletter VOL VI, No 8 Dec 15, 2002 at http://thoth2.webs.com/thoth6.htm. It involved Thornhill, Cardona and Moss. There's also a good recent discussion of Cardona's Saturn Theory at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3824.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4384
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests