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: An Answer for Sparky

Unread postby starbiter » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:58 am

As Wal Thornhill writes, "we live in an unstable neighborhood". Every day is a gift. The Sun could fission, Jupiter could spit out a planet or comet, Etc.. The results could end life on Earth. Enjoy today. If you see a bright flash [nova] it is probably not a good omen.

If you give me all your money, and lots of virgins, i guarantee everything will be fine. Where are my robes and funny hat?

Om, michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: An Answer for Sparky

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:31 am

starbiter wrote:As Wal Thornhill writes, "we live in an unstable neighborhood". Every day is a gift. The Sun could fission, Jupiter could spit out a planet or comet, Etc.. The results could end life on Earth. Enjoy today. If you see a bright flash [nova] it is probably not a good omen.

If you give me all your money, and lots of virgins, i guarantee everything will be fine. Where are my robes and funny hat?

Om, michael


yes, nothing certain......lots of unseen things that could give us a bad hair day, too...

here is an article about a brown dwarf orbiting it's sun..and new methods of detecting such systems...
http://www.physorg.com/news199635354.html
"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: An Answer for Sparky

Unread postby starbiter » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:21 am

Hello Sparky: The article implies direct observation of gas giants. Is this the case?

Earth sized planets would be much smaller, and difficult to image, i assume.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: An Answer for Sparky

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:29 am

starbiter wrote:Hello Sparky: The article implies direct observation of gas giants. Is this the case?

Earth sized planets would be much smaller, and difficult to image, i assume.

michael


I thought it was a brown dwarf star orbiting a larger star...image was taken with the Near-Infrared Coronagraphic Imager..whatever that is......i have no idea how small of an object that can be detected at that range...but if they keep watching the brown dwarf there might be a planet orbiting it, detectable when it passes in front of the dwarf....other wise we will have to wait till the Enterprise makes a survey... :D
"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: An Answer for Sparky

Unread postby starbiter » Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:18 pm

Hi Sparky: From a quick look at Wiki, gas giant planets are brown dwarf stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf

But brown dwarf stars can be bigger than the gas giant planets in the solar system.

From your link it seems instruments can image large brown dwarf stars.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: An Answer for Sparky

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:47 pm

starbiter wrote:Hi Sparky: From a quick look at Wiki, gas giant planets are brown dwarf stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf

But brown dwarf stars can be bigger than the gas giant planets in the solar system.

From your link it seems instruments can image large brown dwarf stars.

michael


Today I was reading about the Kepler telescope, which can see earth sized planets..

It would be interesting and supportive of sun/saturn system to find
a planet near a brown dwarf now that instruments are available to do so....

so far, i think all that are found appear to be gravitation linked...
"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: An Answer for Sparky

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:51 pm

Please keep us posted Sparky. It would be wonderful to know, either way.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Planet Formation

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:55 am

WAL'S REPLY ON PLANET FORMATION
On the "Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory" thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3824 Kim asked about formation of planets:
Re: planets expelled from a brown-dwarf
- how and by what mechanism are materials gathered to one place prior to expulsion
[answer below seems to be by charge separation and electric discharge]
- are they in solid or gas form
[seems to be plasma]
- how are the various elements isolated or chosen
[by charge, ionization etc]
- and if the process [of proto-Saturn flare-ups] repeats itself several times, why are planets not more similar in their chemical make-up?
[some planets have different parents; some variations are due to which part of the parent the material is from, how old the parent was, what environment it was in etc.]

* I'll post quotes from Wal's website shortly. First, though, I forwarded Kim's questions to Dwardu, Don and Wal and here's Wal's reply with my emphases.
I'm glad you asked. I notice that there has been some misguided discussion in that thread about the stabilizing of orbits when I wrote at length about that in Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System [http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s].

Back to your question. The idea of planetary expulsion started, for me, with Velikovsky's notion of Venus being 'born' from Jupiter. Regardless of the accuracy of identification of the actual bodies involved, the idea was picked up by the British physicist, Peter Warlow, in his 1982 book, The Reversing Earth (see pp. 186-7).

Another Britisher, Eric Crew, published an article in the 1988 SIS Review that modelled Velikovsky's scenario in an electrical sense. He wrote, "An explanation for the ejection of core material from large gaseous planets is the charge separation effect of pressure ionisation coupled with the migration of electrons into the outer regions of the planet and into the surrounding space. As this negative charge is neutralised by incoming positive cosmic rays, or escapes because of its high velocity in the low pressure atmosphere, the positive charge within the pressure ionised zone increases. This restricts the outward flow of electrons, but if the charge continues to rise the point of breakdown will be reached. - The energy stored in the charge would be very great because the voltage at the pressure ionisation boundary prior to breakdown would be very high, since this zone is at high pressure and is surrounded by a largely neutral material which has low conductivity. A discharge of positive ions comprising a current of electricity similar to a bolt of lightning on a grand scale would probably be initiated by a local anomaly, such as an eruption at the core boundary caused by a change of state followed by contraction, sudden increase of spin and consequent turbulence. Another cause might be the fall of a large meteorite. - The resultant discharge would be projected rapidly outwards, carrying core material and matter in its path, but as it is mainly a flow of current it would split into filaments because of its magnetic field. It would lose charge by attracting free electrons in and near its path, but these are limited in number, so the leakage would tend to stabilise at a relatively low level."

I show, in the URL highlighted above, that a positively charged interior is to be expected in all large self-gravitating bodies in space. So I agree basically with both the above authors that rocky planets and moons are best explained by electrical expulsion of matter, but probably from near the solid surface.

As for the variation in mineralogy and atmospheres, that is mostly due to the parent body and [there] are plenty of gas giants to choose from. Note that they all have some rings of debris about them, indicative of past 'births.' Some extra variation in composition comes from electromagnetic sorting in the ejection process and nuclear reactions engendered by the electrical discharge.

Wal

* At http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qysa3zk Wal said as follows.
The Sun is merely Mercury’s foster-parent. Similarly, the Earth is the Moon’s foster-parent. For to identify the parent of Mercury and the Moon we must look for family traits amongst the moons of the gas giant planets in the outer solar system. Jupiter is a prime suspect with its orbital and axial tilt [3.13°] being of the right order to have launched [ejected] Mercury [0.01°] and the Moon[6.688°]. Both bodies would look at home among Jupiter’s Galilean satellites.]
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4410
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:55 am

* Here are quotes from Wal's website on Star and Planet Formation.
PLASMA CLOUDS FORM STARS
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf
An electric star is formed by the equivalent of a lightning bolt in a molecular (plasma) cloud. Just like earthly lightning, cosmic lightning scavenges, squeezes and heats matter along the discharge channel. Where the squeeze is most intense, the current may ‘pinch off’ to give the effect of ‘bead lightning.’ In high-energy plasma lab discharges researchers have found that hot plasma ‘beads’ (known as plasmoids) form along the discharge axis before “scattering like buckshot” when the discharge quenches.

STARS FORM IN Z-PINCHES
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac
[Dr. Carl A. Rouse did studies] of pulsating variable stars [and found he] could not match the observed mass, luminosity and radius of the Sun [until he modeled] the Sun [as having] a core of heavy elements ... [which then] can reproduce the observed helioseismic oscillations. Rouse’s work ... fits the plasma cosmology story of star formation in a Z-pinch, with the heavy elements concentrated at the core. ... [S]unshine is a spherical electric discharge phenomenon powered by the galaxy. ... Nuclear reactions occur on the Sun like they do in atom smashers on Earth, by concentrating electrical energy onto a target.
[Here is a diagram of the Sun’s cross section]
Image

MARKLUND CONVECTION LAYERS STARS’ INTERIORS
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf
Another important phenomenon known as ‘Marklund convection’ occurs along the discharge axis. It separates the chemical elements radially. Marklund convection causes helium to form a diffuse outer layer, followed by a hydrogen layer, then oxygen and nitrogen in the middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium in the inner layers. So electric stars should have a core of heavy elements and an upper atmosphere mostly of hydrogen. This renders the difference between stars and planets to be more apparent than real.

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.

GRAVITY SEPARATES CHARGES INSIDE STARS
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rbkq9dj2
In fact, atoms in the Sun’s strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun. The aligned dipoles will create a radial electric field that will tend to separate charge-free electrons moving toward the surface and positive ions toward the core. Gravitational compression inside the Sun is therefore offset by electrical expansion because like charges repel. Stars do not require a central furnace to maintain their size. The result is that the Sun is much the same density throughout. This was discovered decades ago by pioneering helioseismologists

ALL STARS EJECT MATTER
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=n2z18sez
All stars electrically eject matter in defiance of gravity. Ejection of charged matter is required to maintain electrical balance with their environment. The Sun has its "solar wind" and coronal mass ejections. In extremis, a star may eject a fragment of its interior in a stellar megalightning flash, or nova outburst, to form a close orbiting companion.

STARS FISSION INTO SMALLER STARS & GAS GIANT PLANETS
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES
The star "children" are gas giants or binary partners formed from those heavier elements after expulsion from the star.
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=6
Bright stars like our Sun are great concentrated balls of lightning! The matter inside stars becomes positively charged as electrons drift toward the surface. The resulting internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=hcr2ue54&pf=YES
The formation of planets by electrical expulsion of part of the parent’s core material also leads to nucleosynthesis in the grandiose lightning flash of a nova. That is why some of the expulsion debris, in the form of meteorites, contains the products of very short-lived radioisotopes in their flash-heated minerals. This is a far simpler explanation than to require rare supernova events nearby at just the right moment during the formation of the solar system.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qysa3zk
There are two possible electrical origins of planets in the solar system. First, the Sun may become electrically unstable and eject sufficient matter to form a gas giant companion. ... astrophysicists are unable to account for powerful jets of matter seen issuing from stars and galaxies. ... stars undergoing a nova outburst may give birth to gas giant planets....
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES
[S]tars "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.

BROWN DWARFS HAVE JETS & FLARES
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7y7d3dn5
Brown dwarfs are noted for their occasional inexplicable polar jets and “flaring.” As explained in my electric stars article, stars that do not have bright, tufted photospheres do not have the power feedback control that maintains the steady radiant output of the Sun while the power input varies—as measured by x-rays and sunspot latitudinal migration. So any power surge on a brown dwarf will be met with polar jets and flaring behavior. We know from coronal mass ejections (CME’s) on the Sun that this involves hurling matter into space.

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.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES
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.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qysa3zk
[R]ocky planets are ‘born’ fully formed by material jetted from within a brown dwarf star or gas giant planet undergoing an electrical ‘flaring’ or ‘nova’ outburst. - As British physicist Peter Warlow wrote in 1982, “...the obvious place for a small heavy planet to form is at the core of a large gaseous planet. This is the ideal place to collect together the heavier elements and if, for the same but unknown reason that quasars eject material from their cores, the core of that large planet is also ejected, then we will have a source of Earth-like and Venus-like planets. If the lesser nova eruptions of stars are, in fact, manifestations of the same process, then we have a source of the larger Jupiter-like planets.” — The Reversing Earth, 1982.
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7
Earth-like planets and moons are similarly "born" by electrical expulsion of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gas giants. That explains the dichotomy between the dense rocky planets and moons and the gaseous giant planets. In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force. So planetary orbits are stabilized against gravitational chaos by exchange of electric charge through their plasma tails

BROWN DWARF FLARES MAKE NEW SATELLITES & DEPOSIT MATTER
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7y7d3dn5
Flaring would cause havoc on the satellites of a brown dwarf. In the extreme it would give birth to a new satellite. But existing satellites would suffer deposition of solids, liquids and gases and electric discharge machining of their surfaces. This is a scenario never considered by geologists but which explains all of the enigmas of planetary geology.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4410
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm


Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:32 pm

* Here's another one of Wal's interesting excerpts on planet formation that I missed last time, that I think should be included here.
Hyperion's History http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=1dqzp30f
External electrical or gravitational stresses on a star may cause some of its internal positive charge to be offset from the center of the star [He now says this charged matter forms near the surface rather than in the center.]. And since like charges repel, the offset charge will tend to accelerate toward the surface. It is a form of internal lightning. This process may lead to the expulsion of a substantial portion of the positively charged interior of the star. The visible result is a nova, or star-wide lightning flash, as electrons in the stellar atmosphere rush toward the emerging positively charged matter. The ejected material constitutes a powerful electric current, which generates its own magnetic field. That magnetic field constricts the charged matter to form a jet. The leading matter is neutralized and stops accelerating, causing the following charged matter to pile into it [as it is ejected out above the star's surface]. So is born a companion star or gas giant planet. This explains why so many stars have been found to have extremely close-orbiting gas giant planets.
- Planets do not grow by hypothetical impact accretion of widely dispersed "leftovers." Rocky planets and moons are formed episodically from gas giant planets by the same electrical expulsion process. It is this planet birth model ... that accounts for some of the diversity of objects in the solar system. It helps us understand why the gas giants have so many satellites, some large enough to be classed as planets in their own right. It helps us understand the presence of Saturn's ephemeral rings, which cannot have lasted for 4 billion years. Saturn's rings are the remains of an expulsion disk accompanying the birth of the latest child in the solar system. The rings of the other gas giants are similar "afterbirth" material. The rings remain rings as they gradually decay. They do not form moons. Similarly, a ring of dust around the Sun will not form a planet.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4410
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:19 pm

WAL'S REPLY ON PLANET FORMATION

“ “ In fact, atoms in the Sun’s strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rbkq9dj2

“ In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force.

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7

Lloyd,

Are we saying here that-
gravity creates the electric dipoles,
and that the electric dipoles create gravity ??

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

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby nick c » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:17 pm

hi seasmith,
seasmith wrote: WAL'S REPLY ON PLANET FORMATION


In fact, atoms in the Sun’s strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rbkq9dj2


In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force.

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7

Lloyd,

Are we saying here that-
gravity creates the electric dipoles,
and that the electric dipoles create gravity ??

>>>>>><<<<<<>>>><<<<<>>>>>>>><<<<<<<
s


Well not exactly, the two quotes are referring to two different types of dipole. The first quote refers to an electric dipole effect of an atom, ie positive nucleus, negative electrons. And the second quote refers to a dipole effect within each subatomic particle, that is the proposition that protons and electrons are themselves composed of smaller charged particles (subtrons).
The first example (protons seperating from electrons in the Sun) is an effect of gravity and the second (Sansbury's subtrons which compose protons and electrons) is the cause.

If all subatomic particles are composed of a resonant system of positive and negative charges they are also subject to distortion in the radial electric field to form an electric dipole. Since the particles are free to rotate, their dipoles will line up and the weak dipole force of each particle will add up to produce the effect of gravity.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s


At least, that's the way I read it.

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:39 am

* I plan to ask Wal for more details on all this. Note that in the earlier posts here Wal mentioned that the positive matter that erupts from stars to form planets and smaller stars congregates nearer the surface, instead of in the center of the star. I haven't seen his explanation for that yet, so I want to know the reason for that too.
* I plan to ask if he has an idea how asteroids, comets, meteors and small moons are able to hold onto smaller detritus and objects, as Cardona pointed out in the Interview thread. I think he told me once that he doesn't accept Miles Mathis's idea that the gravitational equations of Newton et al already include electrical forces.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4410
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Planet Formation

Unread postby JohnMT » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:31 am

Hi all,

Some years ago while keen on EU 'Planetary Formation', I read the interesting papers entitled 'Erratic Events in the Solar System' and 'Orbits of Core Material Ejected from Gaseous Planets' by the now late Eric W. Crew.

In these papers, a very high positive charge was required at the core of Jupiter in order to eject a Venus-sized amount of material and that indeed this charge must have been even greater than required so that the expelled material might exceed escape velocity.
Of course there is much more.

At the recent Midsummer meeting 'Exploring the Electric Universe', Wal Thornhill covered many subjects, one of which was Sansbury's work introducing sub-atomic 'subtrons' and their various effects, resulting in the phenomenon known as 'gravity', 'mass' and their combined effects, 'reduced gravity'.

All well and good, but for me at least there seemed to be a slight problem (explained below) in that Wal has said many times that a typical star like our Sun is an 'Anode in a cathode-less discharge'.

In short, I have always read this statement to mean that the core material of a star (like our Sun) consists essentially of positively charged material (protons) which attract incoming interstellar spent electrons/cosmic rays etc.
As time passes the star may accummulate sufficient material such that a very high positive electric potential charge might exist between that star and its local environment, causing an electrical breakdown.
Following this breakdown, stellar fissioning occurs as some of its core material is ejected, thereby relieving stress and regaining for that star electrical stability with its local environment.
If huge 'gaseous' planets/stellar companions/binaries are formed in this way and are themselves broken-up to eventually form 'rocky' planets etc through the processes of relieving these burdening electrical stresses, then how do we explain a 'cathodic star' where the core of such a star is essentially of a negatively charged cathodic nature?

I mention this because during his lecture (if I remember correctly), Wal mentioned that it was such a 'red dwarf' star (Super-Saturn, with its Polar Configuration of planets, including the Earth) that entered the Sun's domain just prior to the emergence of the eventual Saturnian break-up and that this red dwarf was essentially cathodic in nature (otherwise I presume, an 'anodic' red dwarf star would have been repelled from the Sun's domain)

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'?

Just my two-penny-worth,
John
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest