Lloyd wrote:Charles, I think your earthquake prevention idea is probably sound, but I don't think a Yellowstone eruption is at all likely.
I guess you mean my "volcano prevention idea", since I don't have an earthquake prevention idea. Anyway, I guess that if Yellowstone was going to erupt, we'd probably have warning signs years in advance, as the magma chamber pressurized. But we don't know how long that period would be. If we had the technology ready to go (i.e., if we knew exactly how & where to drill boreholes to shunt the electric current), perhaps we could wait until we saw the distinctive warning signs, assuming that we knew exactly what they are. But I think that we should develop the technology now. The way to go would be to see if we can redirect a smaller volcano. But if my model is correct, once there is a liquid magma channel connecting the Moho to the surface, that's going to be the conduit for electric currents (and thus it will get all of the ohmic heating), and the chance to redirect the heating elsewhere by drilling a borehole will have already passed.
Lloyd wrote:The calderas lie over a hotspot  [that] appears to move across terrain in the east-northeast direction, but in fact the hotspot is much deeper than terrain and remains stationary while the North American Plate moves west-southwest over it.
The whole "hotspot" idea just doesn't work thermodynamically. Hot, high-pressure magma is a good thermal conductor, and hotspots don't happen in good thermal conductors, for the same reason that discrepancies in charge densities don't happen in good electrical conductors (all other factors being the same). The "hotspots" are actually electrical conduits connecting the surface to the Moho. They occur at plate boundaries because crustal deformation creates cracks that are much better conductors than solid rock. As the electric currents start flowing through these cracks, they melt the rock, which makes it an even better conductor. Thus it is a winner-take-all situation, with the currents and magmas following well-defined channels, unlike "thermal hotspots" which should diffuse radially.
Lloyd wrote:...the Columbia Basalt flows appeared at the same approximate time...
Note that most stratovolcanoes produce felsic eruptions, which is igneous granite, and which would be melted continental crust (not a mantle plume). Basaltic flows indicate melted oceanic crust, which is slipping under the continental crust. But remember that thermal bubbles don't convect through solid rock. Only if an electric current opens up a conduit could magma make it all of the way through the thickest part of the continental crust under a mountain range.
Lloyd wrote:Conventional dating is useless, so those ancient datings are meaningless. Don't you think the eruptions are much more likely to have occurred when the North American plate over-rode the Pacific plate during the Shock Dynamics event? That's when the Columbia basalt flows likely also occurred. That was 4,500 years or so ago.
I haven't studied dating methods, so I don't know. It would make a lot of sense for the Rockies to get thrown up in a catastrophic event that sent the North American plate sliding over the Pacific plate, and for the same event to create a puddle of basalts under the leading edge of the N.A. plate, which would soon cause flood eruptions in the Cascades. So I agree with the sequence of events, even if I'm unsure of the date ranges.
Lloyd wrote:I don't think ratcheting would have been able to move the N. Amer. plate over the Rise. To do that the plate had to have the momentum from the impact force.
Lloyd wrote:Is a supervolcano more likely to occur during a major impact event, or during quiet times thousands of years later?
Not knowing if there is any correlation between supervolcanoes and impacts, I'd say that yes, a large impact would increase the chance. Waves in the crust propagating away from the impact would raise and lower the crust, driving electric currents as the underlying rock is alternately ionized and de-ionized by the pressure. This sudden increase in ohmic heating could cause a runaway pressurization in an existing magma chamber, resulting in a supervolcanic eruption. And I guess that after the first eruption, you'd have all of the strike-slip faults to enable one later. In other words, each eruption at Yellowstone might not have been triggered by an impact -- perhaps just the first one was, and thereafter, the weakened rock was more susceptible.
Lloyd wrote:Wikipedia said there have been swarms of minor earthquakes or tremors. What does your model say about such swarms?
As the ohmic heating builds up, due to electric currents being driven by crustal deformation, the differential expansion within the plates will create a wide variety of seismic events. If it was just one plate sliding over another, and if the plates were perfectly rigid, there would only be one event at a time, which would affect the entire region. But if the overlying plate is expanding because it is warming up, and if the heat sources are irregularly distributed throughout the plate (wherever the electric conduits are), the expansion will be irregular. The heating is well-known, and is one of the warning signs of an impending earthquake. Likewise, after a major quake, there is a swarm of aftershocks, as the plates cool down, with differential motion on the mating surfaces, producing a wide variety of events.
D_Archer wrote:CFDL is a a description of an object/thing doing something, and you did not come up with the term. Where is the generality?
I'm saying that main sequence stars (such as the Sun) and planets (such as the Earth) are comprised of, and defined by, layers of alternating charges. This is a fundamentally different way of looking at the problem domain, which appears to solve many otherwise intractable problems. If that doesn't qualify it as a "paradigm", I don't know what would.
Usually i start one paragraph of what you write and
, bang my head and just quit.
Please let me know where you get stuck. Maybe it's just bad writing, or maybe it's an idea that just doesn't work. Either way, it has to be fixed.
D_Archer wrote:I think you are en intellectual but you use your intellect to reinvent the wheel 10 times over and it just tires me.
How is the CFDL model of main sequence stars and planets "reinventing the wheel"? Nobody ever did that before. I didn't invent CFDLs, but I appear to be the first one to apply the idea to the structure of celestial bodies.
Lloyd wrote:Charles, you didn't give John a link to your Tornado paper. Why don't you have the link with your other papers on your site?
There is a link to my tornado paper in my signature, but I suggested that he start with the volcano paper, because it's not as involved.
Lloyd wrote:There are several quasars near galaxy M82. If the quasars are near the galaxy, as the EU & CEU models propose, then we can perhaps estimate the size of the quasars, by comparing them with the size of M82.
I thought that quasars were all point sources. Anyway, I explain quasars as "exotic stars", which are "natural tokamaks" (i.e., toroidal plasmoids). I'm thinking that the toroids are a lot bigger around than main sequence stars, which are spheres. Perhaps they have a major radius like the orbital radius of Jupiter or Saturn. The model requires a large radius, because maintaining relativistic angular velocities begs the question of how much degree of curvature could be tolerated. The bigger the radius, the smaller the degree of curvature, and the less problematic the centrifugal force will be. But there is also going to be some sort of upper limit, for how big a toroidal plasmoid can be, and still call itself an organized system. I truly have no idea what these limits would actually be, but I'm thinking that the exotics are bigger than the Sun, and smaller than the solar system.
Lloyd wrote:Could quasars not be seeds of future galaxies, maybe as AGNs, active galactic nuclei?
I don't think that quasars are seeds -- I think that they're just stars.
Lloyd wrote:Charles, do you think the veins of shocked minerals could be produced by the high temperatures and pressures of the meteor's movement through Earth's atmosphere? If not, then would you agree with the article that the veins are evidence of collision previously?
I don't really see how a collision between two meteoroids out in space would create veins. That takes a molten interior under pressure. Maybe a collision created the fractures, but you still need a way of heating the rock from the inside out, to get the intrusions. That's the kind of thing that I think can only happen in the "rolling bolide regime", where there is an electric current flowing into the magnetic poles of the meteor.
I have developed the idea that quasars are aligned to the minor axis of elliptical galaxies. I actually believe that any main sequence star on a highly elliptical orbit through the center of a galaxy, following the galactic lines of magnetic force, is a candidate for conversion into a toroidal plasmoid. The reason is that moving along the magnetic lines of force induces rotation which could spin up a natural tokamak, starting with a spherical main sequence star. But I haven't studied the "Large Scale Structure". Are the quasars aligned to magnetic fields in the LSS?