Most Thorough Model

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:16 pm

Planets from Stars?
Charles, if stars shrink to become planets/moons, and if stars' cores and inner layers have elements heavier than Manganese, shouldn't planets/moons have a larger percentage of such elements? After all, it seems that the outer layers of stars would have to be lost first. Wouldn't they? Or would the heavy elements in the cores and inner layers transmute somehow to lighter elements?

If a planetoid were on an elliptical orbit with a perihelion inside Jupiter's orbit and an aphelion outside, can you calculate whether close approaches between the planetoid and Jupiter would more likely result in the planetoid being repelled from Jupiter or being gravitationally pulled into Jupiter resulting in a crash? Do you think the SL9 comet fragments that crashed into Jupiter were at all electrically repelled from Jupiter, despite then crashing into it?

Dating Earth
Charles said: The planets "probably" formed at the same time, but the Earth seems to have been remelted during the Late Heavy Bombardment, and the radiocarbon dating was reset. That "seems" to be around 4 billion years ago, which matches the date of the mares on the Moon and on Mars. But is that number actually 4 billion years, or 4 million, or what? I don't think that it's 4 thousand, but I'm not familiar enough with the other dating methods to have my own opinion on the actual ranges.

Did you mean radiometric dating was reset? Radiocarbon dating only dates to 50 thousand years or less, in general. What exactly was dated to 4 billion years? Uranium-Lead ratios in lunar samples? I heard of samples that dated to 20 billion years too. What dates to 4000 years ago is the giant mammal extinctions, which apparently was caused in part by rapid continental drift, which caused the northern continents to move near the Arctic Circle, which caused the sudden freezing to death of the mammoths and other mammals in what is now the Arctic. Some of them were hit by micrometeorites from an impact, at least in eastern Siberia. The Younger Dryas impact layer extends at least over North America and Europe, apparently from before the supercontinent broke up, as would be shown by whether any of the YD markers, like nanodiamonds, are found anywhere on the Atlantic seafloor.

Speaking of the Avalon forum, I change my mind about it, because they banned me after I tried to contact their members about trying to start a work group.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby nick c » Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:28 pm

Moderator Note:

A NASA conspiracy post and several subsequent replies have been removed from this thread. Not only is this subject off topic for this thread, but it is in violation of the Forum Rules and Guidelines
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:05 pm

Lloyd wrote:Charles, if stars shrink to become planets/moons, and if stars' cores and inner layers have elements heavier than Manganese, shouldn't planets/moons have a larger percentage of such elements?

Maybe they do -- just deeper down.

Lloyd wrote:If a planetoid were on an elliptical orbit with a perihelion inside Jupiter's orbit and an aphelion outside, can you calculate whether close approaches between the planetoid and Jupiter would more likely result in the planetoid being repelled from Jupiter or being gravitationally pulled into Jupiter resulting in a crash?

The electric force can be either attractive or repulsive, depending on the charge and thickness of the object's atmosphere. If the atmosphere gets stretched into a coma, the force between that body and another one is attractive. There might also be frictional charging, as a comet gets into a planet's atmosphere. I think that SL9 broke apart due to internal electrostatic pressure.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:03 pm

Cepheids
Charles, in your paper on the Main Sequence (stars) at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-5653-5660-6031-6350 you say: "The conversion of gamma rays to a BB-like curve requires a specific combination of elements, in specific abundances. For this to the rule for the Cepheids, the elements and abundances would have to vary cyclically, and in a period as brief as a couple of days."

"For this to the rule" should say "For this to BE the rule".
Is it certain that Cepheids are stars? Do they have spectra typical of stars? I ask because the guy who wrote "Stars Are [many] Times Closer Than They Appear", which is discussed in an older TB forum thread, suggested that their variability is due to them going through phases like the moon. Do you know if that theory is definitely wrong?

Later in your paper, you say: "It's possible that the pulsations of the Cepheids generate so much heat that the star expands too much, and the weaker gravitational field can no longer support EDP. If so, the star falls apart. Opposite charges recombine in a brief flare-up, but the low density produces long wavelengths. The red giant phase is thought to last only a few million years,3 which would make sense if it's the final charge recombination in a star whose EDP is undergoing a catastrophic failure of the gravitation/electrostatic force feedback loop that was holding it together."

Are you implying that stars take a few million years for their CFDLs to disintegrate? If the CFDLs disintegrate at the Cepheid/Red-Giant phase, where would planetoids come from? And how would planetoids continue to have CFDLs?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:41 pm

Thoughts on Dating Earth
Charles, have you given some thought to the dating of sedimentary rock strata? There's really a lot of evidence that they're less than millions of years old. Here are a few things off the top of my head.
1. Dinosaur fossils date by C14 to 20 or 30 thousand years.
2. Proteins and DNA are still intact in some dinosaur bones, though they're supposed to degrade away in a few thousand years.
3. Some dinosaur bones in the Liscomb bone bed on the north slope in Alaska were found to be frozen, like mammoths, but not fossilized.
4. Many very delicate organisms are found fossilized in many strata. An example is schools of jelly fish. There are many others. The only way such things can fossilize is by rapid burial under much sediment. Such creatures are found intact, but under normal conditions would decay too quickly to fossilize.
5. Some fossils, esp. trees, are found in vertical or diagonal positions extending through many strata, supposedly millions of years old. A dead tree could only stand for a few years before falling over and decaying. All of the strata that a tree fossil penetrates have to have been deposited at the same time, over days or months, not millions of years.
6. It is demonstrated in the lab that coal, petroleum and strata can form rapidly. It has not been demonstrated that any of those can form gradually.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:39 pm

Red Giants = Dwarfs?
Charles, I just checked out your Main Sequence (stars) paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-5653-5660-6031-6350, which has some new comments, I think, by Jeffrey. He gave a link there to his short paper on Red Giants at http://vixra.org/pdf/1305.0161v1.pdf. He says the red and yellow giant stars are actually dwarfs that are much closer than conventionally calculated. He circles the giants on the HR diagram and has arrows from there down to the main sequence to show where those stars actually belong. That makes great sense visually. He says Betelgeuse is called a Red Giant in Orion at hundreds of lightyears distance, whereas in reality it's only .05 lightyears away as a dwarf star. If that's correct, that would make it the nearest star after the Sun. I'm eager to learn how he gauges such a distance. He says conventional parallax measurements are shoddy. This is similar to REVOLUTION IN ASTRONOMY by Bahram Katirai at http://home.ipoline.com/~noor/index.htm. That's what I referenced 2 posts earlier here re Stars Are [much] Closer Than They Appear, which I discussed at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4293#p48571 in March 2011.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:19 pm

Lloyd wrote:He says Betelgeuse is called a Red Giant in Orion at hundreds of lightyears distance, whereas in reality it's only .05 lightyears away as a dwarf star.
That strikes me as quite strange. A star at a distance of .05 light years should be easily discovered by parallax measurements. It would change it's position dramatically during the course of a year, as the Earth orbited the Sun. Also it's proper motion would be quite noticeable over a very short time.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Jan 26, 2016 9:24 pm

Questioning Jeffrey's Claim
nick c wrote:A star at a distance of .05 light years should be easily discovered by parallax measurements. It would change it's position dramatically during the course of a year, as the Earth orbited the Sun. Also it's proper motion would be quite noticeable over a very short time.

That's a good point, Nick, which I hadn't taken the time to consider, but I don't think it's necessarily correct, after having just now considered it. A lightyear is said to equal 63,240 AUs. Earth is 1 AU from the Sun. The most distant solar system body is said to be Sedna with an aphelion of over 900 AUs. If Betelgeuse were .05 lightyears distant, it would be about 3,160 AUs distant. That's over 3 times farther than Sedna's aphelion. It was very difficult for scientists to find Sedna and the other TransNeptunian Objects, using relative parallax. And that's not absolute parallax.
Sample Relative Parallax
The TNO, V774104, found in 2014 I think, is said to be about 100 AUs away. This animation shows the relative parallax:
Image
See https://earthsky.org/space/new-most-distant-object-in-solar-system-v774104.
The caption says: This animation shows the two discovery images for the very distant solar-system object V774104. Its shift with respect to background stars is due to parallax as Earth shifted its location between the two exposures.
Comparing the two images, you can see the bright object in the center move about half an inch on the photo between the two exposures. If an object 100 AUs away only moves half an inch, an object over 30 times farther away, as Betelgeuse is theorized to be, would move only a 60th of an inch, which would be almost impossible to notice at the same magnification.
So it seems Jeffrey's claim isn't yet obviously wrong. Is it? Maybe we need to look for relative parallax images of Betelgeuse, or maybe Jeffrey already has.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby nick c » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:55 am

Parallax is quite reliable up to a couple of hundred ly's with Earth based telescopes, more accuracy is obtained with space telescopes. The evidence simply contradicts the assertion that Betelgeuse is a nearby red dwarf. It is very far away, several hundred ly's, still, given the immense size of the galaxy Betelgeuse could be considered a neighbor. It is admitted that distance estimates become less precise beyond the range of parallax.

Betelgeuse has also shown very little proper motion (star charts have been kept for centuries) which further supports that it is at a great distance. Nearby stars tend to show high proper motion over the course of decades and centuries.

Red giant stars do exist. There are many known examples (Betelgeuse being the most famous) that display great distance as measured by parallax and small proper motion as measured over years of observation.

Here is an Electric Universe explanation for Red Giants:
http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
Red Giants
The diffuse group in the upper right hand corner of the HR diagram are stars which are cool (have low values of current density powering them) but are luminous and so are thought to be very large. They are highly luminous only because of their apparent size. And that size may well be due to having a huge corona rather than an inherently large diameter. At any rate, these are the 'red giants'. They are not necessarily any older than any other star. Notice that some are relatively quite cool - in the range of 1000 K. How do stars at this low a temperature maintain an internal fusion reaction? The simple answer is: They cannot! And they do not! And beneath an extended diffuse corona, they may be quite small stars.

and,
The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:45 am

Correcting Astronomical Distances
Jeffrey provided a link to his source on star distances, so I checked it out and it makes great sense, which I'll see if I can describe a little later. Nick, I think that will answer your concerns. For now, here below are star and quasar distances that I copied from Thacker's paper. I intend to look into similar info for the diameter of the Milky Way and distances to other galaxies etc. Nick, I guess you remember that the TB team posted info a few years ago showing that distances beyond about 300 ly have too high a margin of error to be meaningful. Anyway, the revisions below are based on a formula using the visual magnitude and color of objects. A few stars are actually found to be slightly farther than conventionally calculated, but most are much closer. If RigelKent is Alpha Centauri, there are over 20 stars now found to be closer; 2 are less than one tenth of a lightyear away and several more are within one lightyear. The quasars are found to be a million times closer in some cases.

Distance to the Stars
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Astrophysics/Download/4635
Nearby Bright Stars
1)Rev dist; 3)VisMag; 5)Const;
2)Old dist; 4)Color; 6)Name
(1) (2) (3) - (4) (5) (6)
.05 310 0.50 1.85 Ori Betelgeuse
.08 326 0.96 1.83 Sco Antares
.55 _68 0.85 1.54 Tau Aldebaran
.55 _88 1.63 1.59 Tau Gacrux
.57 489 2.21 1.66 Vel Suhail
.63 176 2.42 1.67 Peg Scheat
.66 130 2.53 1.64 Cet Menkar
.73 173 2.11 1.62 Gru Kornepnoros
.80 _88 2.06 1.58 And Mirach
1.1 _36 -.04 1.23 Boo Arcturus
1.2 _95 2.08 1.47 UMi Kochab
1.2 101 2.23 1.52 Dra Eltanin
1.3 _85 1.98 1.44 Hya Alphard
1.3 522 2.38 1.52 Peg Enif
1.4 _55 1.92 1.44 TrA Atria
2.2 202 1.86 1.27 Car Avior
2.5 _95 3.04 1.42 Cet Mira
2.7 _65 2.29 1.15 Sco ___
3.5 121 2.18 1.20 And Almach
3.7 _36 1.14 1.00 Gem Pollux
3.7 _85 2.00 1.15 Ari Hamal
4.2 _42 0.08 0.80 Aur Capella
4.2 121 2.23 1.17 Cas Schedar
4.6 _75 1.79 1.07 UMa Dubhe
5.5 __4 0.00 0.68 Cen RigelKent
5.6 104 2.28 1.08 Leo Algelba
5.9 _68 2.04 1.02 Cet Diphda
6.1 _46 2.06 1.01 Cen Menkent
6.2 _78 2.39 1.09 Phe Ankaa
6.7 _82 2.46 1.03 Cyg Glenar
8 ____9 -1.46 .01 CMa Sirius
10 1174 -.72 0.15 Car Canopus
11 __11 0.38 0.42 CMi Procyon
13 3064 1.86 0.65 CMa Wesen
17 __26 0.03 0.00 Lyr Vega
18 __17 0.77 0.22 Aql Altair
19 _619 1.80 0.48 Per Mirfak
19 _913 0.12 -.03 Ori Rigel
25 __22 1.16 0.09 PsA Formalhaut
25 __85 0.46 -.16 Eri Achernar
26 1826 1.25 0.09 Cyg Deneb
28 _359 1.41 0.10 Cru Acrux
30 _456 0.61 -.24 Cen Hadar
34 _258 0.98 -.23 Vir Spica
36 __85 1.68 0.00 Car Miaplacidus
37 __85 1.35 -.11 Leo Regulus
38 __46 1.58 0.04 Gem Castor
39 _424 1.25 -.23 Cru Mimosa
39 __72 1.90 0.03 Aur Menkalinan
40 __62 1.77 -.02 UMa Alioth
40 __85 1.85 -.03 Sgr KansAustralis
42 __85 1.93 0.00 Gem Alhena
42 _130 1.65 -.13 Tau ElNath
43 _489 1.50 -.21 CMa Achara
44 __68 1.74 -.13 Gru AlNair
44 _274 1.63 -.22 Sco Shaula
45 _359 1.64 -.22 Ori Bellatrix
45 1206 1.70 -.19 Ori Alnilam
48 _108 1.86 -.19 UMa Alkaid

Revised Quasar Distances
BV dist.ly; App mag; Redshift; BV color; BV abs mag; Name
___936 13.79 .028 0.99 6.5 PKS2153-69
_2,257 16.20 .070 1.02 7.0 IRAS00521-7054
_2,363 16.30 .073 1.03 7.0 IRAS00198-7926
_2,267 14.41 .033 0.63 5.2 ESO012-G21
_2,369 14.53 .028 0.70 5.2 F357
_2,440 16.37 .061 1.02 7.0 IRAS19254-7245
_2,947 14.98 .028 0.69 5.2 ESO31-G08
_3,576 15.40 .026 0.70 5.2 IRAS1416707236
_4,824 15.55 .074 0.59 4.7 1H1836-786
_5,028 16.44 .065 0.76 5.5 H0355-826
12,748 15.86 .102 0.48 2.9 UKS0242-724
20,111 16.65 .239 0.41 2.7 1H0828-706
24,515 15.38 .516 0.22 2.0 PKS2300-683
25,908 16.10 .225 0.16 1.6 PKS0312-77
42,996 16.90 .389 0.05 1.3 PKS0202-76
44,405 17.57 .490 0.20 1.9 PKS0858-77
55,135 17.34 .363 -.01 1.2 MC40031-70
71,356 17.50 .384 -.10 0.8 PKS2302-713
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:21 pm

Thacker's Arguments
Distance to the Stars at
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Astrophysics/Download/4635
Several reasons are given there for why relative parallax calculations for star distances are in error. The main reason seems to be that the light from many stars is bent somewhat around other stars, so the actual path to stars is often much closer than the distance the light travels.

Three items of evidence that help confirm the error are:
1. Graphs of parallax distance vs velocity of stars shows stars having greater velocity with greater distance from the Sun; In reality velocities are very likely to remain within the same range at all distances.
2. Many of these stars show transverse velocities over 100 km/s, whereas radial velocities are rarely over 60 km/s; in reality actual transverse velocities are very likely to be equal to or less than radial velocities.
3. Graphs of parallax distance vs absolute magnitude of stars shows stars being brighter at the source when they are farther away; in reality the absolute magnitudes are very likely to remain within the same range at all distances.
See the graphs at the link above.

This is comparable to the Fingers of God distortion found with conventional quasar distance estimates based on redshift (https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm).
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:02 pm

Lloyd wrote:Is it certain that Cepheids are stars? Do they have spectra typical of stars? I ask because the guy who wrote "Stars Are [many] Times Closer Than They Appear", which is discussed in an older TB forum thread, suggested that their variability is due to them going through phases like the moon. Do you know if that theory is definitely wrong?

If the Cepheids were close enough to be that luminous just on the basis of reflectivity, the distance by parallax measurements would be quite accurate.

Lloyd wrote:Later in your paper, you say: "It's possible that the pulsations of the Cepheids generate so much heat that the star expands too much, and the weaker gravitational field can no longer support EDP. If so, the star falls apart. Opposite charges recombine in a brief flare-up, but the low density produces long wavelengths. The red giant phase is thought to last only a few million years,3 which would make sense if it's the final charge recombination in a star whose EDP is undergoing a catastrophic failure of the gravitation/electrostatic force feedback loop that was holding it together."

Are you implying that stars take a few million years for their CFDLs to disintegrate? If the CFDLs disintegrate at the Cepheid/Red-Giant phase, where would planetoids come from? And how would planetoids continue to have CFDLs?

I just got done overhauling the Main Sequence paper, to bring it in line with other recent improvements in accuracy, and to resolve some outstanding theoretical issues. I removed the bit on the Cepheids, which I intend to study more. They're tough to classify on the basis of their spectra, especially since they vary so much. Their position on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is therefore contentious, and the whole idea that main sequence stars can branch off toward the red giant cluster might be very naive -- these things might have nothing to do with each other. I'm now convinced that red giants actually aren't even stars -- they are properties of white dwarfs or Wolf-Rayet stars that cannot be reconciled with theory. So the standard model says that there have to be two stars there, to get both property sets. But I can explain the white dwarfs, Wolf-Rayet stars, quasars, and red giants all with the "natural tokamak" model. The short lifespan of white dwarfs and red giants, despite their fundamental differences in the standard model, makes more sense in the NT model, since they're both the same stars.

And I'm no longer of the opinion that CFDLs ever disintegrate (unless the object collides with something). Rather, stars evolve into planets.

Lloyd wrote:Charles, have you given some thought to the dating of sedimentary rock strata?

No. :oops: But I added your list to:

QDL / Topics / Science / Geophysics / Chronologies / Geochronology Data / Rapid Sedimentation
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Vecta3 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:54 pm

So, in a nutshell, what's the difference of the theory presented here in comparison to the TTBP theory(s)?
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.
User avatar
Vecta3
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:36 pm

Vecta3 wrote:So, in a nutshell, what's the difference of the theory presented here in comparison to the TTBP theory(s)?

Probably the biggest difference is in the nature of star formation. The TB idea is that there is a galactic electric current flowing through a plasma filament, which pinches the plasma into a star. I'm saying that there is an electrostatic force running through the entire plasma filament, which causes it to collapse lengthwise, like the tensile force in a stretched rubber band. Once the plasma filament is imploding, it's moving electric charges, which generate magnetic fields, which are measurable. So both models acknowledge the same observed magnetic fields surrounding imploding plasma filaments, while the difference is a matter of which force is the prime mover -- magnetic fields (TB) versus electric fields (me).
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:05 pm

Stellar Flaring
CC said: I just got done overhauling the Main Sequence paper, to bring it in line with other recent improvements in accuracy, and to resolve some outstanding theoretical issues.
... And I'm no longer of the opinion that CFDLs ever disintegrate (unless the object collides with something). Rather, stars evolve into planets.

Here's an excerpt from your Main Sequence paper.
Thickening of the topmost positive layer also has implications for stellar flaring. We saw in the CMEs section that a deeper photosphere increases the chances of solar flares. All other factors being the same, the electron drift out of the Sun is evenly distributed, because the dominant force is the repulsion between the electrons. But as the resistance increases with the thickness of the photosphere, the distribution becomes unstable, and can rather favor tunneling through the resistance in discrete channels, which resolve into sunspots, and which set the stage for flares. So if the photosphere gets thicker, because the underlying negative layer is shifting deeper into the Sun, flares will occur more frequently, and more violently. And these are precisely the characteristics of stars as they approach the red dwarf stage, where flares can sometimes double the luminosity of the star in a matter of minutes.
What resistance are you talking about there? You said "as the resistance increases with the thickness of the photosphere". Do you mean the electrical resistance, since ohmic heating means electrical resistance heating? Is there more electrical resistance when the photosphere ions/atoms are farther apart? How would the negative layer under the photosphere get deeper? Do you mean because the photosphere expands? Or do you also mean that the layers below the photosphere shrink?

It's interesting what you say about red dwarf stars tending to have frequent, violent electric discharge flares, due to the greater electrical resistance of their photospheres. Is it at all plausible to you that Saturn may have been a brown dwarf and flared up like that about 4,500 years ago? If so, could Saturn have lost a lot of mass in such a flare, so that it shrank into a gas giant planet?

Brown Dwarf Bipolar Jets
And, by the way, have you studied bipolar jets from brown dwarfs yet? Astronomy literature mentions such things. I assume they would not form the way natural tokamak jets form.

An article, called Jets from a Possible Young Brown Dwarf, at https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2009/su200932.html says: Like most young stars, HH211 emits bipolar jets of material as it evolves; the jets help to reduce the star's spin as it ages and contracts. The jets thereby facilitate further contraction, and probably play a role in the formation of any developing planetary system.

A paper, called An Exoplanet's Response to Anisotropic Stellar Mass-Loss During Birth and Death, at http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0599 says: We conclude that the isotropic mass-loss assumption can safely be used to model planetary motion during giant branch phases of stellar evolution within distances of hundreds of au. In fact, latitudinal mass loss variations anisotropically affect planetary motion only if the mass loss is asymmetric about the stellar equator. Also, we demonstrate how constant-velocity, asymmetric bipolar outflows in young systems incite orbital inclination changes. Consequently, this phenomenon readily tilts exoplanetary orbits external to a nascent disc on the order of degrees.

They seem to compare brown dwarf bipolar jets to cometary jets etc. Do you think the jets could be electrified plasma columns, as TB team members suggest?

It's fun to read the progress you keep making on your model. I guess it's fun for you too.

Eccentricity
I just read a little of the paper above and noticed this: The solutions show that an eccentric secondary’s semimajor axis and inclination both evolve monotonically with time. Therefore, the orbital plane always moves towards a pole unless the orbit is circular. The higher the eccentricity, the faster this movement. If the jet at the south pole is stronger than that at the north pole ( ̇M down u down > ̇M up u up), then the inclination always decreases. The greater the asymmetry, the faster the inclination changes. Also, although the eccentricity remains static, the location of the pericentre is a function of time.

First, I thought it may be suggesting that orbital eccentricity can change quickly, but I guess that impression is wrong. It seems to say only that planets' axial tilts can change quickly.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests