Most Thorough Model

[Lloyd]

Saturn Configuration, Tidal Friction & Bode's Law
Charles, I don't mean to ask too many questions. I asked about volcanism in my previous post. Now I just found these statements by Talbott at http://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/tal ... lbott.html. Does this help explain how a linear train of bodies outside the solar system could end up rather quickly in their present orbits within the solar system? It doesn't appear that Bass realized that tidal friction is due to electrical forces, as you found, though I can't be sure about that for now. It would also be interesting to see how close Bass's findings on Bode's Law come to yours. Got any comments?

Robert Bass ... looked at aspects of Grubaugh's work and added some significant details. Particularly interesting is Bass' calculation of tidal friction on the participating bodies [in the Saturn Configuration], showing that, though the forces are extremely small, tidal friction works to stabilize a configuration that, despite the theoretical equilibrium, might otherwise be explosively unstable. Bass also carefully examined a unique coordinate system Grubaugh developed for his simulations and was able to confirm that, in the case of a collinear arrangement, this coordinate system allows greater accuracy than the coordinates usually employed in integration routines.

Additionally, as a very pleasant surprise growing out of his work on the Grubaugh models, Bass believes he's succeeded in mathematically deriving Bode's Law, a well-known empirically-based statement of the spatial relationships between planets in the solar system. Though I could never do justice to Bass' mathematics, his work would suggest that planets might have moved in a primitive system [Saturn Configuration], entered a period of chaos, and then, with surprising rapidity, settled into their current positions. His calculations show that, in a chaotic system, the planets will continually bump each other resonantly until they achieve a defined equilibrium, wherein they experience the least interaction. At those equilibrium positions, which accord with Bode's empirical "law," a computer retro-calculation would deceptively suggest that they had been in those positions for countless millions of years, even if they arrived at those positions only yesterday on the geological time scale.

I should mention that the work of physicist Bob Driscoll is also potentially very significant because it draws heavily upon electromagnetism. For a number of reasons, I'm inclined to believe that electromagnetism played a major role in the evolution of the configuration -- perhaps even a dominant role in the earliest and possibly most stable phases. Driscoll has emphasized that electromagnetism, in addition to adding a stabilizing force to the in-line arrangement, permits the planets to move in much closer proximity to each other.

[Lloyd]

I didn't realize Charles had written a paper on the perfect conductivity of a vacuum. It's called:
The Resistance of a Vacuum at: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8819

He apparently found how the idea that space or vacuum is an insulator erroneously came about and he points out that an ammeter actually measures the current of a vacuum.

This is important because EU theory is based on the false assumption that the vacuum of space has high resistance to current, which leads it to the assumption that plasma electric currents must flow between stars to power them from outside, even though such currents should be obvious huge discharges on the Sun, if they are powering it, and there should be huge easily measurable magnetic fields observable with those discharges.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Lloyd.

the perfect conductivity of a vacuum

It seems so obvious, now.
If space was not empty, then charge would have something to resist.
The charge photons bump up against whatever is in space, like an ion, or a planet.

It is the Sun's charge which drives the solar wind.
It is the Sun's charge which prevents gravity from causing the planets to fall into the Sun.

how the idea that space or vacuum is an insulator erroneously came about

Mainstream tends to confuse charge photons with electrons and ions.
They measure electrons and ions, but do not measure the charge.
So if there are no electrons, they suppose there is no charge field.

Electric fields (the charge photons) is what propels ions,
and moving ions create magnetic fields.

Empty space is not really empty. It contains the charge fields.
~Paul

[Lloyd]

Charles seems to be too busy for this site at present, but maybe the following recent science news titles would be good references to check out for his model.

Astronomers Discover White Dwarf Star with Oxygen Atmosphere
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/white ... 03751.html

New Horizons Observes Solar Wind Changes in Outer Solar System
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1601/1601.07156.pdf
http://www.sci-news.com/space/new-horiz ... 03760.html

ALMA Captures Detailed Images of Planet-Forming Disk around Sun-Like Star TW Hydrae
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/alma- ... 03748.html

Study: Moon Moved from Its Original Axis 3 Billion Years Ago
http://www.sci-news.com/space/moon-move ... 03728.html

First Supernova Shock Wave Image seen in visible light
http://www.livescience.com/54131-first- ... epler.html

Real-Life 'Death Star' Continues to Destroy Alien Worlds
http://www.livescience.com/54032-death- ... orlds.html

Incredible New View of the Milky Way Revealed (Video)
http://www.livescience.com/53873-incred ... video.html

Astronomers Catch Two Supernovae in Act of Exploding
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/two-s ... 03719.html

HD 20782b: Astronomers Discover Exoplanet with Highly Eccentric Orbit
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/hd207 ... 03718.html

Astronomers Discover Monstrous ‘Super Spirals’
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/monst ... 03714.html

Source of Very-High-Energy Cosmic Rays Discovered at Milky Way’s Center
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/pevat ... 03710.html

Hubble Discovers Nine Extremely Massive Stars in R136
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/hubbl ... 03709.html

Galaxy with 300,000 Light-Year-Long Tail of Ionized Gas
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/galax ... 03653.html

ALMA Images Shed More Light on Planet Formation around Binary Stars
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/alma- ... 03637.html
A brief quote: "The red arc is free of gas, suggesting the carbon monoxide has frozen out, forming a layer of frost on the dust grains in that region. The frost may provide a boost to planet formation."

[Lloyd]

The Sun Formed in 160 Million Years
See Energy Budget at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4866

Charles did very thorough calculations to determine how long it took for the molecular cloud to implode electrically to form the Sun. He notes that GRBs, i.e. Gamma Ray Bursters, are nearby and occur, I think, at maximum density during star formation.

Some things that I think are yet to be worked out are how big the molecular cloud was, where it was located, and whether the planets formed from the same cloud or filament.

[Lloyd]

This is regarding the Solar Radiation paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10522. The paper ends as follows.
But the standard model assumes that it is only gravity that compresses the plasma. When electrostatic potentials between charged double-layers are taken into account, the forces are much greater, and supercritical hydrogen occurs much closer to the surface.

Charles, does this mean that the photosphere is much denser than conventionally believed? If so, which of your papers covers that? And at what depth do you think the mostly hydrogen plasma reaches supercriticality, which permits blackbody radiation?

In your Surface paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8469, your Figure 7 shows the density and pressure as being about 2 at the photosphere surface, but it doesn't say what units of measurement are meant. Are the units bars or atmospheres as measured at Earth's surface at sea level? The graph shows the pressure and density at 2,000 km depth at 100, which I'm guessing means 100 bars or atmospheres.

[Lloyd]

I found this chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_fluid.

Comparison of Gases, Supercritical Fluids and Liquids[2]
(a) Density (kg/m3); (b) Viscosity (µPa∙s); (c) Diffusivity (mm²/s)
Gases
(a) 1; (b) 10; (c) 1–10
Supercritical Fluids
(a) 100–1000; (b) 50–100; (c) 0.01–0.1
Liquids
(a) 1000; (b) 500–1000; (c) 0.001

[Lloyd]

Egg Nebula Confirms CC's Natural Tokamak Model of Exotic "Stars"
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=16889

I have a question on this paragraph.
The NT model also generalizes easily to explain related star types, such as black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, magnetars, quasars, blazars, BL Lac objects, and white dwarfs. All of these star types have overlapping properties, including bipolar jets, extremely powerful magnetic fields, and non-black-body emissions, including extreme UV radiation such as gamma rays. This is consistent with recent research that has found new parallels between the behavior of white dwarfs and black holes,4 and among black holes, blazars, quasars, and gamma-ray bursters.5 The differences among them come down to variances in the balance of forces in the same general model.
Are GRBs the first phase of all of the NT types?

[As an NT eventually disintegrates] The heavy elements will then get flung outward by centrifugal forces far too powerful for gravity to contain, and that will be the end of it.
Could there be normal stars or planets near an NT when it disintegrates? And, if so, could they get hit by these moderately heavy elements? Would these elements normally tend to form molecular clouds?

[CharlesChandler]

Are GRBs the first phase of all of the NT types?

Yes, in my model, GRBs can only be evidence of a newly-formed natural tokamak, since only a tokamak can accomplish nuclear fusion without there being anything to block the gamma rays.

Could there be normal stars or planets near an NT when it disintegrates? And, if so, could they get hit by these moderately heavy elements? Would these elements normally tend to form molecular clouds?

The annular core of a natural tokamak would contain heavy elements, up to and including iron & nickel. So these elements would get flung outward. They would be gases and/or plasmas, not solids or liquids. A planet would have to be very close to be affected.

[Lloyd]

AGE OF THE SUN & THE EARTH
Charles, is it very certain that temperature increases the decay rate of radioactive elements?

In your Light Curves paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943 you said:
"... When starting at 22,000 K (i.e., the surface temperature of Bellatrix), the star depletes its kinetic energy store quite rapidly, evolving into a red dwarf (M class) in less than a billion years. And it only spends about 200 million years as an F/G class star.
"... Outside of the scope of the present work, but nevertheless worth mentioning, is that there might be an interesting relevance to the study of the conditions in which life evolved on Earth. In the standard model, the Sun was born 4.5 billion years ago, and has been burning steadily ever since. The Earth was formed at the same time ... [and] complex organisms firmly established 500 million years ago. But the present article estimates the Sun to be only 378 million years old. (See Figure 5.)
- "How could radiometric dates be older than the very existence of the Earth? The answer is that they neglect differences in the radioactive decay rates depending on temperature.10,11 The standard model assumes that the Sun has maintained the same temperature for its entire life,12 and that the Earth's crust that solidified 4.1 billion years ago has been at 300 K the whole time. But it's more likely that the crust cooled slowly, and thus the radioactive decay rate would have run faster, thereby falsely reporting a greater age. And what we're seeing here is the possibility that the Sun was also producing a lot more heat. Thus life evolved in a much shorter period of time, and in an environment that was much warmer. It should also be noted that the hotter Sun was producing more high frequency (ionizing) radiation, which would have increased the mutation rate."
10. Curie, P.; Onnes, M. K. "Sur le rayonnement du radium à la température de l'hydrogène liquide" MASSON ET CIE, Editeurs, Journal de Physique: Le Radium, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 181-186. 1913/06
http://radium.journaldephysique.org/art ... _181_0.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/radium:01913001006018100
11. Emery, G. T. "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates" Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Volume 22, pp 165-202. 1972/12
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10 ... 172.001121

Walter Brown, on the other hand, said under "ACCELERATED DECAY RATES":
"Most attempts to change decay rates have failed. For example, changing temperatures between -427°F and +4,500°F has produced no measurable change in decay rates. Nor have accelerations of up to 970,000 g, magnetic fields up to 45,000 gauss, or changing elevations or chemical concentrations." That seems to contradict your sources. Here's how Brown says radioactive elements formed. And might this have any effect on your estimates of the age of Earth and the Sun?

When, Where, How, and Why Did Radioactive Decay Rates Accelerate?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... vity2.html
- Creationists, who believe the earth is young, must explain why we see so many radioactive decay products if the earth is not billions of years old. A few creationists, without carefully considering how earth’s radioactivity began, say that radioactive decay rates must have miraculously accelerated at some unknown time in the past to produce all those decay products. But that would have generated enough heat to boil all the oceans away, so they say that another miracle must have removed all that heat. While I agree that the earth is young, miracles should not be invoked to solve scientific problems—or imagined to produce a desired result. That would violate the most basic rule of science. For details, see Figure 244 on page 558 and Endnote 14 on page 560.
- Earth’s radioactivity was produced during the flood, specifically inside earth’s fluttering crust during the flood phase, and months later, during the compression event.
- Based on the considerable observable and repeatable evidence already presented, here is what appears to have happened. At the beginning of the flood, piezoelectric surges Z-pinched (fused) various stable nuclei along the surge paths into unstable proton-heavy and superheavy nuclei, some of which rapidly fissioned and decayed.
- Toward the end of the flood, the compression event generated even more powerful piezoelectric surges. All nuclei continually vibrate, similar to a drop of water that we might imagine “floating” inside a space craft. The quivering nucleus has at least six vibrational patterns, called modes; each mode has many resonant (or natural) frequencies. The radioactive nuclei made months earlier during the flood phase were always on the verge of decaying (or even flying apart) to a more stable state, especially in response to external electrical disturbances. (We have already shown on page 373 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp18936670] specific situations in which the demonstrated electrical mechanisms of Fritz Bosch18 and William Barker21 suddenly sped up radioactive decay a billion fold.) Surging electrical currents during the compression event provided great disturbances by emitting bremsstrahlung radiation. (Recall from page 382 that electrons, surging through solids, liquids or gases, decelerate, lose kinetic energy, but conserve energy by emitting bremsstrahlung radiation.)
- As an example of one mode (the Giant Dipole Vibration Mode), known since the late 1940s,95 consider a high-energy (5 × 1021 cycles per second) electromagnetic wave (created by bremsstrahlung radiation) passing by an almost unstable (radioactive) nucleus.
- "The protons in the nucleus are accelerated [back and forth] by the [cyclic] electrical field. The neutrons are unaffected by the field, but they move in the direction opposite to that of the protons so that the center of mass of the nucleus remains stationary and momentum is conserved. The restoring force, which ultimately reverses the motions of the protons and neutrons, is the strong nuclear force responsible for binding them together."96
- When a fast electron (such as one accelerated through a large piezoelectric-generated voltage) encounters atoms near its path, it decelerates and emits bremsstrahlung radiation — one photon at a time. The first photons emitted are the most energetic and radiate at the highest frequency. Subsequent photons have lower energies and frequencies—from gamma rays and x-rays down to radio waves. The closer these frequencies are to any resonant frequency of nearby radioactive nuclei, the larger vibrational amplitudes produced in those nuclei. If the trillions upon trillions of electrons in each surge add enough energy to these almost unstable nuclei, radioactive decay is accelerated.97
- Large stable nuclei can also be made radioactive by powerful bremsstrahlung radiation. The vibrations that are set up temporarily distort a nucleus and, as explained on page 382 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp8124407], can cause it to emit one or more neutrons. The nucleus then becomes proton heavy which makes it less stable and more likely to decay. Other nuclei that absorb these neutrons also become less stable.
- As the Proton 21 Laboratory has demonstrated, in what is call[ed] “cold repacking,” most of the heat produced was absorbed in producing heavy elements, such as uranium. (See page 375 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp29652720].) Therefore, accelerated decay did not overheat the earth or evaporate all our oceans. A miracle is not needed and, of course, should never be claimed just to solve a problem. Anyone who wishes to dispute the Proton 21 Laboratory’s evidence should first read Controlled Nucleosynthesis31 and then explain the thousands of ruptured electrodes, one of which is shown in Figure 200 on page 375. Better yet, borrow from the Laboratory one of its thousands of accumulating screens and, using a mass spectrometer, examine its captured decay fragments and new chemical elements, some of which may be superheavy.

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, is it very certain that temperature increases the decay rate of radioactive elements?

Quite certain. For example, in nuclear power plants, all they have to do in order to get net power output is to heat the uranium above the critical temperature, at which the radioactive decay rate produces enough heat to force the same amount of decay, which of course sustains the heat. Past that point, if they don't extract the heat from the core, it will go into runaway mode, resulting in a melt-down. So yes, the decay rate increases with temperature.

[Lloyd]

Okay. Sounds good. Then do you think Walter Brown could be right about how Earth's crust became partly radioactive via electric currents in the crust during cataclysms? Or how do you think Earth's radioactivity originated?

[CharlesChandler]

Or how do you think Earth's radioactivity originated?

I believe that the continental granites, as well as the water in the oceans, arrived during the Late Heavy Bombardment. The impact events could have fused heavy elements.

[Lloyd]

Impacts and Oceans
You said: "I believe that the continental granites, as well as the water in the oceans, arrived during the Late Heavy Bombardment. The impact events could have fused heavy elements."

That's very interesting, both that the bombardment produced Earth's radioactivity and that it made Earth watery. You've stated in a few places that high velocity impacts produce thermonuclear explosions, which involve electrical discharges. Have you determined how strong the discharges would need to be or what other factors are involved to fuse radioactive elements in impacts? Does Walter Brown's explanation above have anything potentially correct? When do you regard it as most likely that the bombardment occurred? In my thread on Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm I and others discussed evidence that the sedimentary rock strata were almost all deposited during and shortly after a Great Flood a few thousand years ago and that those strata contain virtually all of the crater remains from the bombardment. What's the most recent time period you think is possible for the bombardment and why? Or do you have a paper or other article in which you've discussed that and what is a link to it?

I looked online for radioactivity connected with impact craters, but didn't find much. Have you analyzed nuclear bomb tests to get data on radioactivity that is produced from electrical discharge fusion during those tests? If so, what did you find?

Have you written anywhere else on how impacts delivered water to the Earth?

[Zyxzevn]

Charles, is it very certain that temperature increases the decay rate of radioactive elements?

Quite certain. For example, in nuclear power plants, all they have to do in order to get net power output is to heat the uranium above the critical temperature, at which the radioactive decay rate produces enough heat to force the same amount of decay, which of course sustains the heat.

I have not seen this before.
To my knowledge, they insert rods to absorb the neutrons coming form the radioactive materials.

I found this on wikipedia
(wikipedia is mostly propaganda on this subject)
And this: Do Nuclear Decay Rates Depend on Temperature?
And this: Temperature dependence of positronium decay rates in gases