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 » Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:26 am

Lloyd wrote:
_If a like-pole magnet were propelled and hit one of the end magnets, would the force transmit through the line of magnets as fast as the force transmitted through the pool balls?

[CC:]
The speed of propagation is a function of the strength of the field between the objects, minus the inertial forces in the objects that have to be overcome to get them moving. The elasticity of solid objects (such as pool balls) transmits force very rapidly, because the atoms are packed tightly together in the crystal lattice. So they don't have very far to go before they affect the next atom in line, and the electric force is very powerful as close range. The propagation of motion through the ring magnets would be the same, if the magnetic force between them was as strong, compared to their mass, as the electric force between atoms in a crystal lattice.

Lloyd wrote:
_And how does the force transmit through the line of magnets, when they don't even touch each other?

[CC:]
Action at a distance. :geek:

Or magic?
I was still editing my last post when you replied. There's one more thing I wanted to mention. I was commenting on your Titius-Bode paper at the end of my previous post. You found that the planets appear to be spaced apart due to electrical repulsion and the same sort of spacing and repulsion applies to globular star clusters as well. I was asking if you have an idea how globular star clusters could form while a galaxy is going through numerous implosions and explosions to form a spiral galaxy and why they would inhabit mostly the galactic halo. Then I noticed you said exoplanets are found to have the same kind of spacing, apparently by electrical repulsion, as in the solar system. In this recent TPOD, https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/08/11/where-have-all-the-planets-gone/ , Stephen Smith suggests that what are thought to be observations of exoplanets may actually be merely of oscillations in the plasma sheaths of stars. It seems that his reasoning is wrong though, due to electrodynamic modeling.

That paper also says: The same distance/diameter ratio shows up at the next higher scale — the radius of the heliosphere is 2.16 × 10^4 times that of the Sun, suggesting that the solar system, taken as a whole, is like one big Debye cell. I think you previously suggested that there is no actual heliopause detected. So did I misunderstand you, or did you change your mind?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:14 pm

Lloyd wrote:I was asking if you have an idea how globular star clusters could form while a galaxy is going through numerous implosions and explosions to form a spiral galaxy and why they would inhabit mostly the galactic halo.

Maybe the halo is the only place that something could survive a galactic explosion. Or maybe the globular clusters were debris from a far earlier explosion, and were later captured by the mature galaxy, though they won't survive the next explosion. We don't have enough data to narrow down the possibilities, but you're right that globular clusters appear to be very ancient -- some of them seem to pre-date the Big Band. :o

Lloyd wrote:Stephen Smith suggests that what are thought to be observations of exoplanets may actually be merely of oscillations in the plasma sheaths of stars. It seems that his reasoning is wrong though, due to electrodynamic modeling.

He isn't necessarily wrong -- the data on exoplanets are extremely sparse as well, so it's hard to say. But there is no dismissing the planets in our solar system as mere oscillations in plasma double layers. ;)

Lloyd wrote:I think you previously suggested that there is no actual heliopause detected. So did I misunderstand you, or did you change your mind?

I didn't say that there wasn't a heliopause -- I just said that I didn't think that much important was going on there.
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: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:04 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:
Lloyd wrote:I think you previously suggested that there is no actual heliopause detected. So did I misunderstand you, or did you change your mind?

I didn't say that there wasn't a heliopause -- I just said that I didn't think that much important was going on there.

Yeah, I see you're right. In our most recent discussion at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=108901&sid=d2ca168f8cfe6ab807aaa6bf801da88e#p108923 you said that and you explained I think that the heliosphere is a lower density bubble within the larger ISM. We covered a lot there and I forgot a lot of the details.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Sep 05, 2017 3:43 pm

I didn't say that there wasn't a heliopause -- I just said that I didn't think that much important was going on there.
To me, Chandler saying that sounds like an heart surgeon saying that not much important goes on in the lungs.

Chandler is a doctor of the Sun, which is the heart of the Solar System.
But where the Solar System interacts with the rest of the galaxy doesn't interest him.

That doesn't make good sense to me.
The lungs is where the blood interacts with the atmosphere, and picks up the oxygen which the whole system needs.
The boundary of the heliosphere is like the lungs of the Solar System.
This is where the system interacts with the 'world' outside the system, and picks up the charge which the whole system needs.
The heart of a system will fail if its lungs are not functioning correctly.
That makes what goes on at the lungs important.

Even parts of a system that the system can live without, are important to me.
Like my big toe, or like the earth.

Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Sep 05, 2017 6:48 pm

HELIOPAUSE
ComingFrom(Paul) said:
But [the heliopause] where the Solar System interacts with the rest of the galaxy doesn't interest him.

Charles investigated the evidence for charge coming to the Sun directly from the galaxy and found it to be very weak and he found a more likely route for charge. It did come from the galaxy, but it was stored in the electric double layers within the Sun via the implosion of electric galactic filaments. So, instead of the Sun being an electric light on an electric cord with an unknown location for the generation of its electricity, the Sun is an electric light with a direct connection to its own internal double layer battery. This model is able to explain all of the features of the Sun as well as the features of galaxies etc.

He has numerous papers about it at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 . The main topics are Introduction, Accretion, Filaments, Tokamaks, Egg Nebula, Supernovae, Quasars, The Sun, The Planets, Main Sequence, Light Curves, Galaxies, Conclusion. There are more papers under some of these topics.

Several forum members besides Charles agree that the EU model is wrong. Even Bob Johnson did agree and presumably still does that the Sun is not an Anode. His EU conference video explained how Juergens' model was wrong. I believe Bob thinks the Sun is a plasmoid with CFDLs, i.e. current-free double-layers. Two others along with Charles agree that the Sun is a Cathode, and I believe Birkeland also contended the same. They also agree that the Sun is powered internally like a battery. Charles agrees with Bob that the Sun has CFDLs, which he finds is the battery that powers the Sun.

------------------------------

GALACTIC IMPLOSION
Charles, I asked above if you had an idea how globular star clusters could form while a galaxy is going through numerous implosions and explosions to form a spiral galaxy and why they would inhabit mostly the galactic halo.


You said: Maybe the halo is the only place that something could survive a galactic explosion. Or maybe the globular clusters were debris from a far earlier explosion, and were later captured by the mature galaxy, though they won't survive the next explosion.

I just had a thought and wanted to record it here, so it won't be lost. I think you've said that galactic filament or gas cloud implosions probably take hundreds of thousands of years to complete. I suppose then that implosions of entire galaxies would take much longer. So, if there were civilized societies in an imploding galaxy, they would have thousands of years to observe the progress of the implosion. Do you suppose they could develop means to escape from an imploding galaxy? Or would all of the occupants there be trapped? You've suggested that supernovas or colliding gas clouds may trigger implosions withing the gas clouds or galactic filaments. Do you have ideas how an entire galactic implosion could be triggered? Maybe advanced civilizations move themselves to safe places, like globular star clusters outside of galaxies. But how do such star clusters form? Are they mini-galaxies that gradually combine with other clusters and become first-stage galaxies, i.e. peculiar galaxies?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:47 pm

GEOLOGICAL THEORIES COMPARISON

Charles, I hope you have a little time for this.

For the CNPS Special Project on Geology, we're comparing 6 significant geological theories on their claims about 5 Earth features: F: Earth Formation, C: Crust, S: Sedimentation, O: Orogenesis, & GL: Glaciation. We started the project about a month ago.

One of the theories is yours. I don't think you have a name for it, so I'm calling it ESU for Electrostatic Universe, to distinguish it from EU. If you'd like me to use another name for it, let me know.

For ESU, Electrostatic Universe, should the main statement be something like: The electrostatic force is the dominant organizing force in the macrocosm?

What would you say are ESU's claims about the 5 Earth features:
F: Earth Formation, C: Crust, S: Sedimentation, O: Orogenesis, GL: Glaciation?

This is what I put tentatively, except for S & GL.
_F: Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double layers within the bodies, which produce radiation, earthquakes, volcanism etc.
_C: Stars decay, eventually becoming gas giant planets, which lose atmosphere and become rocky planets.
_S:
_O: Mountain ranges were formed by rapid continental drift due to a large asteroid impact.
_GL:

Would you like to rephrase any of that, or fill in for S and GL?

Next is my list of the 6 theories and their main ideas. You're welcome to comment on any of those, if you like, or improve on the ESU statement below.

Main Statements of 6 Geological Theories

ET, Expansion Tectonics, which says: Earth is expanding and its radius has doubled in the past 200 million years.1

PT, Plate Tectonics, which says: Mantle convection forms plate extensions at ocean ridges and subducts plate edges at subduction zones.2

ST, Surge Tectonics, which says: Earth has cooled and shrunk greatly and densification has caused continental lands to sink and magma surge channels have caused orogenesis etc.3

EU, Electric Universe, which says: Galactic electric currents formed the Earth and interplanetary discharges formed its features.4

ESU, Electrostatic Universe, which says: Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double layers within the bodies.5

SD, Shock Dynamics, which says: A large asteroid impact broke up the supercontinent, causing rapid continental drift, orogenesis, volcanism, glaciation, etc.6

References
1. http://www.expansiontectonics.com
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
3. http://ncgt.org + http://forums.naturalphilosophy.org/sho ... hp?tid=113
4. http://holoscience.com + http://thunderbolts.info
5. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
6. http://NewGeology.us + http://funday.createaforum.com/index.php

I'm posting progress on the table of comparisons of the theories at: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16806#p121259
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:39 pm

Lloyd wrote:GALACTIC IMPLOSION
I just had a thought and wanted to record it here, so it won't be lost. I think you've said that galactic filament or gas cloud implosions probably take hundreds of thousands of years to complete. I suppose then that implosions of entire galaxies would take much longer. So, if there were civilized societies in an imploding galaxy, they would have thousands of years to observe the progress of the implosion. Do you suppose they could develop means to escape from an imploding galaxy? Or would all of the occupants there be trapped?

I don't have a timeframe for galactic implosions, but yes, it would probably take a really long time. The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies are expected to collide in 4.5 billion years. I don't have an idea for how long the subsequent implosion would take. I also don't have such a clear & distinct concept of how violent the implosion would be. Would everything get remelted? Vaporized? Or would it just be some stuff that would be reduced to monoatomic matter, while other stuff might not be terribly perturbed? Certainly stuff at the outer reaches of the galaxy (such as our solar system) would be safer than stuff in the galactic nucleus. But "escaping" a galaxy that is 200,000 light years across would take lotsa light years. They would have to be able to survive (& reproduce) in space, and they'd need a really fast spaceship. They'd also need some place else to go. Somewhere in there, it starts getting difficult to imagine life as we know it. Let's just hope that our part of the Milky Way won't get vaporized. 8-)

Lloyd wrote:You've suggested that supernovas or colliding gas clouds may trigger implosions withing the gas clouds or galactic filaments. Do you have ideas how an entire galactic implosion could be triggered?

Galaxies implode under the same kinds of circumstances as dusty plasmas -- it takes the collision of two different bodies of gas & dust. The only difference is that in galactic implosions, the dust particles are a lot bigger. But either way, the charged halos around charged nuclei get stretched into comas, which sets up an electrostatic attraction that pulls everything inward.

Lloyd wrote: Maybe advanced civilizations move themselves to safe places, like globular star clusters outside of galaxies. But how do such star clusters form? Are they mini-galaxies that gradually combine with other clusters and become first-stage galaxies, i.e. peculiar galaxies?

It's possible that the only difference between globular clusters & galaxies is size -- perhaps they form the same way. It's also possible that globular clusters formed at the same time as nearby galaxies, and were stray fragments that were far enough away that they didn't get assimilated into the galactic form. Likewise, I don't have a specific model for the formation of planets as opposed to stars -- I'm just saying that if there is just a little spatter out of the star formation process, there will be some debris nearby, which will be made of the same stuff, by the same means, as the star, just on a smaller scale.

Lloyd wrote:GEOLOGICAL THEORIES COMPARISON
For the CNPS Special Project on Geology, we're comparing 6 significant geological theories on their claims about 5 Earth features: F: Earth Formation, C: Crust, S: Sedimentation, O: Orogenesis, & GL: Glaciation.

I already put a respectable amount of effort into setting up a catalog of the various geologic models, and I created a bunch of functionality for identifying where models agree & disagree, with nested folders to keep everything logically sorted out.

QDL / Topics / Science / Geophysics

IMO, that's the way to go. You're welcome to mine whatever you want out of those folders, for posting on other sites, and you're welcome to add stuff to the QDL folders, as of course you already have to a non-trivial degree. But having gone through all of that, I'd consider it to be a step backwards to dump labor into a system that is less capable. Sorry. ;) So I'll just keep maintaining my site, including descriptions of other models.

Lloyd wrote:One of the theories is yours. I don't think you have a name for it, so I'm calling it ESU for Electrostatic Universe, to distinguish it from EU. If you'd like me to use another name for it, let me know.

I'm bad at coming up with over-arching names for things like this, so I don't know.

Lloyd wrote:For ESU, Electrostatic Universe, should the main statement be something like: The electrostatic force is the dominant organizing force in the macrocosm?

Electrostatics is the study of the electric force, before the force has developed kinetic energy in charged particles, wherein the motion itself brings new effects, making it electrodynamics. But the electric force is the fundamental force in question.

Lloyd wrote:What would you say are ESU's claims about the 5 Earth features:
F: Earth Formation, C: Crust, S: Sedimentation, O: Orogenesis, GL: Glaciation?

F: What you said was fine ("Stars and planets form by implosions of galactic electrostatic filaments, which produce current-free electric double layers within the bodies, which produce radiation, earthquakes, volcanism etc."). I would have just said that planets are just hot spatter out of the star formation process.

C: The crust, IMO, was a meteoritic contribution from the break-up of Ceres.

S: Sedimentation hasn't gotten any special treatment in my model.

O: I favor Fischer's "Shock Dynamics" for mountain building.

GL: Glaciation hasn't gotten any special treatment in my model.
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: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:33 pm

Thanks much, Charles. And I'll see what I can mine from that Geophysics section of your site again.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:30 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:C: The crust, IMO, was a meteoritic contribution from the break-up of Ceres.

I should be more specific -- the granitic crust, and the oceans, were contributions from Ceres. The basaltic crust under the oceans was native to the Earth.
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: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:58 pm

Thank you Lloyd,

for that explanation. It is a new one on me.

I have advanced my analogy now.
My living organism has now acquired all the oxygen it needed for a lifetime at birth, stored up within his heart.

I'm trying it on :)
Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:50 pm

comingfrom wrote:My living organism has now acquired all the oxygen it needed for a lifetime at birth, stored up within his heart.

Hi Paul,

To save you having to research previous posts and/or my website to find out what this actually means, ;) I can give you a brief overview, and you can decide what you want to make of it.

The evidence of electrical activity on the surface of the Sun is abundant, while currents up to the task further out are hard to find. So the conclusion is that all of the action is proximal to the Sun itself.

How can this happen?

When a solar flare ejects matter from the Sun, it's creating a charge imbalance. The reason is that the surface of the Sun is positively charged. So there's a net loss of positive charge inside the Sun due to the CME. This drives an equal-but-opposite drift of electrons out of the Sun and into the interplanetary medium, where all of the positive ions have gone. And that "drift" of electrons, from deeper inside the Sun, creates ohmic heating, and that's the source of the heat & light that we get from the surface.

Eventually, the electrons catch up to the positive ions in the interplanetary medium, where they combine to form neutrally charged atoms. These then can eventually rain back down onto the Sun, recycling the matter, where it will be subjected to the Sun's electric field, and split back into positive & negative layers. When the positive charges get expelled again, the cycle repeats.

This is consistent with the fact that the sustained solar output is directly proportional to the number of solar flares during the active phase, even though the heat produced by the flares themselves is nothing compared to the total solar output, and should have nothing at all to do with solar output during the quiescent phase. But if those flares are expelling positive ions, and the heat is being produced by the electrons leaving the Sun due to the charge imbalance, then of course the solar output will be directly proportional to the number of flares. The CMEs are the charge separation mechanism that drives the current throughout the entire cycle.

Regards,
Charles
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: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:05 pm

Thank you for that, Charles,

I do appreciate it.
It helps me to start approaching this new (to me) concept.

I have also started to read your papers. They are my next study, and I am looking forward to them.
Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby comingfrom » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:07 pm

Once again, thank you, Charles.

I read a bunch of your papers over the weekend, and I commend you for attempting to give mechanical explanations. But what I see is, your mechanical explanations are heavily reliant on various mainstream non mechanical theories. On the other hand, you also fly against the mainstream. For example, you know what densities they give the Sun. For most of the Sun's body, it is said to be less dense the earth's atmosphere, which hardly meets the requirements for gravitational ionization as you explained it.

But mainly, your theory falls in my mind, for the arguments I put to you in another thread. There are observed inflows, at the Sun's surface, and at the heliosphere boundary. That data keeps me believing in an externally powered Sun.

In my present model, the photospere is like a spherical positive column (like in a Crook's tube) some distance up from the Sun's real surface, and the Sun being a rocky body like all celestial bodies. The corona is another column. Yet I don't think it is a simple cathode and anode like a Crook's tube either, but that the effect is similar to produce the photosphere and corona. On the Sun, what mainstream calls positives and negatives are flowing both ways, in from the galaxy, and out into the solar system. CMEs are caused by Birkeland current touchdowns.

If I were to explain in a set of papers as you have, I would also feel the need to explain what electric fields are, and what makes positives positive and negatives negative, if I was going to use those things in my explanation. Because I have never received a satisfactory mechanical explanation of these, I could not be able to use them in any mechanical explanation without giving them a mechanical explanation first.

To me, an electric field is a photonic wind. Particles appear to attract or repulse due to potentials in their electric fields, and the way these potentials work within larger electric fields. Photons of course are tiny, but they still have radius and mass, which enables them to push ions around in electric circuits. Our instruments measure the ions to get voltage and amperage, but we don't detect the photons that are driving the ions, and it is just called the electric field, as if special regions in space have some magic force vectors in them, caused by a plus sign at one end and a minus at the other.

Oh sorry, I forgot the virtual messenger particles, that message the electrons and protons in the field, so the electrons and protons know which way and when and how fast to accelerate. Then (we are left to guess) the electrons and protons fire up their thrusters, and head for their opposite sign.

'Scuse my sarcasm. But I hope you can see what I am saying.
And that's why I asked you one time before, what is an electric field, in your mind?
What causes the attractions between the electrons and protons, that your model needs?

Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:05 pm

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

comingfrom wrote:But what I see is, your mechanical explanations are heavily reliant on various mainstream non mechanical theories.

I assume that by "non mechanical theories" you're referring to your questioning of the mechanisms underlying electric fields, as you said at the end of your post...

comingfrom wrote:And that's why I asked you one time before, what is an electric field, in your mind?
What causes the attractions between the electrons and protons, that your model needs?

I don't know what "causes" electric charges, nor do I know why the electric force can be repulsive for like charges, and attractive for opposite charges. It's good enough for me that these can be measured accurately in the laboratory, and that the measurements can be corroborated. For example, protons have charge and mass. So if you add a certain number of protons to a mix, it should add that much mass, and that much charge. And the numbers line up reliably. So I'm satisfied that masses, charges, & fields between them are real.

In time, our understanding what's going on at the sub-atomic level might change. But that won't change my work. Worst case scenario would be that some of the terminology might change. But the macroscopic behaviors of those sub-atomic assemblies will still be the same.

For example, in Isaac Newton's day, fluids were thought to be continuous substances, and all of the formulas of fluid dynamics, from that day to this, take that for granted. And yet we now know that matter is granular, where macroscopic level properties such as hydrostatic pressure and viscosity are the consequence of a large number of individual collisions between grains of matter. Still, the formulas of fluid dynamics continue working. In fact, you can prove that averaging the effects of that many individual events will produce quite precisely those aggregate behaviors. And it just happens to be a whole lot easier to use fluid dynamics formulas, rather than counting atoms and estimating their speeds. ;) So this is how it's done.

Likewise, maybe electric fields are the consequence of some sort of particle exchange, rather than action at a distance between pluses & minuses. But a change in the substrate isn't going to change my work -- electric charges & fields will still behave the same way.

I applaud the theoretical work being done these days on the substrate, because IMO, our understanding is paper-thin. I favor Bill Lucas' atomic model, but there are others out there that solve problems that the mainstream model doesn't touch. So I'll leave that stuff up to them. ;) Still, there is plenty of work to be done at the macroscopic level, and as long as it's based on laboratory science, it's still valid. So that's what I'm doing.

comingfrom wrote:CMEs are caused by Birkeland current touchdowns.

If the current is coming from outside of the Sun, wouldn't we see the discharge in the chromosphere before the CME?

comingfrom wrote:If I were to explain in a set of papers as you have, I would also feel the need to explain what electric fields are, and what makes positives positive and negatives negative, if I was going to use those things in my explanation. Because I have never received a satisfactory mechanical explanation of these, I could not be able to use them in any mechanical explanation without giving them a mechanical explanation first.

Just beware that there will always be a finer granularity. You're already talking about stuff too small to see with the naked eye, and you want even finer granularity before you'll call it mechanical? ;) You can go the next step, in proposing the existence of even finer particles that are responsible for charges & fields. But if that gets accepted, the next generation will call it non-mechanical, because it was never explained where those particles came from. ;)

comingfrom wrote:To me, an electric field is a photonic wind. Particles appear to attract or repulse due to potentials in their electric fields, and the way these potentials work within larger electric fields. Photons of course are tiny, but they still have radius and mass, which enables them to push ions around in electric circuits.

And do you have a mechanical explanation for how photons came into existence? ;)
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: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby comingfrom » Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:03 pm

Thank you, Charles.

I don't know what "causes" electric charges, nor do I know why the electric force can be repulsive for like charges, and attractive for opposite charges. It's good enough for me that these can be measured accurately in the laboratory, and that the measurements can be corroborated.
The densities of the plasma on the Sun are not so easy to corroborate.

But one thing I thought was plain, plasmas are way less dense than solids and liquids, let alone atoms pressed side by side.

For example, protons have charge and mass. So if you add a certain number of protons to a mix, it should add that much mass, and that much charge. And the numbers line up reliably. So I'm satisfied that masses, charges, & fields between them are real.
You hope the math stacks up as they say.

Personally, I can't see how an electron on the Sun can be attracted by protons in the interplanetary medium.
For one, the same standard model tells us the interplanetary medium sums to neutral.

In time, our understanding what's going on at the sub-atomic level might change. But that won't change my work.
It will be a much longer time before we can confirm what is going on in the body of the Sun, so your work is safe for a long time.

Not as long as someone who worked on Black Holes, mind you.

Worst case scenario would be that some of the terminology might change. But the macroscopic behaviors of those sub-atomic assemblies will still be the same.
We all have great hope for our theories.

For example, in Isaac Newton's day, fluids were thought to be continuous substances, and all of the formulas of fluid dynamics, from that day to this, take that for granted. And yet we now know that matter is granular, where macroscopic level properties such as hydrostatic pressure and viscosity are the consequence of a large number of individual collisions between grains of matter. Still, the formulas of fluid dynamics continue working. In fact, you can prove that averaging the effects of that many individual events will produce quite precisely those aggregate behaviors. And it just happens to be a whole lot easier to use fluid dynamics formulas, rather than counting atoms and estimating their speeds. ;) So this is how it's done.
I know. But if they have any underlying incorrect assumptions or conclusions, because you adopted it without question (and for a whole new environment, I might add), you will have also adopted their errors.

Likewise, maybe electric fields are the consequence of some sort of particle exchange, rather than action at a distance between pluses & minuses. But a change in the substrate isn't going to change my work -- electric charges & fields will still behave the same way.
You won't change your model until you become convinced of inflows, and interstellar currents. Is what I see.

I applaud the theoretical work being done these days on the substrate, because IMO, our understanding is paper-thin. I favor Bill Lucas' atomic model, but there are others out there that solve problems that the mainstream model doesn't touch. So I'll leave that stuff up to them. ;) Still, there is plenty of work to be done at the macroscopic level, and as long as it's based on laboratory science, it's still valid. So that's what I'm doing.
I applaud you too. Just because I disagree, don't suppose I am not impressed. Your work is thorough, very thought provoking, and well presented. I very enjoyed reading your papers.

If the current is coming from outside of the Sun, wouldn't we see the discharge in the chromosphere before the CME?
Charge is invisible. But observations of inflows are seen, when the currents drag some of the plasma down with it. I linked inflow papers for you. Did you not read them?

In my present model, each spherical layer discharges to the layer below.
Each layer has double layers separating them. I abide by Alfven's definitions of double layers, where the DLs are between regions of like charge keeping them seperated. Not the layers of like charge being the layers. Your Sun hasn't got double layers, but is more like a Sara Lee cheesecake, that is, "layer upon layer".
(Maybe you don't get that Ad.)

In Alfven's model, as I understand it, and maybe I'm wrong, a double layer is two layers of electric field between regions of like charge.

Just beware that there will always be a finer granularity. You're already talking about stuff too small to see with the naked eye, and you want even finer granularity before you'll call it mechanical? ;)
Atoms are smaller than microscopes can see too, yet we theorize about them. And we do have knowledge and theories about the photonic, or electomagnetic, scale too. We measure their wavelengths, frequencies and energies.

I do believe photons are recycling too, but we can sum that in with the photons, when we are studying how photons effect us, or our experiments.

You can go the next step, in proposing the existence of even finer particles that are responsible for charges & fields.
Like I said, I believe there are orders of magnitudes below the electromagnetic spectrum. But I also believe we (science) aught to focus on learning what is happening at the E/M level first.

But if that gets accepted, the next generation will call it non-mechanical, because it was never explained where those particles came from. ;)
Now you are just waffling some excuses to justify yourself. As if we explained where macro particles came from.

And do you have a mechanical explanation for how photons came into existence? ;)
They were smaller energy particles before they got spun up into photons. Or they were fermions before they got spun down into photons.

Best wishes
Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests