Lloyd wrote:I've been trying to get MM and his supporters to see that it's likely absurd to suppose that the energy isn't stored. All it should take to realize that is that the Sun puts out way more radiation than it receives.
I agree. The solar radiation at 1 AU is 1367 watts per square meter, with 1050 watts per square meter making it all of the way through the atmosphere to hit the surface of the Earth. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
) And this is coming the the Sun, which produces 63 million watts per square, as you said. That has to come from somewhere. Brant is brewing an idea that the Sun is a huge antenna, which picks up waves that we cannot detect, because we don't have anything big enough. Then, the EM energy is thermalized, producing the heat & light that we get. It's an interesting idea, but I still think that we have to fully investigate the things that we can
see, before we postulate the existence of things we can't.
Lloyd wrote:If we can show that way more radiation is emitted by the Sun than is received by it, it should be easy to prove that most of the Sun's energy is stored. Do you agree? And if we prove that, I think it would be almost incumbent on them to study your model of accretion for explaining how energy is likely stored in stars and planets during formation.
There will never be a way to prove that no energy is being received from external sources, especially if there is some reason why it isn't detectable by normal instrumentation. For that matter, there is no way to prove that cold dark matter doesn't exist, if it is defined as being something that defies detection by ordinary instrumentation. But we can tally up the effects of the known forces, and that might leave very little on the table for CDM proponents to explain. Likewise, for external energy sources to the Sun, IMO we should first make a thorough investigation of the known forces. If that makes a full accounting of the solar energy budget, then we never disproved any alternate theses, but we will have focused attention on what produces the lion's share of the energy.
Lloyd wrote:Michael Vaicaitis' Model
I don't delve much into redefinitions of fundamental forces. I think that QM is a mess, and needs to be overhauled, but I'll leave that to somebody else. I already have a full plate, with what I'm doing in astrophysics & geophysics. And I can comfortably proceed, even knowing that the bedrock might move around on me, as advances are made in our understanding of wave & particle physics, just because the macroscopic behaviors aren't going to change, so all of the formulas will still work. This is why mechanical engineers didn't all get laid off when Einstein announced that Newtonian mechanics is just an illusion -- call it an illusion if you want, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't accurately represent the material world, at its level of description. So if somebody reinvents sub-atomic physics, I might have to learn some new jargon, but it isn't going to change any of the work that I've done.
CharlesChandler wrote:Anyway, in consideration of the fact that rock has a much higher compression strength than tensile strength, if it's going to fraction due to a reduction in the degree of curvature, the crust will rift on the bottom, but without getting scrunched into mountains at the surface. So I'm still not convinced that expansion would cause mountain-building. Sorry.
Well that's just personal opinion then which you are entitled to. In no way are you able to dispute my proposal however. IMO I think both mechanisms are plausible hence mountainous regions, deep valleys and internal rifting.
Whatever. As concerns the rest of your comments, I'd just like to say that you're trying to pick a fight with somebody who already said that the Expanding Earth Hypothesis is somewhere between interesting and compelling (though I don't think that it's the whole story). OK, so it takes an adversary to sharpen one's wits, and you think that you have one in me. But my position is not so diametrically opposed that it would be useful. This is also something that I haven't studied in detail. I know a little bit more about Fischer's Shock Dynamics model, and he did such a thorough job that I consider it to be quite compelling. IMO, the whole truth is probably a combination. But it would take more study on my part to be a worthy adversary. In the meantime, I have been slowly accumulating the arguments for/against the various models of the Earth's crust, which you can find on my website:
QDL / Topics / Science / Geophysics / Tectonics
IMO, whenever a variety of hypotheses have undergone a substantial amount of development, without the issue being resolved, the most useful way to approach it is to lay out the various models, identifying the central contentions, the objections, and the rebuttals. Then at least you don't get lost in the vast expanses of arguments, where 90% of the literature is redundant, and many of the problems are coming from people just not being familiar with the legitimate points on both sides. So instead of burying the revelations under yet another layer of verbosity, it's useful to condense the arguments into good logical form, and to eliminate the repetitive arguments by having each statement occur in only one place, along with its objections and rebuttals. If you'd like to help with this organizational effort, you can either register on my site and do the work directly, or you can post well-formatted arguments & information here, and I'll transfer them to my site. When presented more clearly and more concisely, the truth is more compelling, so I'd like to encourage you to pursue it.