Most Thorough Model

[CharlesChandler]

Most flare stars are dim red dwarfs, although recent research indicates that less massive brown dwarfs might also be capable of flaring

Oh, those flare stars. Well yes -- if such flares are fundamentally similar to solar flares, they are well treated in my model of main sequence stars. (See the Sunspots, CMEs, and Arcades articles for descriptions of the electrical configuration.) In the Conversions article, I provide a quantified analysis of the significance -- solar flares cause CMEs, which sustain the charge separation between the Sun and the heliosphere, which is what drives the ohmic heating responsible for the heat & light that we get.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... ffects.png

[Lloyd]

Charles, do you know where the data came from that the Moon is mostly granite very similar to Earth's granite? Was it from spectra? If so, I imagine that would be pretty reliable. The excerpt below from an online paper discusses composition of some granites returned from the Moon missions. There wasn't much granite found on those missions, probably because they stayed mostly in the flatter regions on the near side where large impactors apparently formed the huge basins. I'm guessing that the basalt in those basins may have formed from granite, but I don't know if that's possible. Maybe basalt was below the granite surface and the impacts caused the basalt to come to the surface. I don't know if the following info should be helpful, but hopefully so.

SEDDIO ET AL.: PETROLOGY AND GEOCHEMISTRY OF LUNAR GRANITE 12032,366-19
http://epsc.wustl.edu/~rlk/papers/seddi ... in_granite
Discussion
Granites are one of the rarest lithologies in the Apollo collection, implying that rocks of granitic composition make up only a small fraction of the lunar crust. However, granitic samples are relatively more common among the non-mare components at Apollo 12 (five have been characterized thus far) compared to the other Apollo sites presumably because the site is located in the Procellarum KREEP Terrane (Jolliff et al. 2000), which has the highest abundances of K, Th, and U on the lunar surface (Lawrence et al. 1998). Given the high concentrations of those elements in granite, it logically follows that the source of most of the lunar granitic material would be in this terrane as well.

The Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 sites also lie within the Procellarum KREEP Terrane, and both have yielded several granitic samples (Ryder 1976; Warren et al. 1983c; Jolliff 1991; Ryder and Martinez 1991), whereas we are aware of no granite clasts in the Apollo 16 collection from the Feldspathic Highlands Terrane. Moreover, silicic surface compositions associated with some of the “red spots” (lunar features characterized by a high albedo and a strong absorption in the ultraviolet; Hawke et al. 2002; Wagner et al. 2010) such as the Gruithuisen domes, Mairan domes, and Hansteen Alpha (Hawke et al. 2003; Wilson and Head 2003; Glotch et al. 2010), most of which are now known to be silica-rich (Glotch et al. 2010), occur within this terrane.

12032,366-19 compared to other lunar granites

Granite 12032,366-19 is of lunar origin. It is not a terrestrial contaminant or a piece of Earth blasted to the Moon (Chapman 2002). It contains no petrographic indication of hydrous alteration of any minerals (e.g., serpentinization of fayalite, sericitization of plagioclase). Micas and amphiboles are absent in 12032,366-19 (and other lunar samples) but are common in terrestrial granites. Sample 12032,366-19 is unique among lunar samples. It contains no impact-generated glass or brecciated material, unlike many other lunar granites (Rutherford et al. 1976; Warren et al. 1983c; Morris et al. 1990; Jolliff 1991).

The graphic intergrowth of K-feldspar and silica, commonly described as a granophyre, dominates most of the lunar granitic samples (e.g., 12013); however, significant amounts of plagioclase-silica intergrowths are far less common among reported samples. It is also common for lunar granites to contain shock-melted glass, but 12032,366-19 contains none. It is noteworthy that only a quarter or so of known lunar granites have pyroxene such that it could be analyzed, and the Mg′ (mol% Mg/[Mg+Fe]) of the pyroxene in 12032,366‑19, essentially end-member hedenbergite, is significantly lower than those of other lunar granites (Fig. 13).

Perhaps because all samples are exceedingly small by terrestrial sampling and analysis standards, a wide distribution in bulk compositions characterizes rocks (and assemblages) that have been classified as lunar granites or felsites. Appendix 11 includes several granitic bulk compositions for comparison with 12032,366-19. The 12032,366-19 REE concentrations are most similar (of those to which it has been compared thus far) to those of 12001,912-02; 12013,10,28; 12023,147-10; and 12033,517, all from Apollo 12. 12032,366-19 contains the second highest concentration of BaO (0.68 wt%) of which we are aware in a lunar sample (the highest is in sample 12032,366-07, another lithic fragment of granitic composition).

The most striking difference between 12032,366-19 and other lunar granites is that its Na2O/K2O is higher by a factor of 2–5, a characteristic reflected by both the abundance and sodic nature of its plagioclase. To our knowledge, the texture and mineral assemblage of this sample is unique among studied lunar samples. Lunar granites (pristine or otherwise) have U-Pb crystallization ages between 3.88 and 4.32 Ga (from zircon analyses; Meyer et al. 1996). Our calculation of a crystallization age of 3.9 ± 0.3 Ga for sample 12032,366-19 is consistent with this range.

Pristinity
Although 12032,366-19 was collected on the immediate surface of the Moon, it is an unbrecciated sample with an igneous texture and contains no evidence of any admixed meteoritic or regolith material. The bulk rock concentration of Ir is low, <1.3 ppb, corresponding to <0.2% meteoritic material (H chondrite equivalent). Moreover, metallic iron and troilite are absent. Metallic Fe, coupled with high Ni concentrations, would also indicate a meteoritic source (Papike et al. 1991).

Shock-melted glass is a common occurrence in many lunar granitic samples (e.g., 14303,204 is a felsite clast of which half is glass; Warren et al. 1983c). It is also common for veins of impact glass to cut through portions of granitic samples (e.g., 12033,507; Warren et al. 1987). The only glass in 12032,366-19 occurs as inclusions in hedenbergite and does not appear to be of shock-melted origin. These glass inclusions are more likely to be melt that became trapped within an early forming crystal. The granitic composition of the inclusion glass indicates that the hedenbergite was in equilibrium with the granitic melt. The texture of 12032,366-19 indicates that the rock only experienced one episode of crystallization and has not experienced any remelting since.

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, do you know where the data came from that the Moon is mostly granite very similar to Earth's granite?

It came from a misinterpretation on my part. Yes, there is granite in the highlands, but the mares are made of basalt.

I got onto that track because I had realized that the Earth's granite had to have been extraterrestrial, and had to have arrived after the crust had solidified. If the granite had been around when the Earth was still fully molten, the granite would have settled out into a thin layer all of the way around the globe, and we wouldn't have any dry land on which to set up computer stands. I'm still of the opinion that the continents are made of ET granite. But I no longer believe that it was a donation from the Moon. Rather, I'm thinking that it was part of the debris from the break-up of Ceres, which arrived during the Late Heavy Bombardment. Perhaps the granites on the Moon, and on Mars, arrived at the same time.

[Lloyd]

Supercontinent & Late Heavy Bombardment
Moon
In your Theia paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... 6199-15407 you argue that Earth's granite continents must have come from another body (like the Moon), because, if it had come from Earth's own substance, it would have floated to the surface during the molten phase and spread out in a thin layer, instead of forming a supercontinent. The same argument should hold for the Moon (& Mars); should it not? So the Moon's granite should have covered its entire surface, which seems possible. Basalt would have been just below the thin granite surface. So, when the large bolides impacted what is now the near side of the Moon, the thin granite surface layer would have mostly blasted away to the outside of each crater, i.e. mare or basin. And that would have left mostly the underlying basalt to fill each crater/basin. Right?

Asteroid Ceres
You say now that Earth's mostly granite supercontinent may have come from a large part of the planet that exploded to form the Asteroid belt, where Ceres is the largest remaining asteroid. Isn't NASA planning a mission to Ceres? If so, do you know if they're planning to get samples from it? If so, we may soon find out if Ceres has much granite.

Comet Venus
If the asteroids do not have Earth-like granite, another possible source seems to be Venus. Do you know of reasons to think that is very possible or unlikely? Ancient myths seem to indicate that Venus had a cometary form a few thousand years ago and may have had a different orbit. I think your Tokamaks paper shows the star, Mira (which you say is an exotic natural tokamak toroidal star), has a comet-like tail that's extremely wide and long. So it looks like planets, like Venus, should be capable of having comet tails as well. Tails require jets, I suppose. Do you agree? Regular comets have jets and some moons have jets. I think Mars has jets too. Earth has geysers and volcanoes, which seem to be jets as well. And Venus has a tail that's visible in IR or UV light, I think. And the source of such jets in your model is CFDLs; is it not? CFDLs being electrical double layers, one layer being electron-poor and the outer layer being electron-rich. Of course, the supercontinent could not have come from Venus at the time it was seen as a comet in ancient times, since the observers were on the supercontinent when they observed Venus. But it seems possible that the supercontinent could have come from Venus at a much earlier time. Do you suppose?

Asteroids & Meteors
Have you read up much on the composition of meteors? I think there are two main groups of meteors: rocky and metal. Do you agree that meteors likely formed from the same planet or planets that was/were broken up to form the Asteroid belts? Do meteors seem to be fragments of a former planet with CFDLs?

This site, http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/htm ... s5_2a.html, says:
Meteorites have three general compositions:
Iron meteorites are composed mainly of metallic iron and nickel, often mixed together as an alloy.
Stony meteorites contain mainly silicate minerals, such as pyroxene, plagioclase feldspar, and olivine. They also contain minor amounts of metals, particularly nickel and iron alloys. Stony meteorites account for 95% of all meteoritic material.
Stony-iron meteorites contain a mixture of silicate minerals and nickel-iron alloy. Stony meteorites are similar to igneous Earth rocks like basalt. Iron meteorites probably resemble the material in the Earth’s core.

It mentions basalt, but feldspar can also come from granite.

This site, http://australianmuseum.net.au/igneous-rock-types, says:
Granite: the most common igneous plutonic rock. Contains essential quartz, plagioclase and alkali feldspar, usually with hornblende and/or biotite and/or muscovite.

[CharlesChandler]

In your Theia paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15407 you argue that Earth's granite continents must have come from another body (like the Moon),

Another body -- yes. The Moon -- probably not. If the Moon was a fragment of Ceres, that hit the Earth as part of the Late Heavy Bombardment, it wouldn't be showing signs of the Late Heavy Bombardment itself, in the form of heavy cratering. So the Moon (and Mars for that matter) had already formed a crust. Then the granites in the LHB came crashing in, forming the continents on Earth, and perhaps the highlands on the Moon and on Mars. And the latter two got partially remelted by the heat from the impacts. I suppose the Earth would have been partially remelted too, which would have helped the impacter pancake into a supercontinent.

because, if [the granite] had come from Earth's own substance, it would have floated to the surface during the molten phase and spread out in a thin layer, instead of forming a supercontinent. The same argument should hold for the Moon (& Mars); should it not?

Exactly. That's why I'm now thinking in terms of the lunar and martian highlands being of foreign origins (i.e., the LHB). Such crustal irregularities are not consistent with the slowly cooling, molten magma model.

So, when the large bolides impacted what is now the near side of the Moon, the thin granite surface layer would have mostly blasted away to the outside of each crater, i.e. mare or basin. And that would have left mostly the underlying basalt to fill each crater/basin. Right?

Yes.

You say now that Earth's mostly granite supercontinent may have come from a large part of the planet that exploded to form the Asteroid belt, where Ceres is the largest remaining asteroid.

Yes.

Isn't NASA planning a mission to Ceres? If so, do you know if they're planning to get samples from it? If so, we may soon find out if Ceres has much granite.

Not necessarily. Ceres, before the impact, would have been stratified, with lighter material on the surface, and heavier stuff deeper down. The impact would have liberated all of that stuff, but there would have been a variety of chemical compositions in the debris. As you later noted, we see a lot of variegation in the composition of asteroids, so it just depends on where the fragment came from -- the light outer layer, or one of the heavier inner layers. Ceres might be the iron/nickel core.

Ancient myths seem to indicate that Venus had a cometary form a few thousand years ago and may have had a different orbit.

I think that the ancient myths refer to real objects and real events, but not necessarily objects that are still visible. The Younger-Dryas impacter would have left quite an impression on the minds of paleolithic cultures. Imagine living in Pennsylvania when it hit the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Huge chunks of asteroid and ice fly overhead, on their way to gouging out the Carolina Bays. This would have been preserved as lore of the visitation of gods, who then proceeded back out into space. Where are they now? Just look for anything in the night sky that isn't stationary, such as Venus, Mars, and Saturn. So the orbits of the planets might have been quite stable, but got attributed with the ability to get reshuffled, when they were given the credit for the Younger-Dryas event. So I agree with the premises of Talbott's work -- that the ancient myths had to have been inspired by real events, if for no other reason that for the fact that hunter gatherers simply don't make up stories like that. I know college graduates who can't locate Venus in the dawn or dusk skies, so I doubt that more primitive people, who were busy just trying to stay alive, would have noticed movements in the firmament, had they not been nervously scanning the skies for indications of another visitation. Then astronomy was born. Planets were discovered, and used as the vehicle for retelling the story of the arrival of the gods. Ten thousand years later, somebody actually believed them (i.e., Velikovsky). But I think that Richard Firestone is the one who got the physics right.

I think your Tokamaks paper shows the star, Mira (which you say is an exotic natural tokamak toroidal star), has a comet-like tail that's extremely wide and long. So it looks like planets, like Venus, should be capable of having comet tails as well. Tails require jets, I suppose. Do you agree?

That depends on what you call a "jet". The bipolar jets from quasars are relativistic charge streams, which only the toroidal plasmoid model can explain. Random distributions of geysers on the surfaces of planets and comets are totally different phenomena.

But it seems possible that the supercontinent could have come from Venus at a much earlier time. Do you suppose?

Too few data for me.

Do you agree that meteors likely formed from the same planet or planets that was/were broken up to form the Asteroid belts?

Yes.

Do meteors seem to be fragments of a former planet with CFDLs?

Yes -- I think that the ionization that occurs at high pressure is important in the formulation of a number of the chemicals we see, in the Earth as well as in meteorites.

[Lloyd]

Asteroids
Charles, you say Ceres might be the core of the planet that broke up to form the Asteroid belts. Since Mercury is said to be unusually dense, could Mercury have been the core of that former planet? There are at least 2 other asteroids that are nearly as big as Ceres, I think, i.e. Pallas[?] and Vesta. Your model says that the core of Sun-like stars is osmium and other platinum group elements. If planets are the remains of such stars, shouldn't there be one or more osmium/platinum core Asteroid/s, or at least meteors? By the way, wasn't our former granite supercontinent larger than any of the present Asteroids?

Jets
I realize that you consider natural tokamak jets to be very different from jets on planetoids and comets, but I don't know if the tail of Mira is different from these smaller jets. Mira's tail isn't an axial jet; is it? I asked on your site what you think Mira's tail consists of. Did you answer? I read some of your answers to my questions there, but I don't know if you answered that question there. Cardona said a few years back that bipolar jets are somewhat common at brown dwarf stars. Comet tails are sometimes similar to bipolar jets, but I guess they're not the same. Maybe we need to define the different kinds of jets. Like: There are geyser-like jets as on comets, geysers and volcanic eruptions on planetoids, tails on comets, tails on Mira-like objects, bipolar jets at brown dwarf stars, and bipolar jets at NTs, i.e. natural tokamak exotic star-like objects.

Rock Formation

You said: I think that the ionization that occurs at high pressure [in CFDLs inside planets] is important in the formulation of a number of the chemicals we see, in the Earth as well as in meteorites.

Which chemicals do you think most needed the high pressure in CFDLs to form? Are there any chemicals that likely did not form in CFDLs?

[Lloyd]

Catastrophism
Ancient Guesses
CC: I think that the ancient myths refer to real objects and real events, but not necessarily objects that are still visible.
LK: That's actually akin to what the Saturn Theorists & many other Catastrophists think. The Saturnists think that as Earth rotated below the polar planetary conjunction, the bright part of Saturn was crescent shaped, like the crescent Moon, and it looked like a boat sailing around Saturn each day. When the conjunction broke up, the crescent symbol got transferred to the Moon. The crescent also made a bull or cow form and that symbol got transferred to Venus and the constellation of Taurus. Likewise for many other ancient astral phenomena.

CC: The Younger-Dryas impacter would have left quite an impression on the minds of paleolithic cultures. Imagine living in Pennsylvania when it hit the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Huge chunks of asteroid and ice fly overhead, on their way to gouging out the Carolina Bays. This would have been preserved as lore of the visitation of gods, who then proceeded back out into space. Where are they now? Just look for anything in the night sky that isn't stationary, such as Venus, Mars, and Saturn.
LK: But it's also possible that the ancients were able to observe what happened to the planets in the former sky and to see where they ended up. Isn't it? Venus apparently had a beautiful feminine appearance initially; then it developed a cometary tail and looked like a dragon; then chaos and darkness reigned, with chaos hordes, like little dragons and chaotic motions of small objects in the sky, which I think was the time of the Late Heavy Bombardment of meteors; then Venus was seen to become the Morning and Evening Star. Mars likewise seems to have been observable throughout such changing conditions.

Stable Orbits?
CC: So the orbits of the planets might have been quite stable, but got attributed with the ability to get reshuffled, when they were given the credit for the Younger-Dryas event.
LK: Yes, it's possible that the orbits of the planets have been stable for a long time, but the records of the ancients seem to suggest otherwise, and there's quite a bit of evidence that there was recent chaos in the solar system. Do you still agree that, when the solar system formed from the implosion of a galactic filament, the planets were in a linear arrangement and their motions could have been linear along the former filament, all toward each other, like a stretched rubber band unstretching?

Primitive Ancients?
CC: So I agree with the premises of Talbott's work -- that the ancient myths had to have been inspired by real events, if for no other reason tha[n] for the fact that hunter gatherers simply don't make up stories like that.
LK: Are you also open to the possibility that some of the ancients may have had advanced civilization, as suggested by accurate ancient maps and many high quality artifacts from ancient times?

Beginning of Astronomy
CC: I know college graduates who can't locate Venus in the dawn or dusk skies, so I doubt that more primitive people, who were busy just trying to stay alive, would have noticed movements in the firmament, had they not been nervously scanning the skies for indications of another visitation. Then astronomy was born.
LK: The Saturnists agree that astronomy likely began after the first episodes of meteor bombardment etc, when people wanted to be prepared if such things should happen again.

Believing Ancient Records
CC: Planets were discovered, and used as the vehicle for retelling the story of the arrival of the gods. Ten thousand years later, somebody actually believed them (i.e., Velikovsky). But I think that Richard Firestone is the one who got the physics right.
LK: Ancient records even quote some ancient writers who started questioning more ancient myths, since the skies ddn't look like what the myths described. Firestone and his colleagues have done the most comprehensive work on part of the episode of bombardment. His dating of the event seems very likely to be about 8,000 years too old. Velikovsky did pretty good work too, including theorizing that electrical forces were likely much more involved than would be normally supposed. Here are two papers by Firestone & Co:
1. Evidence for deposition of 10 million tonnes of impact spherules across four continents 12,800 y ago
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/23/E2088.full
2. The Case for the Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact Event: Mammoth, Megafauna and Clovis Extinction
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8fj3d8mc#page-1
For completeness, I'll include two more links by others.
1. Mike Fischer's Shock Dynamics
http://newgeology.us
2. Noah’s Flood: The Key to Correct Interpretation of Earth History
https://www.socalsem.edu/2015/08/09/noa ... h-history/
Do you have other sources that should be mentioned?

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, you say Ceres might be the core of the planet that broke up to form the Asteroid belts. Since Mercury is said to be unusually dense, could Mercury have been the core of that former planet?

If Mercury had been involved in the Ceres break-up, it would be in a more elliptical orbit now.

Your model says that the core of Sun-like stars is osmium and other platinum group elements. If planets are the remains of such stars, shouldn't there be one or more osmium/platinum core Asteroid/s, or at least meteors?

My model says that the Sun has an osmium/platinum core. I suppose that other stars of comparable size would have a similar internal structure, but the only data that we have is on the Sun. Smaller objects, such as planets and asteroids, wouldn't be as likely to be so rich in heavy elements.

By the way, wasn't our former granite supercontinent larger than any of the present Asteroids?

The volume of the Earth's continental granite is 7.58 × 109 km3, which is 20 times more than Ceres, at 4.21 × 108 km3

Mira's tail isn't an axial jet; is it?

No -- I think that it's more like a cometary tail, or the trailing ionization behind a bolide.

I asked on your site what you think Mira's tail consists of.

It sounds like it's mostly hydrogen.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~lmatthew/Mira_HI.pdf

Which chemicals do you think most needed the high pressure in CFDLs to form? Are there any chemicals that likely did not form in CFDLs?

Well, the Wikipedia page on the mantle (geology) says, "The mantle differs substantially from the crust in its mechanical properties which is the direct consequence of chemical composition change (expressed as different mineralogy)." I believe that the mechanical and chemical characteristics are coupled also -- I just think that the pressure expels electrons, and that this is important in the metamorphosis.

But it's also possible that the ancients were able to observe what happened to the planets in the former sky and to see where they ended up. Isn't it?

Any thorough theory has to include a description of the driving forces. Rearranging the planets would take a lot of force. If you're saying that this happened recently, you're not talking about a little bit of force acting over a long period of time. Especially problematic is rearranging the planets without leaving them in highly elliptical orbits.

Venus apparently had a beautiful feminine appearance initially; then it developed a cometary tail and looked like a dragon; then chaos and darkness reigned, with chaos hordes, like little dragons and chaotic motions of small objects in the sky, which I think was the time of the Late Heavy Bombardment of meteors; then Venus was seen to become the Morning and Evening Star.

I don't think that anything from the Late Heavy Bombardment was preserved in human memory, because I don't think that anything could have survived that period. Life on Earth came later, after the granites pancaked into the supercontinent.

there's quite a bit of evidence that there was recent chaos in the solar system.

I would say that the YD impact would have produced a lot of apparent chaos, but I remain unconvinced of planetary realignments in recent history.

Do you still agree that, when the solar system formed from the implosion of a galactic filament, the planets were in a linear arrangement and their motions could have been linear along the former filament, all toward each other, like a stretched rubber band unstretching?

I think that everything in our solar system formed in more-or-less the same place, at more-or-less the same time. Most of the matter went into the Sun, but a few stray artifacts were left in the heliosphere, such as the planets (which originally were small stars).

Are you also open to the possibility that some of the ancients may have had advanced civilization, as suggested by accurate ancient maps and many high quality artifacts from ancient times?

I don't know much about that.

[Lloyd]

Water in Earth's Mantle?
3-D model shows big body of water in Earth's mantle: http://phys.org/news/2007-02-d-big-body ... antle.html. Charles, do you have an idea what they're detecting in the mantle? It can't be water, can it? Or could it be supercritical water?

Heavy Elements in Planets?
Why would planets not have heavier elements within them, like stars do, if planets evolve from stars? Where would the heavy elements go in the process of stellar decay?

Circularized Orbits

LK: Charles, you say Ceres might be the core of the planet that broke up to form the Asteroid belts. Since Mercury is said to be unusually dense, could Mercury have been the core of that former planet?

CC: If Mercury had been involved in the Ceres break-up, it would be in a more elliptical orbit now.

In your Titius-Bode Law paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... 6199-15369, you concluded that electrical repulsion between planets causes them to attain the orbits they have, where gravity has diminishing effects on the orbits with distance from the Sun, but where repulsion reaches its maximum potential around the orbit of Neptune, if I remember right, although the Kuyper belt objects may need to be considered as well, and I suppose there are figures available for their distances.
- Why would not the same repulsive forces cause Mercury (and other planets) to settle into circular orbit rather quickly?

LK: But it's also possible that the ancients were able to observe what happened to the planets in the former sky and to see where they ended up. Isn't it?

CC: Any thorough theory has to include a description of the driving forces. Rearranging the planets would take a lot of force. If you're saying that this happened recently, you're not talking about a little bit of force acting over a long period of time. Especially problematic is rearranging the planets without leaving them in highly elliptical orbits.

Same question as above: Why would not repulsive forces between planets help circularize their orbits quickly? Can you determine the approximate driving forces involved? Comets have been on highly elliptical orbits presumably for many centuries and maybe several millennia. Is it easier for small or large objects to remain longer in elliptical orbits? SL9 was on an elliptical orbit till 1992, when it encountered Jupiter and broke up into pieces, which then crashed into Jupiter single file in 1994.

CC: I don't think that anything from the Late Heavy Bombardment was preserved in human memory, because I don't think that anything could have survived that period. Life on Earth came later, after the granites pancaked into the supercontinent.

That would've been an Earlier Heavy Bombardment. Wouldn't it? The Great Flood appears to have been accompanied by a later heavy bombardment, as Gordon has pointed out. Don't you think?

[Lloyd]

Supercontinent
Charles, I see you have a new paper, Remelted Crusts, at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-56 ... 6199-15407. The paper sounds real good. Are you locked in to the conventional dating of the Earth and solar system, like the EU team is locked in to electrodynamics, the anode Sun model, and galactic filaments as Birkeland currents? I'm not locked into any dates yet, but a little more digging will likely show that the logic adds up to a Great Flood a few thousand years ago that deposited nearly all of the sedimentary rock strata, which is largely on the continents, and a meteor bombardment broke up the supercontinent afterward and produced the Ice Age, followed by more meteor bombardment, which may have helped end the Ice Age. How long the supercontinent was here before the Flood and Shock Dynamics occurred may take longer to figure out. But there seems to be no reason at all to put confidence in most radiometric dating. This paper, Radioactive Decay Rates Not Stable, at http://www.icr.org/article/4816/, explains that cavitation in high velocity fluid speeds up Thorium decay 10,000 times. Such cavitation likely occurred during the Great Flood. C14 dating of dinosaur fossils finds them to be between 20 and 30 thousand years old. The rock strata of the fossils are conventionally dated over 65 million years. Maybe we'll discuss that in more detail eventually.

By the way, have you thought about how much atmosphere the Earth had initially? Do you think it may have had as much asmosphere as Uranus or Neptune? Or would Earth have been a dwarf star?

Meteors & Comets
I came across an interesting thread on another forum at http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthr ... ling-Skies, which shows that fireballs etc have been increasing a great deal in recent years, especially in the months of August to December. I don't suppose you know of any possible reason for that, do you? And speaking of comets too, have you started any papers yet on comets? I know you have a theory about them, which you've discussed on this forum a year or more ago. Maybe you should do a paper on smaller solar system objects. Call them moonlets or something, to cover asteroids, comets, moonlets and meteors. Some asteroids have tails like comets, at least sometimes. By the way, the Avalon forum seems worth applying to for admission.

[CharlesChandler]

Water in Earth's Mantle?: Charles, do you have an idea what they're detecting in the mantle?

Just because something has the wave suppression characteristics of water doesn't mean that it's water. It could be lots of stuff.

Heavy Elements in Planets?: Why would planets not have heavier elements within them, like stars do, if planets evolve from stars?

Planets do have heavier elements -- I'm just saying that only in large stars would you see any appreciable collection of 6th period elements in their cores. The Sun's core, BTW, is only 2% of its total volume. The same percentage, of a much smaller object such as the Earth, would be a comparatively small amount of matter. Maybe there's an osmium/platinum asteroid out there somewhere, which used to be the core of Ceres. If you find it, let me know -- we can sell it on eBay for the precious metal content. Just remember that the asteroids are simply the debris from Ceres that didn't fall into the Sun, or impact another planet, or exit the solar system. What's left is only 4% of the mass of the Moon. The chance of the osmium/platinum core being in the surviving remnants is pretty slight.

Circularized Orbits: In your Titius-Bode Law paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369, you concluded that electrical repulsion between planets causes them to attain the orbits they have, [...] Why would not the same repulsive forces cause Mercury (and other planets) to settle into circular orbit rather quickly?

I'm saying that irregularly spaced objects, on mildly elliptical orbits, will be coerced into the Titius-Bode spacing, in circularized orbits, by the electrostatic repulsion between the planets. But something on a highly elliptical orbit would be cutting through all of that, getting coerced first this way and next that way. To settle into a circularized orbit, it would have to be close enough to such that it wouldn't have the momentum to cross the boundaries between stable orbits.

Can you determine the approximate driving forces involved [that are enforcing the Titius-Bode Law]?

That would take some work. The forces vary with the net charge of the bodies, and their atmospheres. I have the calculation engine for it -- I would just need accurate values to pump into it. That's an interesting prospect...

Comets have been on highly elliptical orbits presumably for many centuries and maybe several millennia. Is it easier for small or large objects to remain longer in elliptical orbits? SL9 was on an elliptical orbit till 1992, when it encountered Jupiter and broke up into pieces, which then crashed into Jupiter single file in 1994.

Smaller objects are more subject to friction, and as you noted, gravitational perturbations. So a Mercury-sized object would be more likely to retain its original orbit.

The Great Flood appears to have been accompanied by a later heavy bombardment, as Gordon has pointed out.

That would have been a later bombardment -- not the one that cratered the Moon and Mars.

Are you locked in to the conventional dating of the Earth and solar system...

Very little of my work has specific date ranges in it yet. For example, my working numbers for the amount of time it took the dusty plasma to collapse into the Sun is 100 million years, and if it keeps releasing energy at its present rate, it can keep going for another 10 trillion years. But I don't know how to estimate how long ago the Sun formed. 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.

By the way, have you thought about how much atmosphere the Earth had initially? Do you think it may have had as much atmosphere as Uranus or Neptune? Or would Earth have been a dwarf star?

I think that the Earth was a dwarf star. Then its outer layers got stripped by a solar flare-up, perhaps during the Late Heavy Bombardment, when the bulk of the debris was falling into the Sun.

...fireballs etc have been increasing a great deal in recent years, especially in the months of August to December. I don't suppose you know of any possible reason for that, do you?

No -- I figured that they're simply getting reported more, as the Earth's population grows, and with the proliferation of camera phones to document the sightings.

And speaking of comets too, have you started any papers yet on comets?

I might expand my bolide paper to include comets, as I think that their comas are related -- it isn't material getting stripped from the object, or comets would have gotten worn down to nothing a long time ago. The comas are the lingering effects of the object on the medium through which it is passing, like a vapor trail from a high-flying airplane -- that stuff didn't come out of the airplane.

By the way, the Avalon forum seems worth applying to for admission.

So many forums... so little time...

[seasmith]

Note to all triple-6ers:
Full moon tonight, remembers to take your meds...

[Roshi]

john666, I don't have a telescope to look at Mars, but I need more amateur astronomers pics of Mars that show "blue Mars", to believe that. Even if NASA would hide that from us, I am sure there are thousands of amateur telescopes looking at Mars.

This looks like a "blue Mars", it's an official picture, still I don't think that's water:
http://www.space.com/28573-mystery-plumes-on-mars.html

[CharlesChandler]

What is the blue in this image if not massive amounts of water?

The blue is an artifact of the ircut filter that he used, which reduces the strength of the red colors.

[john666]

john666, I don't have a telescope to look at Mars, but I need more amateur astronomers pics of Mars that show "blue Mars", to believe that. Even if NASA would hide that from us, I am sure there are thousands of amateur telescopes looking at Mars.

This looks like a "blue Mars", it's an official picture, still I don't think that's water:
http://www.space.com/28573-mystery-plumes-on-mars.html

Fair enough, but this image is taken from the following video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpTNfW28kT8

Now tell me honestly, have you ever in your life seem more realistic VIDEO of Mars then the one I just linked?
I know I haven't, and I also know that the great majority of alleged Mars pictures are CGI.