Allyn said:
_You have Silicon-Dioxide(Quartz) hit by lightning and transmuted to Gold with all kinds of associated isotopes that collapse into Silver, Osmium. etc..., which is why Gold ore is not pure Gold but a mix of many metals.
_There is no mechanism for Gold, Silver, etc..., to come from somewhere else, and be in the combinations that they are found in ore.
_Each metal is different chemically. They can only be together if they were created together in situ.
_So you have transmutation making small atoms that can combine into larger atoms. And you have large atoms created that then decay into smaller atoms.
JacMac replied:
_This would explain all the elements found in the earth for example; a planet sized body with all kinds of different elements mixed together in the earth assembled in a massive Z pinch of plasma; assembled in situ.
_I think transmutation is a real thing but not necessarily the origin of everything.
I reply:
_Regarding transmutation, I agree that it's not occurring often in our environment.
_Regarding Z pinches, Charles Chandler has explained that they can't compress matter significantly. The magnetic force compresses somewhat, but at close distances the electric repulsive force is much stronger than the magnetic force. You can get a stream of ions, but not neutral atoms or molecules. Below are highlights of some discussions we've had on this since 2012. I initially accepted EU claims on this issue, but the logic of Charles' explanations won me over to his electrostatic model.
Earth's Heat from Compressive Ionization
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=10919
In November 2012 Charles Chandler said:
- The natural tokamak [his model for exotic stars] will produce a plasma stream, perhaps that sputters.
- It won't produce fully assembled planets or stars. I don't know what would. [He later figured that imploding galactic filaments would.]
- Plasma pinches and condensed matter are mutually exclusive.
- The magnetic fields in a z-pinch push like charges together, and opposite charges apart.
- This can fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, but it's still just atomic nuclei — no molecules, much less liquids or solids.
Magnetic Field Orientation in Galactic Filaments
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8196
Lloyd
_I think CC said magnetic fields are parallel to spiral arms, so they aren't pinching and compressing the arms. This article seems to say that the magnetic field of this Orion filament is perpendicular to it, so I'm guessing that means the field does compress the filament. Is that right? [CC says No, the B-perpendicular is perpendicular, so B is parallel. But Brant makes some statements too to follow.]
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =30#p80688
post by CharlesChandler » Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:37 pm
_Brenda C. Matthews and Christine D. Wilson wrote:
These data indicate that B⊥ is perpendicular to the filament along most of its length,
_Anyway, let's just suppose that the B-field is parallel to the filament. (If so, that would match the B-fields in spiral arms.) The only way to get this is with electric charges that are rotating around the filament axis. I'm thinking that these filaments are dusty plasmas that got stretched somehow, where the tensile force from the "like-likes-like" principle drew the plasma into filaments, thereby creating a convergent motion toward the axis of the filaments. Once the plasma got moving, any external magnetic field would exert a Lorentz force that would induce a spiral around the axis, and generating a solenoidal magnetic field in agreement with the external field, and accentuating it. This more powerful field then organizes the rest of the particle motions into rotation around the axis as they converge on it. This is consistent with the fact that our solar system, and all known planetary nebulae, rotate on an axis that is aligned beyond chance to the external magnetic field running parallel to the parent filament.
_If the filaments had electric currents running through them, the magnetic fields would not be aligned to the axis. Rather, they would rotate around the axis.
Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 265#p81851
post by CharlesChandler » Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:38 pm
_As concerns filaments, I totally agree that they're ubiquitous in space, and especially in stellar nurseries, so stellar models need to take a close look at filaments. I also agree that there are currents in the filaments. But I disagree that it is the currents that are causing the stellar accretion. Here we have to remember that there are two opposing forces in high-velocity charged matter. The magnetic field generated by the moving electric charges produces a magnetic pinch effect. But like charges repel each other also, by the Coulomb force. The greater the charge, the greater the magnetic pinch effect, but the greater the electrostatic repulsion as well, by definition. And at less than the speed of light, the electrostatic repulsion is greater than the magnetic pinch. So accretion by magnetic pinch is a self-defeating proposition. Furthermore, even if Marklund convection could create a solid axial filament, that thing would be zipping through space at a relativistic velocity. This is not what we observe. If it was, the next thing we would observe is this relativistic thread smacking into something, which would create supernova, not a star.
_I started a thread for an alternative interpretation of the same data: FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like". Discussion of that interpretation can be posted in that thread.
Re: FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like"
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 340#p82807
post by CharlesChandler » Mon May 06, 2013 12:42 am
_The magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter. The more ionized the matter, and the faster it is moving, the more the compression. But the more ionized the matter, the more the electrostatic repulsion. This is a small factor in sparse plasmas, but the greater the charge density, the stronger the repulsion. (That's because the magnetic fields responsible for the z-pinch fall off with the inverse of the distance, but electric fields fall off with the inverse of the square of the distance. So the electric force is stronger at close range, while the magnetic force is more influential at a long range.) Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force (theoretically) become as strong as the electric force at close range. So it is not physically possible to create condensed matter with a z-pinch, and if stars are condensed matter, they weren't formed by z-pinches.
Re: SAFIRE?
post by Lloyd » Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:59 am
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 60#p109094
_No Galactic Transformer
This site
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/Reb ... berg.shtml says the galactic magnetic field is about 3.0–6.0 × 10^-10 tesla. It quotes other sources as saying "The disk of the galaxy is permeated by a magnetic field. This field is weak, being only about 1/50,000 of the strength of the Earth's magnetic field at the surface, but it influences the motion of charged particles in the galaxy." "The strength of the galactic field is only about 0.000001 times the strength of the Earth's field at its surface, a value that is much too low to have dynamical effects on the interstellar gas that could account for the order represented by the spiral-arm structure."
_If the Sun's magnetic field is only about 3 times stronger than the Earth's field and the galaxy's field is 50 thousand times weaker than Earth's, how would there be enough power to induce an AC current or anything? You don't need an outside current to power the Sun. The power is stored in its internal electric double layers. And the double layers were produced from galactic filament implosion, not from magnetic Z-pinch, though that helped shape the filament. When plasma clouds collide or get hit by supernova ejecta, filaments form and implode due to charge separation and recombination. The implosions form stars, planets and moons, all having internal electric double layers. The Sun becomes a strong storage battery and the planets and moons become weak batteries. So the matter of these bodies comes from outside via electric and magnetic forces, but the solar power and planetary heat comes from the internal electric double layers that were squeezed together by implosion.
_See Charles Chandler's detailed papers on this at
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4752-5653-5660-6031.
Re: Most Thorough Model
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... &start=285
post by CharlesChandler » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:34 am
_I haven't studied anything above the level of the galaxy. In the article you quoted, I could just replace gravity with the electric force, and it would be no different from things that I have studied, such as the body force that causes dusty plasmas to collapse into stars, and that keeps spiral galaxies from flinging their arms out into intergalactic space. But note that it's an electrostatic model, not an electrodynamic one -- it isn't electric currents running through these filaments that constitutes the binding force -- it's just the electric force between opposite charges.
Re: A Lack of Physics Knowledge Makes EU Arguments Less Credible
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 15#p120569
post by CharlesChandler » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:00 pm
_So I agree with the criticisms of the mainstream model. But that doesn't "prove" that the filaments are electrodynamic, and there is another possibility that needs to be considered: electrostatics. I have demonstrated that filaments are an expected outcome in the conditions in which they are formed (i.e., gas cloud collisions). I have demonstrated the significance of them in star formation (i.e., there is a tensile force running through them that causes them to collapse, like a stretched rubber band). This and much more comes down to electrostatics, and I can show the math for it. And I can find as many problems in the electric current hypothesis as the EU community finds in the mainstream model. One of them is that they have failed to produce quantified models of their assertions. They locked down on a model over 10 years ago, and still haven't produced numeric descriptions.
_A more detailed presentation, including a description of the mathematical model, and the results, is here:
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=12692