CEU Model ...

CEU Model means Chandler's EU model, or CC's model.

I suggested in the chat room the other day that we review CC's model in order to help fill in gaps in MM's model. I think CC's model is very thorough at the macroscopic level and is compatible with MM's at that level. CC's paper on Accretion seems to me very similar to MM's on Star Formation.

What I hope most to accomplish is to explain CC's model of attraction between oppositely charged plasma cells etc in terms of MM's charge field etc.

I have a thread on his model on the TB forum. Here's the link to the OP: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374#p101098.

The index of CC's papers is at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6031.html

Index. Here's a copy of the index and I added the words in parentheses to show that they are not mainstream ideas.
Astrophysics & Geophysics
Accretion (Electic)
Galaxies (Electic, Magnetic)
Black Holes (Magnetic)
Pulsars (Magnetic)
Quasars (Magnetic)
Nebulae (Electic)
The Sun (Electic)
Star Types (Electic, Magnetic)
The Planets (Electic)

Geomagnetism (Electic, Magnetic)
[Atmospheres (Electic)] [not posted yet]
Tidal Forces (Electic)
The Moho (Electic)
Earthquakes (Electic)
Volcanoes (Electic)
Seneca Guns (Electic)

Meteoric Airbursts (Electic)
Racetrack Playa Rocks! (Electic)
Electric Levitation
Magnetometry
Inferior Mirages (Electic)

Interstellar Medium
from Wikipedia

Name ------------ Fractional Volume -- Temp (K) - (atoms/cm³) - State of hydrogen
Coronal gas Hot (HIM) ------- 30—70% - 1—10E6 ------ E−4—E−2 ---- ionized (metals also highly ionized)
Warm Ionized Medium (WIM) 20—50% ------ 8E3 ------- 2—5E-1 ----- ionized
Warm Neutral Medium (WNM) 10—20% -- 6—10E3 ------ 2—5E-1 ----- neutral atomic
Cold Neutral Medium (CNM) --- 1—5% --- 5—10E1 ------ 2—5E2 ------ neutral atomic
H II regions -------------------- < 1% ------ 8E3 -------- E2—E4 ------ ionized
Molecular clouds --------------- < 1% ---- 1—2E1 ------- E2—E6 ------ molecular

- Heating by low-energy cosmic rays (a few MeV)
- Photoelectric heating in grains --- The ultraviolet radiation emitted by hot stars can remove electrons from dust grains. The photon hits the dust grain, and some of its energy is used in overcoming the potential energy barrier (due to the possible positive charge of the grain) to remove the electron from the grain. The remainder of the photon's energy heats the grain and gives the ejected electron kinetic energy. [] the smallest dust grains dominate this method of heating.
- Photoionization --- When an electron is freed from an atom ([as by] absorption of a UV photon) it carries kinetic energy away of the order: E_{photon} - E_{ionization}. This heating mechanism dominates in HII regions, but is negligible in the diffuse ISM due to the relative lack of neutral carbon atoms.
- X-ray heating --- X-rays remove electrons from atoms and ions, and those photoelectrons can provoke secondary ionizations. As the intensity is often low, this heating is only efficient in warm, less dense atomic medium (as the column density is small). For example in molecular clouds only hard x-rays can penetrate and x-ray heating can be ignored. This is assuming the region is not near an x-ray source such as a supernova remnant.
- Chemical heating --- Molecular hydrogen (H2) can be formed on the surface of dust grains when two H atoms (which can travel over the grain) meet. This process yields 4.48 eV of energy distributed over the rotational and vibrational modes, kinetic energy of the H2 molecule, as well as heating the dust grain. This kinetic energy, as well as the energy transferred from de-excitation of the hydrogen molecule through collisions, heats the gas.
- Grain-gas heating --- Collisions at high densities between gas atoms and molecules with dust grains can transfer thermal energy. This is not important in HII regions because UV radiation is more important. It is also not important in diffuse ionized medium due to the low density. In the neutral diffuse medium grains are always colder, but do not effectively cool the gas due to the low densities.
- Grain heating by thermal exchange is very important in supernova remnants where densities and temperatures are very high.
- Gas heating via grain-gas collisions is dominant deep in giant molecular clouds (especially at high densities). Far infrared radiation penetrates deeply due to the low optical depth. Dust grains are heated via this radiation and can transfer thermal energy during collisions with the gas.
- Other heating mechanisms
--- Gravitational collapse of a cloud
--- Supernova explosions
--- Stellar winds
--- Expansion of H II regions
--- Magnetohydrodynamic waves created by supernova remnants

Rain & Snow + Bode's Law
Here's Charles' new finding that Debye cells explain precipitation in the atmosphere and similar electric forces between planets explain Bode's Law:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15230&p=103266#p103238

EM Greater than Gravity
In this post Charles explains that the electric force between planets is likely greater than the force of gravity between them:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15230&p=103266#p103266
- This is very similar to MM's finding that Newton's law of gravity is actually a unified field equation with EM already in it.

GMC Implosion to Star Formation
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374&start=165
Postby CharlesChandler » Thu Jan 01, 2015 3:31 pm
With only 1 charged particle in 10^16 neutrals, the net electrostatic repulsion is 5 times greater than the net gravitational attraction. But if something, such as a gas cloud collision, or the ejecta from a supernova, blows the sheaths off of the dust grains, the electrostatic configuration changes.
- PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP ------ PNNP
- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN --P--P-- NN
With the positive sheaths repositioned to the space between the negative dust grains, all of the dust grains are attracted to the positively charged space between them, yielding a net attractive body force over 1000 times more powerful than gravity. And since gas cloud collisions have a directionality to them, the electric lines of force will be aligned to the vector of the collision, causing the plasma to collapse parallel to the vector of the collision (i.e., in filaments). I can go into more detail on that if you want. []
- Small Bodies. I definitely think that smaller CFDL bodies can form, perhaps down to the size of the larger moons in our solar system. It just depends on how homogeneous the implosion is. If it all implodes on precisely the same point, you get one star, and no planets or moons. Then again, irregularities in the imploding plasma might result in multiple centroids, and thus multiple objects getting formed. []
- I could say that if the object is large enough that charge recombination produces visible radiation, it's [] a star. If it's like the Earth, with charged double-layers but where there aren't any sustained discharges at the surface, it's [] a planet.
- Plasma Image. Lloyd wrote: [] I'd like to have images to show the difference between a distinct electric plasma surface and a fuzzy gravitational atmosphere.
- [CC:] I could try to scare up some images of coronas -- I'll look for images in hydrogen, which should produce a more distinct "surface" due to its high ionization energy.

Postby Lloyd » Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:27 pm
[] Filaments. [] It sounds like you're describing filament formation that is similar to the EU model, except that it's not the magnetic z-pinch that causes star formation, but electric forces in charge-separated filaments, that does so by implosion.[]

Postby CharlesChandler » Fri Jan 02, 2015 3:26 pm
- GMC Implosion. Yes -- the dust grains ("NN") still stick together, but the sheaths around them get shifted off of the nuclei []. [T]he result is that the negative nuclei are attracted to the shared positive charge between them, creating a net body force that causes the implosion of the dusty plasma. []
- Anyway, the next missing piece is how much friction in a gas cloud collision would cause how much separation between the sheaths and the nuclei.
- [Filaments.] Another issue [] is whether or not the Debye nuclei would form into lines -- I think that they would. Imagine two armies marching through each other []. [T]he sheaths would get stretched into comas, and the comas would be pointing right at the next nuclei in the line. [] This would make for a linear collapse. In other words, if each soldier was surrounded by an insulating halo, filling up the space between each soldier, when the two armies march through each other, these halos will get streamlined down the files of soldiers going in each direction. And if the halos are providing the mutual attraction between the soldiers, the files will collapse length-wise, not width-wise. So this is what I mean by the gas cloud collision favoring filaments that collapse, instead of spheres that collapse. []
- GMC Implosion. Then I ran out the numbers for how fast the plasma would actually get going, which turned out to be 86% of the speed of light! We know that EM forces can do this, since speeds above 99% of the speed of light have been achieved in particle accelerators using EM forces, and that's in a much shorter period of time. Anyway, from there, the energy budget works out just fine, having double-checked it several different ways. []
- [Saturn Filament.] Lloyd wrote: And with the directionality of the filaments, would it be possible for several planets/stars to form and then travel in a line until they get captured by a star system, as per the Saturn Theory?
- Theoretically, yes. It's possible that a filament collapsed, while some of the stuff made it through the implosion without actually hitting anything substantial, and came zipping out the other side. Interestingly, there would even be reason to believe that a collection of them would have formed into a single file. If my idea about "Debye sheath comas" is correct, then any body with an oppositely charged atmosphere will get that atmosphere stretched into a coma if there is any friction at all, and a cluster of bodies traveling in the same direction would tend to form into a single file, because there would be less friction that way, and because each body would be attracted to the coma of the body in front of it, which would keep it from straying. In time, the bodies would space themselves out in this single file, since they would be attracted to the positive charge between them, in the comas, but they would repel each other, favoring a specific distance between them.
- [Capture.] Now, how do you get the Sun to capture this single file "planet parade" and convert the highly elliptical orbits into near circular orbits? This is when you have to start talking about attractive and repulsive forces, that set up distributions, which will result in each planet falling into a discrete orbit. The electrostatic forces in my model have that property -- the bodies are only attracted to each other up to a point, but if they get too close, the attraction turns into repulsion. If you were allowing gazillions of years for this, I'd say "maybe".
- [Atmospheres.] Lloyd wrote: Planetoids: Have you determined that all stars/planets that form in the implosion would start out with thick atmospheres, which would make the small planetoids appear initially much larger than the solid central objects?
- [CC:] I'm not sure.

Postby Lloyd » Sat Jan 10, 2015 2:51 am
- Rain and Snow Making
[] Can you think of any cheap ways to seed clouds to make rain or snow etc?
[] Would a laser help precipitation by ionizing molecules? Or are normal air molecules too small?

Postby Lloyd » Sat Jan 10, 2015 11:18 am
- Halley's Comet Inclination
At http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15230&p=103266#p103266 CC said: I "think" that it [electric attraction/repulsion] would help circularize the orbits, but not in a thousand years. Halley's Comet was first observed in 240 BC, and has been observed a total of 30 times in just over two thousand years, and it has a highly elliptical orbit. My guess is that the circularizing would take [] RLT = "Really Long Time".
- The image here https://www.fourmilab.ch/solar/help/images/helio3.gif shows that Halley's Comet is out of the plane of the ecliptic quite a bit, so it looks to me like that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized. Don't you agree?
- Saturn System Planetary Comas. CC said: If we knew what kind of atmospheres the planets had, and how fast they were traveling, we could start guessing at the length of the comas, the robustness of which would determine the strength of the attractive force between the planets. In other words, if the planets are negatively charged, and the atmospheres are positively charged, and if the atmospheres are swept into comas by friction with the interstellar medium, you've got rubber bands connecting the planets, made of the attraction of negatively charged planets to the shared positive charge between them in the comas.
- At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-balloon-goes-up-over-lightning Thornhill said: Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun.
- [LK:] Is that the planetary coma you were talking about?
- How Planets Were Captured. CC said: Now, how do you get the Sun to capture this single file "planet parade" and convert the highly elliptical orbits into near circular orbits? This is when you have to start talking about attractive and repulsive forces, that set up distributions, which will result in each planet falling into a discrete orbit. The electrostatic forces in my model have that property -- the bodies are only attracted to each other up to a point, but if they get too close, the attraction turns into repulsion. If you were allowing gazillions of years for this, I'd say "maybe".
- Planets' Inclinations.
- Inclinations to Sun's Equator: (H = Hermes = Mercury)
H 3.38°, V 3.86°, E 7.155°, M 5.65°, J 6.09°, S 5.51°, U 6.48°, N 6.43°
- Inclinations to Planets' Average Orbital Plane:
H 6.34°, V 2.19°, E 1.57°, M 1.67°, J 0.32°, S 0.93°, U 1.02°, N 0.72°
- Are the inclinations good evidence that the planets were captured by the Sun and not formed with the Sun? Do the inclinations also suggest that all of the planets came in single file from outside the solar system? I suppose some would likely have much different inclinations otherwise. In ancient myths it looks like Saturn, Venus and Mars were seen in front of Earth (as well as possibly some moons around Saturn), but Jupiter could have been in front of Saturn, while the Moon, Uranus and Neptune could have trailed behind Earth and not been seen. So, if all of the planets were in a line and entered the solar system close to the Sun's equatorial plane, and if they took 5,000 to 15,000 years or so to spiral in toward the Sun, could they not have arrived at their present circular orbits due to electric attraction and repulsion during each orbital conjunction? Or wouldn't spiraling in be possible? Halley's Comet would not have been influenced by these forces much since it's not in the planetary plane. Is this getting plausible?

Postby CharlesChandler » Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:49 pm
- [Planets' Comas.] [] Lloyd wrote: "At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-balloon-goes-up-over-lightning Thornhill said: Using satellite data, an international team of researchers has found that Venus sports a giant, ion-packed tail that stretches almost far enough to tickle the Earth when the two planets are in line with the Sun." Is that the planetary coma you were talking about?
- [CC:] Yes. It would be interesting to see if there are any associated "gravitational anomalies". []
- [Saturn String Capture.] Lloyd wrote: So, if all of the planets were in a line and entered the solar system close to the Sun's equatorial plane, and if they took 5,000 to 15,000 years or so to spiral in toward the Sun, could they not have arrived at their present circular orbits due to electric attraction and repulsion during each orbital conjunction? Or wouldn't spiraling in be possible?
- [CC:] What was the braking mechanism? Any object approaching the Sun from outside the solar system will surely be subject to the Sun's gravity. But just as surely, without any friction, it will exit the solar system with precisely the momentum that it had on entering. In other words, it will do a fly-by. To actually get captured, you need more than just gravity -- you need to eliminate some of the momentum. And the interplanetary medium appears to be virtually frictionless.
- [Squashed Star.] Lloyd wrote: At http://www.holoscience.com/wp/squashed-star-flattens-solar-theory Thornhill discussed findings about a squashed star. Can the CFDL model accommodate squashed stars in which the equatorial diameter is say twice the polar diameter?
- [CC:] [] I have another model for a totally different type of star, which has properties that do not intersect with main sequence stars: the "exotics" rotate very rapidly, producing extremely powerful magnetic fields, and they sometimes produce detectable bipolar jets. IMO, the "exotics" can only be explained as toroidal plasmoids. If we could resolve the forms of such stars, they wouldn't be spheres like the main sequence stars -- they'd be toroids. I'm considering the possibility that main sequence stars can get spun up into toroidal plasmoids, if something (such as passing through an external magnetic field) was accelerating the rotation. Perhaps the squashed star is in that transition.

Postby CharlesChandler » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:43 am
- [Meteorite Features.] Thornhill wrote: In 1988 I wrote that chondritic meteorites show all of the features to be expected of material that has been subjected to flash heating, acceleration, collision and ion implantation in a spatially restricted and compressed plasma stream, followed by sudden cooling. Isotopic modification by neutron bombardment and intense radiation are simply explained as the effects of a z-pinch plasma discharge.
- Lloyd wrote: I wanted to see if you could say if the effects Thornhill mentioned there could be explained by your model. What about that?
- [CC:] I think that most meteorites are debris from the Theia~Ceres collision. The effects of flash heating, acceleration, collision, and ion implantation, follow[ed] by sudden cooling, are therefore quite expected. The low densities of comets are also expected, if they were from deeper within Theia or Ceres, and were magma that cooled, forming pumice. []
- [Proof of Saturn String Capture.] Lloyd wrote: Since the plane of the planets is about 6 degrees off from the solar equatorial plane, wouldn't that be more likely explained by all of the planets having come in from off of the Sun's plane? Or would your model say 6 degrees off is to be expected? If so, would it be expected for all of the planets? What would be the maximum discrepancy expected?
- [CC:] Well, there is no preference for 6 degrees -- all of the inclinations are different. []
- [Halley's Comet Orbit.] Lloyd wrote: The comas of the planets are in the plane of the planets, so, since Halley's Comet bypasses the planetary comas for the most part, that could explain why its orbit hasn't circularized in over 2,000 years. Could it not?

Postby CharlesChandler » Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:48 pm
- [Saturn String Capture.] Lloyd wrote: Could the Sun have had a disk of dust around it that would have captured a string of planets? Or could the string of planets have been captured after encountering Jupiter?
- [CC:] For capture to have occurred, the foreign objects had to have encountered friction. Yes, a dense atmosphere around the Sun could have done that, but if you're still talking about something that happened during human memory, now you have to figure out what happened to all of that dust. []
- [Z-pinch Strength.] Lloyd wrote: On the left is an aluminum can pinched around the "waist" by the 2 kj z-pinch and on the right a piece of copper tubing, I think, used as a lightning rod, which is shown pinched by the lightning apparently. Can you explain to EU supporters why that evidence fails? It's not easy for me to see how smashing hollow metal with a z-pinch would prove that a z-pinch in space would concentrate scattered dust into a ball of plasma.
- [CC:] Those two examples are totally different. The aluminum can experiment uses wire wrapped around the waist of the can, which induces an opposite current in the can, and which therefore generates an opposing magnetic field. Thus the can is crushed by the same force that drives electric motors -- magnetic pressure between opposing currents, and it isn't an example of the z-pinch. The hollow lightning rod IS an example of a z-pinch. The current flowed through the pipe, and the surrounding magnetic field tried to consolidate the current into a narrower charge stream. Ah but there wasn't a conductor running through the void inside the pipe, so the only way that the current could be consolidated was to narrow the radius of the pipe. This was easy to do since the pipe was heated, and didn't have its normal strength.
- So what's the significance of this? [] [Y]ou're not going to form condensed matter out of highly ionized matter -- the electrostatic repulsion precludes it. You can get tighter-packed plasma, but you can't get condensed matter.

Postby Lloyd » Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:22 pm
- [] Solar Wind. I suppose there'd be no solar wind without tidal forces on the Sun. Right? If all or many planets, esp. gas giants, were initially on more elliptical orbits, would the solar wind have been greater, do you think? If the solar wind were greater, would it help capture? And would the solar wind help much to clear dust out of the solar system?

Postby CharlesChandler » Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:52 pm
- Lloyd wrote: More on Saturn System Capture. Charles, you said thick dust in the solar system could have enabled capture of the Saturn system. Gary Gilligan says the ancient Egyptians and maybe others portrayed the Sun and the planets as red and he figured the color was due to a lot of dust in the inner solar system at that time. He said the dust seems to have settled out by about 2,000 years ago. If the planets initially had more elliptical orbits, they would have swept up the dust more quickly than with circular orbits, I presume. If there were more comets at that time, I think they would have swept up dust too. Do you agree?
- [CC:] It would have taken a LOT of dust to slow down planets. Remember that ionized gases have a very low viscosity, and plasma is frictionless. So to get the amount of friction that would be needed to slow down planets, making them candidates for capture, the interplanetary medium would have needed to be very thick, like the Earth's atmosphere.
- Lloyd wrote: Source of Dust. When a star is formed, do you think it would likely have a lot of dust around it, as well as atmosphere?
No, [] the electrostatic implosion model has everything reaching the centroid at pretty much the same time, and clanking together into one or more stars, leaving little left for atmospheres.
- Lloyd wrote: Stellar Radiation. Charles, would a star have to have one or more planets or companions in order to radiate energy and be visible? You say tidal forces produce waves on the inner solar boundary layer that allows charge recombination and radiation, I think. So the Sun would have had one or more planets, if it were visible. Wouldn't it? Cardona says the Sun became visible when the Saturn system entered the heliosphere. He also says Saturn was very dim before that too. I'm wondering if tidal forces began to affect both the Sun and Saturn at that point. Does that seem plausible? Or would the tidal forces on both have at least increased there? I guess the heliopause is about 120 AUs from the Sun. Any idea how quickly (electric) tidal forces would be transmitted between them?
- [CC:] Interesting question. Yes, tidal forces drive electric currents, inside the Earth, and inside the Sun as well. Sunspots are more numerous and more active when the planets exert their greatest forces on the Sun. But I don't think that this is the prime mover inside the Sun. There appear to be s-waves at a depth of 125 Mm inside the Sun, which are not related to tidal forces, and which are responsible for the heat that motivates supergranules. The surface effects are more complex, but the bottom line is that I don't think that tidal forces "ignited" the Sun.
- Lloyd wrote: Solar Planets. If the Saturn system came from outside the solar system in a string, i.e. collapsed filament, is it likely that all of the planets came with it, since they're all pretty close to a common plane? Or might it be more likely that one or more were already circling the Sun, which would have allowed the Sun to radiate and be visible and that the Saturn string happened to enter into the same plane? And if there were one or more planets orbiting the Sun, would it have helped or hindered capture of the Saturn string? Do you have ideas how the Uranus system got its tilt, how Triton got its retrograde orbit, how Jupiter got its Great Red Spot and how Neptune got its Dark Spot?
- [CC:] I don't know the answer to any of those questions.

.
.
Hydroplate theory evidence:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html