Thunderbolts Forum For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology Skip to content * Board index < New Insights and Mad Ideas * Change font size * FAQ * Register * Login Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory 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? Forum rules Post a reply First unread post o 27 posts o Page 2 of 2 o 1, 2 Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Kapriel » Fri Nov 05, 2010 8:11 pm Lloyd I have a question for Dwardu- Re: planets expelled from a brown-dwarf; how and by what mechanism are materials gathered to one place prior to expulsion, are they in solid or gas form, how are the various elements isolated or chosen, and if the process repeats itself several times, why are planets not more similar in their chemical make-up? Thanks- Kim Doubt is not proof. User avatar Kapriel Posts: 68 Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:17 pm Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:22 pm * Kim, I sent Dwardu your questions, which he'll probably answer soon, but I hope to send them to Wal & Don as well, because that's more their field. * Here are more interview questions and answers from Dwardu. LLOYD: You said the proto-Saturn System bounced off the Sun's heliosphere several times before penetrating it and that "the Sun's electrical potential was much higher than proto-Saturn's, which is why proto-Saturn ended up in a flare-up". You've also said proto-Saturn flared up periodically every few thousand years. Was more than one flare-up a result of bouncing off the heliosphere every few thousand years? REPLY: Oh heavens, no. As I think I might have already said, space is cellular. In other words, it consists of various adjoining plasma cells. That, at least, according to Alfven. Any star wandering through space--and there are multitudes of them--that passes from one of these cells into another will also pass from one area of electrical potential into one where the electrical energy will also be different. If the electrical environment into which the star moves is higher than that of the one it leaves, it will react by discharging through the extra energy it receives. So this is what could have transpired to the proto-Saturnian sub-brown dwarf as it hurtled on its way toward the Sun. But there is also an intrinsic property which dwarf stars possess that makes them flare-up for as yet unknown reasons. Some have even been found to flare repeatedly in very short time periods. LLOYD: Re: "The Abrahamic events came long after the dissolution of the proto-Saturnian system", was Abraham much more than 200 years after the breakup of the proto-Saturn System? REPLY: Good question. I haven't worked that out yet. LLOYD Re: "the Solar System's cosmic neighborhood is still quite chaotic, with the System itself dangerously close to instability," what can happen with an instability? Can it produce electric current surges that could cause a solar nova that would fry the planets? REPLY: One should talk to Jack Laskar, from the Bureau des Logitudes, in Paris, about that, even though he unfortunately based his conclusions on the orbital retrocalculation of present bodies within the solar system, which does not work. He also holds to the dictum that planets form out of circumstellar disks, which also does not work. - Yet, even so, what we have seen transpire to the planet Jupiter with the impact of Shoemaker-Levy 9 could easily happen here on Earth. Can you imagine what a comet of that size would do to us? - Now it is true, as Velikovsky pointed out, that comets are getting smaller as time goes by. Most of them are wearing out. And, in accordance with this, compare the stupendous sky-spanning cometary tails ... that were recorded not so long ago with the flimsy-looking minute appendages seen with the naked eye ... [to the?] present. Nevertheless, when one takes the bodies contained within the Kuiper belt and their chaotic behavior into consideration, our situation cannot be said to be the best it could have attained. I'm the last person to be a doomsday-sayer, and chances are we will survive future cosmic catastrophes that, sooner or later, are bound to happen. - Beyond all that, Laskar *IS* correct in that the Solar System planets haven't yet attained stable orbital paths and inclinations. Believe it or not, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, it does not take much to disrupt either, both, or more. LLOYD: Re: "There is no doubt that detritus from proto-Saturn ended up on Earth", could the detritus arrive on Earth by any other means than proto-Saturn's flare-ups? REPLY: I hate to be adamant about anything, but I doubt it. - David Talbott, on the other hand, sees some--maybe even much--of it having come from Mars. LLOYD: Would the detritus have covered the entire Earth? Or would it have covered mostly just one side? If so, which side? REPLY: All of Earth. LLOYD: Do you consider Continental Drift to be probable? REPLY: Yes--but not subduction. LLOYD: Do you consider Earth Expansion to be probable? REPLY: Again, I won't be adamant about this, but it SHOULD be taken into serious consideration. LLOYD: Primordial Star has 2 sections called Planetary Hydrocarbons and The Origin of Petroleum. Do you consider the source of petroleum to be biotic or abiotic? REPLY: Abiotic. LLOYD: Does it originate at depth or on the surface? REPLY: Some of it was dumped on the surface. This was mostly sticky stuff, some of which came down in flames. Some of it is indigenous and forms at depths. And this is mostly liquid. But it's more complicated than all that. Dwardu Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:56 pm Wal replied to Kim's Nov. 5th questions above, which I posted in a new thread, called Planet Formation, at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3857. He also said, referring to an earlier post in this thread: I notice that there has been some misguided discussion in that thread about the stabilizing of orbits when I wrote at length about that in Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System [http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s]. * I did read his article, but I didn't remember it, till I got this reminder. What I had said earlier that Wal is apparently referring to is: "I think Robert Grubaugh has suggested that gravity alone would not be able to slow down a body so that it could enter orbit. The body would just sling-shot away in another direction, but electrical forces would slow it down so it could enter orbit." * Here's an excerpt from Wal's above article, which seems to be what he's referring to. If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, which changes the [planet's interior] subatomic dipole distortion, the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy [making it closer to the Sun]. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy [making it farther from the Sun]. The closer the encounter between two planets the more substantial the charge exchange and the greater the resultant orbital adjustments. It seems a highly effective means for collision avoidance and for quickly spacing the planetary orbits to minimize interactions -- provided the inner planet diminishes its charge polarization (reduces its mass) in the exchange and the outer planet increases its polarization (increases its mass). Is this possible? - A substantial transfer of electrons from the inner planet to the outer planet along a (visible or invisible) cometary tail [like Venus's plasma tail?] may produce the effect we require. Gravitationally induced charge polarization in neutral atoms forms a weak radial electric field inside celestial bodies. Planets behave like spherical electrets [similar to magnets] with a radial electric dipole polarization. If we remove some of the surface electrons the internal polarization is diminished causing a proportional diminution of the apparent mass and gravity of that body. Conversely, if electrons are added to a body its internal polarization increases, causing a proportional increase in mass [and gravity]. * And I gather that the latter process is how Earth increased in mass and gravity, so that animals and trees could no longer grow as large, except maybe in water. Venus then must have been the inner planet that lost mass and gravity. So, if we go there, we'll weigh less than here, I guess. Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:12 pm PROTO-SATURN'S FLARE-UPS CAUSED ROCK FORMATION ON EARTH * Here is Dwardu's latest set of replies to my last stack of questions. LLOYD: You said: "space is cellular ... it consists of various adjoining plasma cells ... according to Alfven." Do you know what shapes, sizes and motions these plasma cells tend to have? And do you know where to find out more about them? REPLY: Despite the fact that cosmic plasma has now been studied for quite a few years, the science is still in its infancy. Not enough is yet known to answer the questions you are asking in any detail. This is especially so since most astrophysicists have become stubborn in their refusal to give plasma physics the attention it deserves. LLOYD: If proto-Saturn took a few thousand years to move from one cell to another where a flare-up would occur, the cells must be very large, or they must move with celestial bodies somewhat. Do you know which may be the case? REPLY: I wish I knew. LLOYD: Have you found any clues about the "intrinsic property ... of dwarf stars ... that makes them flare-up"? REPLY: Changes in luminous outbursts are transitions which brown dwarfs are known to undergo, actually brightening as they cool with age. This is thought to be because their atmospheric gases condense into liquid droplets which form clouds. Storms are then said to whisk these clouds away, revealing the brighter, as well as hotter, atmospheric strata underneath. The actual cause of these stellar storms is still debatable. I, however, concur with those who continue to maintain that they [brown dwarf flare-ups] result from sudden electrical discharges which, while possibly intrinsic, still remain to be studied in greater detail. LLOYD: Have you discussed it with Wal, Don, Tony, or others? REPLY: Yes. In fact the little I happen to know about this subject comes mainly from them. LLOYD: Do you agree with Wal's theory that the gravity of stars produces charge separation, that causes their cores to fission and repel out through the surfaces, either as CMEs or rocky bodies? I was just thinking that seems like a potential intrinsic property [that might have caused proto-Saturn's flare-ups]. REPLY: I'll be considering that when I get to it in the work I am presently working on. Until I see how it fits in with what the ancients reported to have seen, I would rather not say anything about it. LLOYD: You said that something like "the impact of Shoemaker-Levy 9 could easily happen here on Earth" and that some of "the bodies contained within the Kuiper belt [display] chaotic behavior". Does the Kuiper belt seem to be something like the theoretical Oort cloud? REPLY: I have no idea what the theoretical Oort cloud is supposed to look like. LLOYD: Do you think a comet like SL-9 could come from the Kuiper belt and strike Earth? REPLY: Why not? LLOYD: You said: "Laskar *IS* correct in that the Solar System planets haven't yet attained stable orbital paths and inclinations" and that "it does not take much to disrupt" them. Do you think Miles Mathis may be right, that the stablest configuration for planetary or satellite orbits is for the more massive ones to be closest to the primary and the less massive ones farthest? I think that's his theory. REPLY: That is what is being discovered in exo-planetary systems, in which multi-Jovian-mass planets orbit as close to their primaries as Mercury does in relation to our Sun. LLOYD: You say the detritus that fell upon and covered the Earth probably came only from proto-Saturn, but Dave T thinks some may have come from Mars, I guess by way of proto-Saturn's polar column, or jet. Why don't you think Dave is right? REPLY: If Mars had been pouring detritus on Earth throughout the existence of proto-Saturn's polar column, we should be buried in it. Other than the odd Martian meteorite that has been discovered, where is all this stuff? - Yes, one can say the Martian detritus exists in the vast amount of stratified material that covers most of Earth's surface. But a polar column would hardly have dispersed its sucked-up material evenly all over the world. It would have mainly deposited its detritus in Earth's northern region. And then, none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature. - There is actually more to it, but let's leave it at that for now. LLOYD: What parts of the Earth's upper layers do you think came from proto-Saturn's flare-ups? Could everything above the mantle be flare-up detritus? REPLY: That is another difficult question to answer. Indigenous sediment must also be taken into consideration. So, also, must volcanic outpouring. And, despite what some of my own colleagues might say, so, too, must we include eroded remains in the equation. And then there's the mixture of all this. You try and figure it out. LLOYD: Why do you think the detritus landed evenly all over the Earth's surface? Why couldn't it land just on the northern or southern sections? REPLY: Because, unlike detritus released from a polar Birkeland current in actual contact with Earth, the proto-Saturnian detritus would have been flung out radially, bounced off the inner surface of the enveloping plasmasphere, and captured by Earth's gravity. LLOYD: Do any of your books go into how Earth Expansion might have occurred? If you think Earth may have expanded two times its former size, I think its volume would have increased by 8 times. Do you think that's possible? Wouldn't the Earth have been 8 times as dense as it is now? And how can gravity have increased at the surface, if the surface became twice as far from the center of the Earth? Looks like that would have reduced gravity. REPLY: As I believe I've told you once before, I do take Earth expansion into consideration. But, as I have also told you, I also take a good look at Earth contraction. Both these theories, and a few others, have to be considered. There is too much that is supposed to be known when very little actually is. This is why the slate has to be wiped clean of all that we have been taught in the past, as well as an awful lot of what we are being fed at present. - In the meantime, gravity is still not understood. Some experiments have shown that gravity increases as one descends deeper underground. Other experiments have shown exactly the opposite. - Gravity is not the same all over the world. There are quite a few anomalous gravitational areas around, and some of them are quite vast. - Besides, what IS gravity? Is it electrical? And is electricity understood any better than gravity? - Best of all, how do asteroids with supposedly very low gravitational fields manage to hold on to all those massive boulders and other loose detritus on their surface? How, then, can we be certain that gravity relies on density? LLOYD: You said petroleum was formed abiotically and much of it was dumped on the surface. Was it dumped there during proto-Saturn flare-ups only? REPLY: I can't be entirely sure of that, but probably. LLOYD: One TB forum member thinks coal, esp. bituminous coal, was also formed abiotically. Do you agree or not? REPLY: Yes I do. [color=#0000FF]LLOYD: Do you have any idea how proto-Saturn's detritus fell onto the Earth? I'm wondering if it came down as a mixture of things, or if individual substances rained down separately. For example, would rock dust or lava have rained down separately from petroleum, which would have been separate from the dumping of water? REPLY: Yes, because of different specific gravities, materials would have been separated--at least to an extent. But lava did not come from heaven. That is Earth's own excrement. Dwardu Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by moses » Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:44 pm That is what is being discovered in exo-planetary systems, in which multi-Jovian-mass planets orbit as close to their primaries as Mercury does in relation to our Sun. Cardona That would be primarily because close-in planets cause more stellar wobble which can be detected easier. If Mars had been pouring detritus on Earth throughout the existence of proto-Saturn's polar column, we should be buried in it. Other than the odd Martian meteorite that has been discovered, where is all this stuff? - Yes, one can say the Martian detritus exists in the vast amount of stratified material that covers most of Earth's surface. But a polar column would hardly have dispersed its sucked-up material evenly all over the world. It would have mainly deposited its detritus in Earth's northern region. And then, none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature. - There is actually more to it, but let's leave it at that for now. Cardona Because, unlike detritus released from a polar Birkeland current in actual contact with Earth, the proto-Saturnian detritus would have been flung out radially, bounced off the inner surface of the enveloping plasmasphere, and captured by Earth's gravity. Cardona The detritus did not fall evenly over the whole Earth, because the oceans have very little. Also the gravity-driven model is a lot less likely that an electrically-driven model. So we need an electic model that lays the sediment mainly on the continents, and a 4-fold Birkeland Current passing Earth is the likely answer. none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature. Cardona That's probably because the earth rocks, from the ocean bottom, got mixed in with the other incoming detritus. The signatures of rocks is a most complex issue when you throw in the possibility of electrical conditions producing it's own signature in rocks by transmutation. Mo moses Posts: 392 Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm Location: Adelaide + E-mail moses + Website Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:41 pm * Mo, I just sent Dwardu more questions and included your comments and asked for his replies. Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:55 pm LLOYD: You said you maintain that brown dwarf flare-ups "result from sudden electrical discharges " I guess you mean these electrical discharges are caused by moving from one plasma cell into another one. Am I right? REPLY: *SOME* are. As I said, some of them seem to be intrinsic. LLOYD: You said: "none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature". What is the Martian signature? Is it argon and neon, hematite, olivine, silicon, iron, chlorine, sulfur, table salt, and or carbonates? REPLY: You have to understand I'm not a know-it-all. I never claimed to be. In some instances I have to rely on what scientists report. This is one such instance. LLOYD: When you said that, that "none of Earth's strata happens to bear a Martian signature", Mo replied: "That's probably because the earth rocks, from the ocean bottom, got mixed in with the other incoming detritus. The signatures of rocks is a most complex issue when you throw in the possibility of electrical conditions producing it's own signature in rocks by transmutation. " Any comments? REPLY: No. I myself stressed the complexity derived from the mixing of detritus from different causes. LLOYD: You said: proto-Saturn's detritus bounced off the inner surface of the plasmasphere before falling onto Earth [and I guess Mars and Venus]. Is this because the detritus and the plasmasphere inner surface were both positively charged? REPLY: You'll have to talk to Wallace Thornhill and/or Don Scott on that. LLOYD: Did the detritus pour out of proto-Saturn equatorially, or radially in all directions? REPLY: As I have already said, most of the material would have been ejected radially. I chose that word on purpose because it can mean equatorially as well as explosively (that is, in all directions). The problem here is that the mytho-historical record contains references to events that can be understood either way. As it happens, this is what I am working on at present. See more below. LLOYD: Wouldn't it come from just a small area of the surface, like CMEs come from the Sun? I thought that was how Wal described rocky planet formation events. REPLY: It's difficult to nail this down with any certainty. This is especially so since brown dwarf flares seem to concentrate at one of the poles. This, in fact, would be much in keeping with the mytho-historical record. But there are many other aspects to consider. As I said, this is where I am in the writing of Volume Four. And the problem I am having has to do exactly with that. How does one describe various events that took place at the same time without confusing the reader? It's not easy. [MO]: Mo thinks "The detritus did not fall evenly over the whole Earth, because the oceans have very little. REPLY: Is he claiming that detritus fell mostly on land? How could the detritus itself know what was land and what was water? Silly question, I know, and I'm not trying to put Mo on the spot. It's just that I don't understand what he's getting at. [MO]: Also the gravity-driven model is a lot less likely than an electrically-driven model. REPLY: Yes, but we cannot do without gravity. Electricity is much stronger, it is true. But gravity still exists. It works. And it *HAS* to be taken into consideration. [MO]: So we need an electic model that lays the sediment mainly on the continents, and a 4-fold Birkeland Current passing Earth is the likely answer." I guess I'll have to ask him what he means by a 4-fold current. Any comments otherwise? REPLY: No. As I have previously said, we do not know enough about either gravity or electricity--especially spatial electricity--to answer the sort of questions you are asking. [Mo, what do you mean by a 4-fold Birkeland current that caused detritus to fall mainly on continents?] LLOYD: Have you thought about why the Mars north pole region has lower elevation than its south pole region? One TPOD suggested that EDM removed the north pole layers and deposited them on the south pole area. Do you think it's more likely proto-Saturn's jet that removed the Mars material, similar to the way it probably did on Earth's north pole area? Do you know if Venus north pole seems similarly depressed? REPLY: Because so much depends on these two items, I'll have to get to them in their proper chronological order in future volumes. LLOYD: I asked last time if it's more stable for a larger or smaller satellite to be closest to the primary, but then I reread one of Wal's articles, Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s, which says "the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet" through the cometary tail and "the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands". I guess an inner planet could still remain larger after losing mass. Mo thinks the reason close-in planets are found to be large is just because they're easier to detect. REPLY: Yes, Mo is absolutely right on that. LLOYD: I'm very impressed with your question: "how do asteroids with supposedly very low gravitational fields manage to hold on to all those massive boulders and other loose detritus on their surface? How, then, can we be certain that gravity relies on density?" I hadn't thought about that before - about detritus on asteroids. - In the same article I just mentioned, Wal said: "Gravitationally induced charge polarization in neutral atoms forms a weak radial electric field inside celestial bodies. Planets behave like spherical electrets [similar to magnets] with a radial electric dipole polarization. If we remove some of the surface electrons the internal polarization is diminished causing a proportional diminution of the apparent mass and gravity of that body. Conversely, if electrons are added to a body its internal polarization increases, causing a proportional increase in mass [and gravity]." Does that help answer the question about Earth's increase in gravity that ended the megafauna? REPLY: It might--but it might not be the complete answer. Dwardu Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by moses » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:54 pm Is he claiming that detritus fell mostly on land? How could the detritus itself know what was land and what was water? Silly question, I know, and I'm not trying to put Mo on the spot. It's just that I don't understand what he's getting at. Cardona [Mo, what do you mean by a 4-fold Birkeland current that caused detritus to fall mainly on continents?] Lloyd A Birkeland current flows as spiralling pairs, much like DNA. However the current can split into four sections, but not stable in three sections. It can split into seven flows stably and other larger numbers are stable. Now if a Birkeland current flowed past Earth in the past, then it might well have split into four sections, with one flow going over the Atlantic, one over the Pacific, and one over the Indian Ocean, which will mean that there is one more current flowing somewhere to produce the stable four-fold configuration. Now if the fourth current went through the middle of Earth, entering and leaving at the poles, that might account for the present day magnetic field of the Earth, as such a current would have produced a remanent magnetism. As the other three sections of the current moved over the Earth water and land below these currents would have been transported into the atmosphere, and then deposited in a flow of muddy material onto the continents where there was no Birkeland current flowing overhead. Mo thinks the reason close-in planets are found to be large is just because they're easier to detect. Lloyd Mainly. Also stars probably split into two and then slowly separate until unstable circumstances occur, when much larger separations could form. Mo moses Posts: 392 Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm Location: Adelaide + E-mail moses + Website Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:17 pm * Mo, Wal seems to suggest that planets and stars with magnetic fields don't have permanent magnets inside. They act as electromagnets, instead of permanent magnets. See e.g. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=21ha5gh9. It seems obvious to propose that a stellar or a planetary magnetic field is a combination of the field due to a rotating charged body and the field due to moving electric currents impinging on that body. The interplay between the two, together with the effects of uneven and moving distribution of charge within the rotating body, gives rise to the complex and changing fields that we observe. * I think that's describing an electromagnet. Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by moses » Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:55 am Mo, Wal seems to suggest that planets and stars with magnetic fields don't have permanent magnets inside. They act as electromagnets, instead of permanent magnets. See e.g. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=21ha5gh9. Lloyd Yes it is scary having a different idea to Wal. A Birkeland current passing through the centre of the Earth, undoubtably would leave a remanent magnetism. So it really is a question of whether there was such a current. And that this current was not so long ago that the remanent magnetism would have all decayed. Mo moses Posts: 392 Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm Location: Adelaide + E-mail moses + Website Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by upriver » Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:39 pm REPLY: In that respect, Grubaugh was right and, in fact, the proto-Saturnian system is described in my work as brushing against, and bouncing off, the heliosphere several times before it actually managed to penetrate it. And yes, this one actually comes directly from Thornhill. Skipping implies a very shallow angle of attack, and if its that shallow then wouldnt you expect it to skip once and continue on its way?? If it stayed around, then what would cause the attraction?? 2 negativity charged bodies would not attract, right?? Lets see what the expert Tom VanFlandern says about gravitational capture. (13) MOON OR CAPTURED ASTEROID? >From Tom Van Flandern Comment on CCNet 2001 December 7: (2) MOON OR CAPTURED ASTEROID? Alan Gilmore describes the theory that Triton is an asteroid captured from the "Kuiper belt". But that theory creates more mysteries than it answers. Two-body capture under gravitation alone is impossible under the laws of dynamics. Tidal capture and collision are extremely low-probability phenomena that require excessive fine-tuning to achieve. Frictional capture by a nebula around Neptune works too well: The friction continues until Triton crashes into Neptune unless something makes the nebula disappear immediately after capture. Moreover, given the similarities between Neptune and the other gas giant planets, why should Neptune alone have started with no natural, regular moons of its own when the others have four or more? The following article offers a more viable alternative. It is updated from that published in "Worlds apart", a Focal Point debate between W.B. McKinnon and T. Van Flandern over the origins of Pluto, Charon, and Neptune's moons, Sky&Tel. 82, 340-341 (1991). It is based extensively on research reported in "The satellites of Neptune and the origin of Pluto", R.S. Harrington and T.C. Van Flandern, Icarus 39, 131-136 (1979). On the Origin of Pluto and Triton By Tom Van Flandern [Meta Research ] Background Three of the four gas giant planets in the outer solar system, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, all have natural satellite systems which resemble miniature planetary systems. Ignoring captured asteroids, these planets each have four or more large moons revolving in roughly circular orbits in the plane of their planet's equator, and in the same direction as their planet's spin. Especially for Jupiter and Uranus, the spacing of these moons is regular as well because the orbital periods are synchronous, with ratios of roughly 1:2:4:8. However the orbit of the ninth planet, Pluto, crosses the orbit of the eighth planet, Neptune. And Neptune's two outer moons have uniquely irregular orbits. These two anomalies in the outer solar system stand out, because no other major planet or satellite crosses the orbit of another; and because Triton is the only major (non-asteroidal) moon in the solar system which revolves in the opposite direction from its planet's spin. Neptune's other classical moon, Nereid, has an orbit so elongated that it is close to the threshold of escape from Neptune into its own solar orbit. Moreover the tilt of Triton's orbital plane to Neptune's equator, 20 degrees (ignoring the retrograde motion), is greater than for any natural moon of any other planet. And Nereid's orbit is not only tilted by 27 degrees, but so elongated that it is close to the threshold of escape. Interestingly, Pluto's orbit also has an anomalously high inclination at 17 degrees. Another anomaly is that Pluto has a moon, Charon, with a diameter half as big as its own. Such a relatively large moon of a planet is also unique in the solar system. An unusual origin for these bodies is suggested by these odd facts. Since Pluto, Triton, and Charon are similar to each other, but different from most other moons in size, density, and composition, their formation seems likely to have something in common. Two schools of thought have arisen about this. The first holds that, after forming as planetesimals in solar orbit, Triton was captured by Neptune, and Charon was captured in a grazing impact event with Pluto. The second holds that, after all forming as moons of Neptune, something caused Pluto and Charon to escape and Triton to remain behind in an irregular orbit. http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc121801.html You might as well say that the solar system was built, which is more along the line of my thinking..... I wonder what kind of civilization could move planets.... upriver Posts: 66 Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm + E-mail upriver Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory New post by Lloyd » Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:50 pm * Upriver, thanks for the info on Neptune and Pluto etc. I started a new thread on the Planetary Science board, called Planet Formation, where I posted Wal's comment on the subject of satellite capture and included some of his info on planet formation from his website, which, of course, details electrical forces involved, as via charge exchange between planets, which even likely affected gravity. * Cardona has just replied to more questions, as shown below. Ice Age LLOYD: You said glaciation and melting were part of the flare-up cycle on Earth. As I understand your theory, the Earth used to get glaciation in the north temperate zone, but not in the Arctic circle. Proto-Saturn's flare-ups tended to melt those glaciers, but glaciation would return each time after they melted. Do you agree with the TPOD that suggested that temperate zone glaciation was due to the aurora, which was sort of donut-shaped and blocked light from proto-Saturn just in the temperate zone? Would the aurora would have blocked heating of the ground enough to cause glaciation? REPLY: Agree with it? If you're referring to Mel Acheson's TPOD of last February, he was actually referring to my own work. This is what the entire third part of my PRIMORDIAL STAR is about. And, to be entirely fair, the concept was derived from an intuitive observation by Ken Moss. As there explained, however, it is not the aurora per se that was responsible for the shaded ribbon that cast its shadow on Earth's sub-Arctic region, but the cosmic dust that would have been attracted by the plasmatic auroral oval. The aurora--that is the flickering lights--would have had absolutely nothing to do with it. I realize that, as always, when stated in such brevity, the entire concept borders on the bizarre, eliciting nothing but the usual disbelief. Which is why its detailed elucidation covers close to a hundred pages in my book. Read it. Floods LLOYD: It seems that there could have been several causes of the melting of the glaciers, all from the flare-ups. I suppose the flare-ups would have produced a blast of heat and maybe a shockwave. Would one or both of those have been enough to melt the glaciers? REPLY: Yes. Very much so. LLOYD: If the flare-ups also blasted rocks, dust, petroleum and water at the Earth, possibly in successive waves, would one or more of those waves of matter have helped dislodge and melt the glaciers? REPLY: The heat was the main cause, but Earth's braking and the incursion of oceanic waters would also have helped. [LLOYD: Ah, yes, I forgot to realize that Earth's braking would have caused tsunamis, although the oceans were likely shallow and would not have flooded so far, I guess.] Flare-ups and Detritus LLOYD: You said "brown dwarf flares seem to concentrate at one of the poles." Does that mean the Arctic or the northern hemisphere would have received the brunt of the flare-up blast, with lesser amounts falling on the southern hemisphere? REPLY: Exactly. LLOYD: Could much of continental rock strata have been formed from flooding, which sorted the detritus in layers by relative grain size? Did you check out the videos at http://www.sedimentology.fr and see how flowing water sorts out detritus into layers of mud, silt, sand and perhaps lime, which can then harden into rock strata? Doesn't it make sense that numerous layers of sediment strata could have been deposited at once, and while still wet and pliable, some areas could then have been folded by horizontal pressures into mountains? REPLY: Unfortunately, Earth's stratified layers are not separated by grain size, relative or otherwise. Life LLOYD: Were humans and most other living things concentrated in the Arctic region? REPLY: Some of the earliest signs of life appeared in the Arctic long before anywhere else. So did tropical and sub-tropical plants appear there long before they spread farther south. Even dinosaurs were more numerous in the Arctic than anywhere else in the world. You figure it out. But did humans remain concentrated there? Who said they ever WERE concentrated there? After all, humans did not themselves originate in Arctic regions. The last thing anyone should do is jump to conclusions. LLOYD: Were they often decimated by the blasts of shockwaves, heat, rocks, dust, rain and flooding after each flare-up? Would there have been any safer areas to flee to and would there have been enough time to get there? REPLY: Catastrophic nature would not have treated humans any different than it did the rest of the mammal population. But humans were much smarter and could therefore seek safety much better than most other mammals could. That said, quite a few of them succumbed, and that is not to be wondered at. Entire societies that existed during the Pleistocene completely disappeared--which, again, is not to say that every single individual met his end. Or hers, for that matter. But when enough members die, the culture they belong to will often collapse. In any case, again, this is not a subject that can be treated in a few sentences. That's why I write books. LLOYD: Did the rains of petroleum cause forest fires and coal formation? REPLY: The heat from the flare-ups would have been enough to cause such fires. But, wherever it fell, burning naphtha would have added to Earth's infernos. Do keep in mind, however, that not all rains of petroleum were themselves aflame. Age of Darkness LLOYD: If proto-Saturn was the only source of light, would all phytosynthetic plants have lived only in the Arctic? REPLY: No. Definitely not. LLOYD: Was the aurora also a source of light? REPLY: The primeval auroral ovals would have been too dust-laden to produce any light. LLOYD: Would there have been light as far south as the equator or farther? REPLY: Yes. Definitely. LLOYD: Would the plasmasphere have reflected light to the southern hemisphere? REPLY: Yes. Of course. LLOYD: Would proto-Saturn have been much brighter than the full moon? How much larger than the moon would proto-Saturn have appeared to be? REPLY: It is hard to tell how large, or massive, and how far proto-Saturn was. So, to be honest, the best I can say is: I do not know. LLOYD: Do you think Wal is right about Mercury and the Moon being former satellites and progeny of Jupiter and that all our gas giants were brown dwarfs that ejected progeny, as shown by the gas giants' faint rings? REPLY: I have not researched Mercury's and the Moon's origins yet. Continental Drift LLOYD: Have you said that continental drift was caused by Earth's rotation slowing abruptly and restarting more gradually, with momentum causing the tectonic plates to slide over the inner crust, maybe at the Moho layer? REPLY: That is the manner in which it could have transpired. But it could also have been due to Earth expansion. Or even both. LLOYD: What would have caused the sudden slowing of rotation? REPLY: This follows from the fact that Earth does slow down in its rotation, only to regain its former speed, when our present Sun flares up. Needless to say, these are minor hiccups, with the slowing only instrumentally detectible, but it would have been much more energetic with a much closer, even if fainter, sub-stellar primary [proto-Saturn]. And, to top it off, for what ever reasons, brown-dwarf flares tend to belittle those that we presently experience from our present Sun--for which we should all be thankful. See the work of Friedman, Danjon, Djurovic, and Juergens, as well as others, on this. LLOYD: Would the approach of Mars have done that via electrical and magnetic braking? REPLY: Electromagnetic braking is definitely the answer, but I do not believe Mars had anything to do with it. Dwardu Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Previous Display posts from previous: [All posts] Sort by [Post time] [Ascending.] Go _________________________________________________________________ Post a reply 27 posts o Page 2 of 2 o 1, 2 Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas Jump to: [New Insights and Mad Ideas......................] Go Who is online Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests * Board index * The team o Delete all board cookies o All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group