Thunderbolts Forum For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology Skip to content * Board index < Electric Universe - Planetary Science * Change font size * FAQ * Register * Login Planet Formation Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth. Forum rules Post a reply First unread post o 15 posts o Page 1 of 1 Planet Formation New post by Lloyd » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:55 am WAL'S REPLY ON PLANET FORMATION On the "Cardona Interview on Saturn Theory" thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3824 Kim asked about formation of planets: Re: planets expelled from a brown-dwarf - how and by what mechanism are materials gathered to one place prior to expulsion [answer below seems to be by charge separation and electric discharge] - are they in solid or gas form [seems to be plasma] - how are the various elements isolated or chosen [by charge, ionization etc] - and if the process [of proto-Saturn flare-ups] repeats itself several times, why are planets not more similar in their chemical make-up? [some planets have different parents; some variations are due to which part of the parent the material is from, how old the parent was, what environment it was in etc.] * I'll post quotes from Wal's website shortly. First, though, I forwarded Kim's questions to Dwardu, Don and Wal and here's Wal's reply with my emphases. I'm glad you asked. 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]. Back to your question. The idea of planetary expulsion started, for me, with Velikovsky's notion of Venus being 'born' from Jupiter. Regardless of the accuracy of identification of the actual bodies involved, the idea was picked up by the British physicist, Peter Warlow, in his 1982 book, The Reversing Earth (see pp. 186-7). Another Britisher, Eric Crew, published an article in the 1988 SIS Review that modelled Velikovsky's scenario in an electrical sense. He wrote, "An explanation for the ejection of core material from large gaseous planets is the charge separation effect of pressure ionisation coupled with the migration of electrons into the outer regions of the planet and into the surrounding space. As this negative charge is neutralised by incoming positive cosmic rays, or escapes because of its high velocity in the low pressure atmosphere, the positive charge within the pressure ionised zone increases. This restricts the outward flow of electrons, but if the charge continues to rise the point of breakdown will be reached. - The energy stored in the charge would be very great because the voltage at the pressure ionisation boundary prior to breakdown would be very high, since this zone is at high pressure and is surrounded by a largely neutral material which has low conductivity. A discharge of positive ions comprising a current of electricity similar to a bolt of lightning on a grand scale would probably be initiated by a local anomaly, such as an eruption at the core boundary caused by a change of state followed by contraction, sudden increase of spin and consequent turbulence. Another cause might be the fall of a large meteorite. - The resultant discharge would be projected rapidly outwards, carrying core material and matter in its path, but as it is mainly a flow of current it would split into filaments because of its magnetic field. It would lose charge by attracting free electrons in and near its path, but these are limited in number, so the leakage would tend to stabilise at a relatively low level." I show, in the URL highlighted above, that a positively charged interior is to be expected in all large self-gravitating bodies in space. So I agree basically with both the above authors that rocky planets and moons are best explained by electrical expulsion of matter, but probably from near the solid surface. As for the variation in mineralogy and atmospheres, that is mostly due to the parent body and [there] are plenty of gas giants to choose from. Note that they all have some rings of debris about them, indicative of past 'births.' Some extra variation in composition comes from electromagnetic sorting in the ejection process and nuclear reactions engendered by the electrical discharge. Wal * At http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qysa3zk Wal said as follows. The Sun is merely Mercury's foster-parent. Similarly, the Earth is the Moon's foster-parent. For to identify the parent of Mercury and the Moon we must look for family traits amongst the moons of the gas giant planets in the outer solar system. Jupiter is a prime suspect with its orbital and axial tilt [3.13°] being of the right order to have launched [ejected] Mercury [0.01°] and the Moon[6.688°]. Both bodies would look at home among Jupiter's Galilean satellites.] Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by Lloyd » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:55 am * Here are quotes from Wal's website on Star and Planet Formation. PLASMA CLOUDS FORM STARS http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf An electric star is formed by the equivalent of a lightning bolt in a molecular (plasma) cloud. Just like earthly lightning, cosmic lightning scavenges, squeezes and heats matter along the discharge channel. Where the squeeze is most intense, the current may `pinch off' to give the effect of `bead lightning.' In high-energy plasma lab discharges researchers have found that hot plasma `beads' (known as plasmoids) form along the discharge axis before "scattering like buckshot" when the discharge quenches. STARS FORM IN Z-PINCHES http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac [Dr. Carl A. Rouse did studies] of pulsating variable stars [and found he] could not match the observed mass, luminosity and radius of the Sun [until he modeled] the Sun [as having] a core of heavy elements ... [which then] can reproduce the observed helioseismic oscillations. Rouse's work ... fits the plasma cosmology story of star formation in a Z-pinch, with the heavy elements concentrated at the core. ... [S]unshine is a spherical electric discharge phenomenon powered by the galaxy. ... Nuclear reactions occur on the Sun like they do in atom smashers on Earth, by concentrating electrical energy onto a target. [Here is a diagram of the Sun's cross section] Image MARKLUND CONVECTION LAYERS STARS' INTERIORS http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf Another important phenomenon known as `Marklund convection' occurs along the discharge axis. It separates the chemical elements radially. Marklund convection causes helium to form a diffuse outer layer, followed by a hydrogen layer, then oxygen and nitrogen in the middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium in the inner layers. So electric stars should have a core of heavy elements and an upper atmosphere mostly of hydrogen. This renders the difference between stars and planets to be more apparent than real. STARS MAKE HEAVY ELEMENTS http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf In addition to scavenging elements, stars produce electrically in the high-energy electrical discharges of their photospheres all of the elements required to form rocky planets. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements does not require a supernova explosion. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine. Those discharges synthesize "metals" that continually rain into the star's depths. ... Stellar interiors become enriched in heavy elements. GRAVITY SEPARATES CHARGES INSIDE STARS http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rbkq9dj2 In fact, atoms in the Sun's strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun. The aligned dipoles will create a radial electric field that will tend to separate charge-free electrons moving toward the surface and positive ions toward the core. Gravitational compression inside the Sun is therefore offset by electrical expansion because like charges repel. Stars do not require a central furnace to maintain their size. The result is that the Sun is much the same density throughout. This was discovered decades ago by pioneering helioseismologists ALL STARS EJECT MATTER http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=n2z18sez All stars electrically eject matter in defiance of gravity. Ejection of charged matter is required to maintain electrical balance with their environment. The Sun has its "solar wind" and coronal mass ejections. In extremis, a star may eject a fragment of its interior in a stellar megalightning flash, or nova outburst, to form a close orbiting companion. STARS FISSION INTO SMALLER STARS & GAS GIANT PLANETS http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES The star "children" are gas giants or binary partners formed from those heavier elements after expulsion from the star. http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=6 Bright stars like our Sun are great concentrated balls of lightning! The matter inside stars becomes positively charged as electrons drift toward the surface. The resulting internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=hcr2ue54&pf=YES The formation of planets by electrical expulsion of part of the parent's core material also leads to nucleosynthesis in the grandiose lightning flash of a nova. That is why some of the expulsion debris, in the form of meteorites, contains the products of very short-lived radioisotopes in their flash-heated minerals. This is a far simpler explanation than to require rare supernova events nearby at just the right moment during the formation of the solar system. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qysa3zk There are two possible electrical origins of planets in the solar system. First, the Sun may become electrically unstable and eject sufficient matter to form a gas giant companion. ... astrophysicists are unable to account for powerful jets of matter seen issuing from stars and galaxies. ... stars undergoing a nova outburst may give birth to gas giant planets.... http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES [S]tars "give birth" from time to time by electrical parturition. It occurs in a nova-type discharge from their charged interior. Unlike the hydrogen-bomb model of stars, there is no internal heating. BROWN DWARFS HAVE JETS & FLARES http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7y7d3dn5 Brown dwarfs are noted for their occasional inexplicable polar jets and "flaring." As explained in my electric stars article, stars that do not have bright, tufted photospheres do not have the power feedback control that maintains the steady radiant output of the Sun while the power input varies--as measured by x-rays and sunspot latitudinal migration. So any power surge on a brown dwarf will be met with polar jets and flaring behavior. We know from coronal mass ejections (CME's) on the Sun that this involves hurling matter into space. BROWN DWARFS OR GAS GIANTS EJECT ROCKY PLANETS http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf Planets are then born by electrical expulsion of matter from the body of the star in the form of giant mass ejection events, like we see in miniature in solar outbursts. Large stellar flares and nova outbursts probably signal the birth of planets. Disks of matter encircling stars are not due to gravitational accretion but to electrical expulsion. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES Planet formation has more to do with the growth of internal electrical stress in a star. It can be enhanced by episodes of unusual electric stress in its environment. We should be looking closely at stars that have undergone nova outbursts. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qysa3zk [R]ocky planets are `born' fully formed by material jetted from within a brown dwarf star or gas giant planet undergoing an electrical `flaring' or `nova' outburst. - As British physicist Peter Warlow wrote in 1982, "...the obvious place for a small heavy planet to form is at the core of a large gaseous planet. This is the ideal place to collect together the heavier elements and if, for the same but unknown reason that quasars eject material from their cores, the core of that large planet is also ejected, then we will have a source of Earth-like and Venus-like planets. If the lesser nova eruptions of stars are, in fact, manifestations of the same process, then we have a source of the larger Jupiter-like planets." -- The Reversing Earth, 1982. http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7 Earth-like planets and moons are similarly "born" by electrical expulsion of part of the positively charged cores of dwarf stars and gas giants. That explains the dichotomy between the dense rocky planets and moons and the gaseous giant planets. In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force. So planetary orbits are stabilized against gravitational chaos by exchange of electric charge through their plasma tails BROWN DWARF FLARES MAKE NEW SATELLITES & DEPOSIT MATTER http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7y7d3dn5 Flaring would cause havoc on the satellites of a brown dwarf. In the extreme it would give birth to a new satellite. But existing satellites would suffer deposition of solids, liquids and gases and electric discharge machining of their surfaces. This is a scenario never considered by geologists but which explains all of the enigmas of planetary geology. Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by sureshbansal342 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:01 am why don't you try this theory with complete mechanism and depth with practical manner. Core Crust http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?im ... _572lo.JPG Asteroid and Plant http://img44.imagevenue.com/img.php?ima ... loc=loc731 Seeds and Meteorids http://img185.imagevenue.com/img.php?im ... _366lo.JPG Bark of Tree and Earth http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?ima ... _801lo.JPG Volcanoes http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?im ... 1119lo.JPG SUBDUCTION ZONE OF TREE SNAPS http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?im ... 1064lo.JPG BARK OF TREE http://img34.imagevenue.com/img.php?ima ... _1170lo.jp sureshbansal342 Posts: 7 Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 1:06 am + E-mail sureshbansal342 Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by Lloyd » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:32 pm * Here's another one of Wal's interesting excerpts on planet formation that I missed last time, that I think should be included here. Hyperion's History http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=1dqzp30f External electrical or gravitational stresses on a star may cause some of its internal positive charge to be offset from the center of the star [He now says this charged matter forms near the surface rather than in the center.]. And since like charges repel, the offset charge will tend to accelerate toward the surface. It is a form of internal lightning. This process may lead to the expulsion of a substantial portion of the positively charged interior of the star. The visible result is a nova, or star-wide lightning flash, as electrons in the stellar atmosphere rush toward the emerging positively charged matter. The ejected material constitutes a powerful electric current, which generates its own magnetic field. That magnetic field constricts the charged matter to form a jet. The leading matter is neutralized and stops accelerating, causing the following charged matter to pile into it [as it is ejected out above the star's surface]. So is born a companion star or gas giant planet. This explains why so many stars have been found to have extremely close-orbiting gas giant planets. - Planets do not grow by hypothetical impact accretion of widely dispersed "leftovers." Rocky planets and moons are formed episodically from gas giant planets by the same electrical expulsion process. It is this planet birth model ... that accounts for some of the diversity of objects in the solar system. It helps us understand why the gas giants have so many satellites, some large enough to be classed as planets in their own right. It helps us understand the presence of Saturn's ephemeral rings, which cannot have lasted for 4 billion years. Saturn's rings are the remains of an expulsion disk accompanying the birth of the latest child in the solar system. The rings of the other gas giants are similar "afterbirth" material. The rings remain rings as they gradually decay. They do not form moons. Similarly, a ring of dust around the Sun will not form a planet. Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by seasmith » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:19 pm WAL'S REPLY ON PLANET FORMATION " " In fact, atoms in the Sun's strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rbkq9dj2 " In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force. http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7 Lloyd, Are we saying here that- gravity creates the electric dipoles, and that the electric dipoles create gravity ?? >>>>>><<<<<<>>>><<<<<>>>>>>>><<<<<<< s seasmith Posts: 743 Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm + E-mail seasmith Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by nick c » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:17 pm hi seasmith, seasmith wrote: WAL'S REPLY ON PLANET FORMATION In fact, atoms in the Sun's strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=rbkq9dj2 In the Electric Universe model, gravity itself is simply an electrostatic dipolar force. http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=7 Lloyd, Are we saying here that- gravity creates the electric dipoles, and that the electric dipoles create gravity ?? >>>>>><<<<<<>>>><<<<<>>>>>>>><<<<<<< s Well not exactly, the two quotes are referring to two different types of dipole. The first quote refers to an electric dipole effect of an atom, ie positive nucleus, negative electrons. And the second quote refers to a dipole effect within each subatomic particle, that is the proposition that protons and electrons are themselves composed of smaller charged particles (subtrons). The first example (protons seperating from electrons in the Sun) is an effect of gravity and the second (Sansbury's subtrons which compose protons and electrons) is the cause. If all subatomic particles are composed of a resonant system of positive and negative charges they are also subject to distortion in the radial electric field to form an electric dipole. Since the particles are free to rotate, their dipoles will line up and the weak dipole force of each particle will add up to produce the effect of gravity. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s At least, that's the way I read it. Nick User avatar nick c Moderator Posts: 825 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm Location: connecticut + E-mail nick c Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by Lloyd » Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:39 am * I plan to ask Wal for more details on all this. Note that in the earlier posts here Wal mentioned that the positive matter that erupts from stars to form planets and smaller stars congregates nearer the surface, instead of in the center of the star. I haven't seen his explanation for that yet, so I want to know the reason for that too. * I plan to ask if he has an idea how asteroids, comets, meteors and small moons are able to hold onto smaller detritus and objects, as Cardona pointed out in the Interview thread. I think he told me once that he doesn't accept Miles Mathis's idea that the gravitational equations of Newton et al already include electrical forces. Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by JohnMT » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:31 am Hi all, Some years ago while keen on EU 'Planetary Formation', I read the interesting papers entitled 'Erratic Events in the Solar System' and 'Orbits of Core Material Ejected from Gaseous Planets' by the now late Eric W. Crew. In these papers, a very high positive charge was required at the core of Jupiter in order to eject a Venus-sized amount of material and that indeed this charge must have been even greater than required so that the expelled material might exceed escape velocity. Of course there is much more. At the recent Midsummer meeting 'Exploring the Electric Universe', Wal Thornhill covered many subjects, one of which was Sansbury's work introducing sub-atomic 'subtrons' and their various effects, resulting in the phenomenon known as 'gravity', 'mass' and their combined effects, 'reduced gravity'. All well and good, but for me at least there seemed to be a slight problem (explained below) in that Wal has said many times that a typical star like our Sun is an 'Anode in a cathode-less discharge'. In short, I have always read this statement to mean that the core material of a star (like our Sun) consists essentially of positively charged material (protons) which attract incoming interstellar spent electrons/cosmic rays etc. As time passes the star may accummulate sufficient material such that a very high positive electric potential charge might exist between that star and its local environment, causing an electrical breakdown. Following this breakdown, stellar fissioning occurs as some of its core material is ejected, thereby relieving stress and regaining for that star electrical stability with its local environment. If huge 'gaseous' planets/stellar companions/binaries are formed in this way and are themselves broken-up to eventually form 'rocky' planets etc through the processes of relieving these burdening electrical stresses, then how do we explain a 'cathodic star' where the core of such a star is essentially of a negatively charged cathodic nature? I mention this because during his lecture (if I remember correctly), Wal mentioned that it was such a 'red dwarf' star (Super-Saturn, with its Polar Configuration of planets, including the Earth) that entered the Sun's domain just prior to the emergence of the eventual Saturnian break-up and that this red dwarf was essentially cathodic in nature (otherwise I presume, an 'anodic' red dwarf star would have been repelled from the Sun's domain) I can only understand the above 'cathodic star' description by the concept of 'degrees of negativity' as mentioned by Ralph Juergens, but in this case is it perhaps 'degrees of positivity'? Just my two-penny-worth, John JohnMT Posts: 40 Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am + E-mail JohnMT Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by seasmith » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:17 am JohnMT- I can only understand the above 'cathodic star' description by the concept of 'degrees of negativity' as mentioned by Ralph Juergens, but in this case is it perhaps 'degrees of positivity'? With Juergens, i wouldn't be too committed to the positive-negative model. If ions are not first cause, then these flows may be viewed in light of "relative polarity" ; or what others on forum have called charge separation. s seasmith Posts: 743 Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm + E-mail seasmith Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by JohnMT » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:13 am With Juergens, i wouldn't be too committed to the positive-negative model. If ions are not first cause, then these flows may be viewed in light of "relative polarity" ; or what others on forum have called charge separation. Thanks for your reply. It would appear then that the 'positive-negative model' and 'degrees of negativity' concepts suggested by Juergens have been replaced/upgraded by 'relative polarity' Either way no matter (not a pun), I think it all adds up to 'charge separation' as you have suggested. As you know, Wal has said with respect to 'Charged Planets' that "Gravitationally induced dipoles tend to separate charge - planet acts like an electret" For myself at least, understanding the idea of 'gravitationally induced dipoles' is the key I think, in that all sub-atomic particles contain orbiting electric charges (subtrons) that sum to the charge on that particular particle. When these charges align, due to an induced electric field, we have what is known as 'gravity'. Of course there is much more, but it does make some measure of sense to me. In my research over the years, I concur with the idea that given time, most stars beget smaller stellar companions, which themselves beget giant "gaseous" planet/s, which further beget rocky planet/s, moons and much other associated debris etc...all in the cause of achieving electrical stability with their environments. Further, that in some cases, a close third-body inclusion within a relatively stable system can also achieve similar results by occasionally birthing moons, but mostly begetting much smaller debris such as cometary-type nuclei, asteroidal objects, proto-meteor debris, dust, gas and the development of external ring systems. At least thats my take on the subject. John JohnMT Posts: 40 Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am + E-mail JohnMT Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by Jarvamundo » Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:51 pm Lloyd wrote:STARS MAKE HEAVY ELEMENTS http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf In addition to scavenging elements, stars produce electrically in the high-energy electrical discharges of their photospheres all of the elements required to form rocky planets. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements does not require a supernova explosion. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=pca22stj&pf=YES Intense plasma discharges at the stellar surface give rise to starshine. Those discharges synthesize "metals" that continually rain into the star's depths. ... Stellar interiors become enriched in heavy elements. BROWN DWARFS OR GAS GIANTS EJECT ROCKY PLANETS http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=x49g6gsf Planets are then born by electrical expulsion of matter from the body of the star in the form of giant mass ejection events, like we see in miniature in solar outbursts. Large stellar flares and nova outbursts probably signal the birth of planets. Disks of matter encircling stars are not due to gravitational accretion but to electrical expulsion. Hmm, would it seem an intuitive progression to have synthesis of atmosphere (lighter elements / molecules) by the rocky planets, due to a similar process? New 'charged body' --> gets expelled --> settles into new host --> atmosphere synthesizes due to reaching equilibrium with new host. I guess i'm reaching as to why the 'young' object Venus contains the thickest atmosphere. Could this be a measure of electrical-position age, and atmosphere synthesis activity? I don't want to rule out Volcanism, but it's hard to interpret mainstream literature with the balance EU eye of electrical scarring. hmmm The "BROWN DWARF FLARES MAKE NEW SATELLITES & DEPOSIT MATTER", would seem common to all hosted bodies in a system no? Inherent charge differential of the 'ejected body', would account for far more individual features. Nature(planetary genetics) Vs Nurture(surrogate environment). Gee it would be handy to scrap down a few stratum of our neighbor planets. Thanks for this series Loyd, I hope i haven't polluted it with too much lay-conjecture here. Jarvamundo Posts: 307 Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm Location: Sydney, Australia Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by Lloyd » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:11 pm * Jarva, What does this mean: "New 'charged body' [rocky planet?] --> gets expelled --> settles into new host --> atmosphere synthesizes due to reaching equilibrium with new host"? What's the new host? The sun? What sort of equilibrium are you talking about? * My surmise has been that some of the atmosphere from the brown dwarf [or gas giant] is pulled along with the rocky body that's being ejected from the dwarf. That seems to jive with the notion that Venus is the youngest offspring of Saturn, while Titan would be probably somewhat older and Earth and Mars would be older still. Smaller bodies would lose atmosphere the most quickly, while larger ones would hold onto them longer. Charge exchange between planets via discharges would reduce atmospheres, but volcanism would increase them somewhat. Mars lost most of its air this way apparently and some EU theorists say Earth had a thicker atmosphere in the past too. The main gas given off by volcanoes is H2O, with smaller amounts of CO2, SO2, HCl, HF, H2S, CO, H2, NH3, CH4, and SiF4. We don't know of any definite volcanoes on Mars, do we? What about Venus? And how much atmosphere could be produced via volcanism? Both Venus and Mars atmospheres are over 90% CO2. Venus has some H2SO4, perhaps from SO2 and H2 or H2S, if there has been volcanism. * Should I ask Wal about this? I'll try to. Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by Jarvamundo » Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:49 pm Lloyd wrote:* Jarva, What does this mean: "New 'charged body' [rocky planet?] --> gets expelled --> settles into new host --> atmosphere synthesizes due to reaching equilibrium with new host"? What's the new host? The sun? What sort of equilibrium are you talking about? Lets say Venus was a rock ejected from somewhere (ie Saturn birthed). This ejected rock now carries a 'charge' (whatever that may be). As the rock-with-charge flings out to it's new position, lets call this a stabilising, but initially-irregular-orbit around the sun, it is now a charged object that is 'reaching charge-equilibrium', much like an electric comet's eternal glowing effort. Do you now have the energies available for some electro-synthesis processes? Who knows this may still even be going on. So if we take the 'great comet' of Venus whizzing along, are we saying that *all* of the atmosphere came with? I certainly don't deny that *some* of the atmosphere will be retained from ejection, just wondering if we can indeed speculate that it would be retained in a violent event such as this? Is this the plasma-protection layering protection we are relying on here. Charge exchange between planets via discharges would reduce atmospheres, but volcanism would increase them somewhat. Was Venus not involved in a monumental charge exchange? Does this raise a contradiction? hmm. And... given the time-frame of what EU might be suggesting of Venus's 'age', is Volcanism enough to build the 'thickest' atmosphere in 2-4k years? Caviate, i may be putting something out there that is total nonsense, I am just trying to build the picture of the EU *young* Venus having the thickest atmosphere, whilst bearing in mind an EU skeptical view of Olympus Mons sized 'volcano's'.... given Mainstream believes Venus is 4.6 Billion Years Old! I guess we have a few possibilities. * Ejecta-Rentension of atmosphere carried with body, since time of ejection. (can it survive the trip?) * Volcanism, ie atmosphere coming from beneath the stratum. (is 5k years long enough?) * Synthesis (which i guess i've defined here as, an electrical comet like process, with retention of the production of light-er molecules (H+ O-)). (is this even possible?) * others? celestial in the sky 'great flood' type event, dumping gas/liquid on a planet? My suggestion is, considering the wildly differing ages of MS vs EU of this body, are there other electrical processes available to EU, when we consider these ejected planets are themselves charged bodies on a wild trip. Maybe some of these questions are beyond available evidence... i dunno... Volcanism and Ejecta-Retention seem to run into a couple of hurdles for me. Lloyd wrote:Should I ask Wal about this? I'll try to. I'd be interested of how EU explains the dense atmosphere from above or other processes, or if it has been discussed before. or if conjecture exists. Last edited by Jarvamundo on Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total. Jarvamundo Posts: 307 Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm Location: Sydney, Australia Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by Lloyd » Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:28 pm FORMATION OF ROCKY PLANETS' ATMOSPHERES * Here are some excerpts from Wals' site on formation of atmospheres. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=f16tg4w1 All planets and moons are born fully formed from their parent body -- usually a flaring dwarf star (or gas giant planet). The birth process involves intense plasma discharging between the parent and its departing newborn satellite, which modifies the infant's atmosphere and `spark etches' the surface electrically, forming circular craters and distinctive Lichtenberg figures of canyons, or rilles. Subsequent near encounters with other bodies result in further electrical scarring, matter transfer and atmospheric modification. * In June 2004 at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=f16tg4w1 Wal said as follows. And the underlined phrase in red letters is where he seems to say most clearly that rocky planets get their atmospheres directly from parent gas giants, or brown dwarfs, during ejection. Venus; its slow retrograde spin; its hellish temperature, having [been] born recently from the core of a brown dwarf star; its thick atmosphere inherited from the brown dwarf and subsequently modified by cosmic discharges; - Titan also has a global layered haze like Venus. (Haze layers seem to be the condensed form that non-polar molecules take in an electrified atmosphere. They are quite distinct from the vertically moving clouds that polar molecules, like water, form). And just as Mars has a whiff of the Venusian atmosphere, with carbon dioxide and nitrogen as major constituents, we may expect to find that the Titan atmosphere has some of the smell of Venus about it. - [M]any of the satellites [of Saturn] are comprised of a large proportion of water ice, as are Saturn's rings. It offers an explanation for the origin of the Earth's amazing abundance of water. So we should not be surprised if, under the orange haze, that Titan has copious ice or water. We must await the descent of the Huygens probe into Titan's atmosphere for answers. That raises the obvious question; why doesn't Venus have much water? When performing comparisons, we must allow for the fact that the Venusian atmosphere is being modified continually by electric discharge activity on the surface of that planet. It has increased the carbon dioxide content of the Venusian atmosphere at the expense of nitrogen and water vapor. Scientists think that most of Venus' water must have split into hydrogen and oxygen and all the hydrogen was lost to space. But if so, where is the oxygen that was left behind? The four Pioneer probe craft didn't find it in the atmosphere. The answer is that it has combined with carbon monoxide to form a heavy atmosphere of carbon dioxide. The process I envisage is this: - Venus probably began with an atmosphere more like Titan's and the Earth's, where nitrogen dominates, and with more water. It suggests that Saturn must have considerable nitrogen at depth in its atmosphere. The icy rings and satellites of Saturn and abundant water on Earth also point to water on Saturn. On the Venusian surface, nitrogen molecules are converted to carbon monoxide molecules by a catalytic nuclear reaction in the presence of red-hot iron. The brilliant French chemist, Louis Kervran, when investigating carbon monoxide poisoning of welders, discovered this surprising nuclear transformation. The carbon monoxide reacts at the hot surface of Venus with water vapor to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. It is a well-known industrial process. The hydrogen produced escapes from Venus. This process explains the puzzling discovery made by Venus-landers that the water vapor concentration diminished as they approached the Venusian surface. - Like Venus, Titan seems not to have a magnetic field and yet it has a distinct magnetotail. http://www.holoscience.com/news/wateronmars.html Being a small body, Mars suffered terribly in its planetary electrical exchanges. It lost most of its atmosphere in the process and gained a little in return. So present day measures of water and carbon dioxide on Mars do not represent billions of years of evolution. Indeed, the dominant constituents of its atmosphere, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, could have been predicted from the global accounts of the entanglement of Mars with the distended atmosphere of Venus. Also, it has been known since the first space probes descended into the infernal atmosphere of Venus that the measurements of isotopic ratios in its atmospheric gases contradict the standard evolutionary model of planet formation. The reason is that interplanetary discharges are powerful enough to cause nuclear transformations. In particular, they are copious generators of neutrons. So the anomalously high levels of the heavy isotopes of carbon (13C), nitrogen (15N) and hydrogen 2H, in the Martian atmosphere may be understood simply as due to neutron capture in the gases stretching between Mars and Venus during one of their celebrated battles. - The tornadic circumpolar winds mentioned above were capable of moving heavy sand grains and forming vast fields of sand dunes around the polar caps. However, the electrical interactions were capable of stripping much of Mars' atmosphere too. The final result was a tenuous atmosphere no longer capable of moving sand dunes. Lloyd Posts: 1127 Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm + E-mail Lloyd Top _________________________________________________________________ Re: Planet Formation New post by Jarvamundo » Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:45 pm Wow... I like it. The family life cycle of the EU is most fascinating, and coherent. Although still a little uncomfortable, I will examine further. It seems the extra available mechanisms available to EU here are electrical discharge and modification of atmospheres, so this does provide Wal's explanation of what this body (Venus) will be going through, as Venus settles into it's new home. Re Mars, interplanetary atmosphere harvesting is indeed a spectacular and frightening area of study! Thanks Loyd and Wal, really helping a lot of other readings to fall into place with these interviews. Jarvamundo Posts: 307 Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm Location: Sydney, Australia Top _________________________________________________________________ Display posts from previous: [All posts] Sort by [Post time] [Ascending.] Go _________________________________________________________________ Post a reply 15 posts o Page 1 of 1 Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science Jump to: [Electric Universe - Planetary Science...........] Go Who is online Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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