The EM Universe

[GaryN]

Just my personal opinion lizzie, but I see the Sun as a different
event than a Coulomb crystal. The tensed and torqued flux tube
will result in a current pinch. At the point of maximum stress, another
Star is born (or quasar, or BH, depending on the magnitude of the flux
tube and the tension being applied), and the center of the event taps the
energies of the vacuum, (the One?)producing the light and vibration that results
in the resonant, multiple magnetic charge confining shells where the nuclei of
the 7 lower elements are forced into existence.
As usual, the event produces a torus, or a number of tori around itself,
the most energetic being the only one normally detectable by our instruments.
The torus, as a particle accelerator, will acquire a charged surface, and
that charge will once again migrate, producing the flux tubes that start
the whole cycle over again.
Particle acceleration, plasma acoustics and resonance withing the flux tube
lead to the formation of the geometrically regular and irregular Coulomb
crystals, including the sphere. Once the sphere is formed, then it will
continue to gain layers as it travels down the flux tube through a process
akin to gas flow sputtering. This will also result in a pitted and cratered
surface on the object, explaining why even the asteroids are pitted.
That's my meditation inspired explanation. Maybe meditation has it's drawbacks?

[GaryN]

In a recent paper, Miles Mathis shows, and I would agree, that gravitational collapse
of molecular hydrogen as a method of star formation is not possible. I agree with much of what
Miles says, but in this case his explanation of the formation of stars is also incorrect.
He admits to the uncertainty of his ideas, which is honorable:

I present these ideas as hypothesis only. I make no claims to having found the right answer. I suspect I am on the right track, but the right answer may vary from mine in important ways. That said, I think anyone can see that my proposals are already far more consistent than the mainstream proposals. The gravity-only theory of collapse was a non-starter from the get-go, and I have to believe most people know that, or can see it once it is pointed out. Gravity by itself has no chance of explaining star formation, not even with a million tacked-on pushes. We simply must look for some sort of unified field solution, one that includes charge. If my ideas are not correct, some set of equally simple ideas will be correct.

http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf

Miles obviously is not in the EU camp, or my EMU camp anyway. The ball of plasma, and all the
hydrogen in the clouds which are supposedly collapsing, are really being produced by the Light, which occurs at the center of a current pinch in inter-Universe current filaments. Inter-Universe?
But there is only one universe, I hear someone say. (I normally think I'm talking to myself with these posts, but I'll pretend someone said something). Well not according to the Vedic cosmology.
The "billions of Universes" of the Vedas are the billions of galaxies we see in the deep field
surveys, and not in some parallel space/time dimensions. These galaxies are, of course, really systems
much like our own, one central sun, surrounded by planets and rocks and plasma. They all have their extents,
their spheres of influence, which are finite. The Universes are the Consciousness units of Keely, and like brain
cells, they are connected by information carrying dendritic filaments. Now I wonder if Miles can disprove my
version of how Suns are created?

[GaryN]

Planets smashed into dust near supermassive black holes

Supermassive black holes reside in the central parts of most galaxies. Observations indicate that about 50% of them are hidden from view by mysterious clouds of dust, the origin of which is not completely understood. The new theory is inspired by our own Solar System, where the so-called zodiacal dust is known to originate from collisions between solid bodies such as asteroids and comets. The scientists propose that the central regions of galaxies contain not only black holes and stars but also planets and asteroids.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-pla ... holes.html

They can't explain the dust, so let's smash things together at super-high speed.
There, lots of dust now. They have it all backwards again. Of course the clouds will be
of mysterious origins until they screw their heads on the propper way around.
They will never "see the Light" 'till they get their heads out of their arses.
In a torus, the plasma acoustic waves will accelerate everything in the same direction,
how do things end up moving in opposite directions at such high speed?

[sjw40364]

Uranus is an odd one. Explain this to me with a gravity only model.
It looks like a well designed machine, with all the rings and moons looking mathematically spaced. How do the mooons remain in such precise, almost zero excentricity orbits? Being so close to each other, why don't they affect each other and become chaotic in their motion? Most of the outer moons have a retrograde orbit, so they are all captured?



Although vibration is equal partner to charge in the universe, even the Thunderbolts site doesn't seem to want to include it in their 'serious' boards. Well, without vibration, the universe would be (dare I say it?) rather 'static'. Cymatics is relegated to NIAMI, though it is responsible for the orbits of planets and their moons.
A medal to whoever can explain why Uranus and its moons and rings are laying sideways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Uranus

For the same reason Jupiter's rings act the way they do, electricity and magnetism.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/ ... 80430.html

[GaryN]

Hi sjw40364,
The rings and moons orbiting the equatorial plane as they do, yes, E/M. It
is the extreme axial tilt of the planet WRT the Suns equatorial plane I was
offering the medal for. Miles says it is E/M causing the tilt, from his
charge field calculations. I haven't given this topic much thought for a while,
but Miles still, I think, regards the planets as solid, metal cored objects,
whereas I see them as hollow, spherical multilayer metallic/ceramic capacitors. How
this would change the whole thing, well I'd have to think it all through again.
I have been reading some on the behavior of conducting and non conducting
spheres in steady and time varying electric and magnetic fields, but admit I do not yet
have a picture or animation in my mind that is anywhere near 'solid'.
It might be easier for me to go back to my experiments, the bi-conical antenna,
some aluminum foil covered spheres (paraffin is my present choice) and a
couple of oscillators. It would be neat to do it with buoyancy neutral 'planets'
in a low viscosity medium filled glass sphere, I'm sure I could create a little solar
system, but just 1 planet will do for now. I'll just use a cardboard disc and sit
the sphere on it to see if I can get any action. Tilt will have to wait.
Here's a little video that expresses my partners thoughts on my hobbies. Probably
correct
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

[sjw40364]

Hi sjw40364,
The rings and moons orbiting the equatorial plane as they do, yes, E/M. It
is the extreme axial tilt of the planet WRT the Suns equatorial plane I was
offering the medal for. Miles says it is E/M causing the tilt, from his
charge field calculations. I haven't given this topic much thought for a while,
but Miles still, I think, regards the planets as solid, metal cored objects,
whereas I see them as hollow, spherical multilayer metallic/ceramic capacitors. How
this would change the whole thing, well I'd have to think it all through again.
I have been reading some on the behavior of conducting and non conducting
spheres in steady and time varying electric and magnetic fields, but admit I do not yet
have a picture or animation in my mind that is anywhere near 'solid'.
It might be easier for me to go back to my experiments, the bi-conical antenna,
some aluminum foil covered spheres (paraffin is my present choice) and a
couple of oscillators. It would be neat to do it with buoyancy neutral 'planets'
in a low viscosity medium filled glass sphere, I'm sure I could create a little solar
system, but just 1 planet will do for now. I'll just use a cardboard disc and sit
the sphere on it to see if I can get any action. Tilt will have to wait.
Here's a little video that expresses my partners thoughts on my hobbies. Probably
correct
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

Tilt has relatively little to do with a planets orbit, the Suns E/M field controls that. IMO that just happens to be the orientation of the Birkeland current through that section of space. Even lightning does not take a straight path, it is only surprising that more planets are not also weirdly aligned. It could be nothing more than a cosmic zig or zag of the current, or perhaps an impact did indeed give it a knock, or maybe it was simply captured in that particular orientation. More than likely we will never know the "why" beyond speculation unless we observe such action happening. My bet is it just happens to be the orientation of the Birkeland current that connects it to the Sun. Although what is even more strange is that the same pole does not always face the Sun, but every 42 years as it orbits the Sun the poles switch their positions. So basically Uranus has two rotations around the Sun. One the weird polar tilt and another pole to pole.

[Lloyd]

I think Gary said: Although vibration is equal partner to charge in the universe, even the Thunderbolts site doesn't seem to want to include it in their 'serious' boards.

* NIAMI is serious too. The others are mostly for discussing Thunderbolts' EU theory.

[sjw40364]

I think Gary said: Although vibration is equal partner to charge in the universe, even the Thunderbolts site doesn't seem to want to include it in their 'serious' boards.

* NIAMI is serious too. The others are mostly for discussing Thunderbolts' EU theory.

And bring up experimental proof that gyroscopes by their spin defy inertia and no one wants to hear that either, especially on standard cosmology boards. IMO it is the the vibration or oscillation of a particle that is mistaken as a wave. What is mistaken as crests and troughs in a wave pattern is nothing more than the particle vibrating up and down. Also since E/M radiation contains almost all frequencies, not just visible, one would have to assume that all wavelengths are sent at the same time. Therefore a light wave would be required to be composed of several waves, not just one. When one of the frequencies is split off in slit tests it is this that is interpreted as an interference pattern. Therefore if light is waves it is composed of multiple waves and if light is photons it is composed of a stream of photons that vary in amplitude or oscillation rates. One cannot send a single photon, any more than one can send a single wave.

[sjw40364]

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?25k77gj7k7b4kfg
How a photon travels similar to wave vortexes in water that create the characteristic wave pattern we associate with the photon.

[GaryN]

I'll go with JLs view. A photon is an electron expanding at the speed of light.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =15#p35127

[GaryN]

Amateur captures new solar system in stunning pictures

A New Zealand astronomer has captured the first amateur pictures of another solar system from a tiny telescope in his back yard.
Incredibly, Olsen took the photo of the distant star (63.4 light years away) using a 25 cm telescope at his home.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/busine ... -pictures/
So he can see a solar system 63 light years away, but even Hubble can not show me a decent image of our nearest star just 4 light years away.
An object close to B.Pictoris was imaged by ESO's Very Large Telescope in 2008.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 081105.htm
Call me cynical, but I have to ask if they have the distances, or the nature of the object all wrong. Could this be a gas giant with a disk and moons? I don't know who to believe anymore, but if this can be imaged with a 10" scope by an amateur, I know which way I'm leaning.

[nick c]

Call me cynical, but I have to ask if they have the distances, or the nature of the object all wrong. Could this be a gas giant with a disk and moons? I don't know who to believe anymore, but if this can be imaged with a 10" scope by an amateur, I know which way I'm leaning.

The 25 cm telescope did not "see" a planet. It could never resolve and/or detect the reflected light from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri (4 ly away) much less a star 60 ly. What was observed was a disk of "ionized gas" (read that as plasma) around a star.
from the linked article:

The photo shows the protoplanetary disk surrounding the star that represents a developing solar system, and the material inside the disk could develop into planets and asteroids.

No planets were observed, only a disk of plasma around the star. The conclusion that there are planets in there or forming in there is an extrapolation from an assumption based upon the nebular hypothesis for the origin of solar systems. In the EU the disk of gas would be described as an "expulsion disk." That is, the star has thrown off material. It may very well turn out that there is a new planet (probably a gas giant or "hot jupiter" very close to its' parent star) in there, which was also expelled along with the disk material. There may also be planets that were there before the disk of plasma was expelled from the star.
Either way, an observer using a 25 cm telescope is not capable of detecting them.

[GaryN]

Thanks for the correction there Nick. I wonder though what he would see if he were to look at A.Centauri, would it be the same as Hubble sees?

On to more mad ramblings, not from me though, this is from the big guns.

Cosmic Crashes Forging Gold

The cosmic site where the heaviest chemical elements such as lead or gold are formed is likely to be identified: Ejected matter from neutron stars merging in a violent collision provides ideal conditions. In detailed numerical simulations, scientists of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics (MPA) and affiliated to the Excellence Cluster Universe and of the Free University of Brussels (ULB) have verified that the relevant reactions of atomic nuclei do take place in this environment, producing the heaviest elements in the correct abundances.

I was just having a look through some of the articles at the Max-Planck Institute. I thought I had some pretty wild ideas, but these guys got be beat hands down. They do admit that these are numerical simulations though, which covers their asses I suppose for when electrical transmutation is eventually accepted.

[GaryN]

Rebel Stars Cross Paths with Sun

Newly discovered galactic highways cut across the Milky Way at odd angles, bringing stars through the neighborhood of our solar system.
...
The routes are mostly headed toward or away from the galactic center, like spokes on a wheel.

http://www.space.com/475-rebel-stars-cr ... s-sun.html

[Aardwolf]

Rebel Stars Cross Paths with Sun

Newly discovered galactic highways cut across the Milky Way at odd angles, bringing stars through the neighborhood of our solar system.
...
The routes are mostly headed toward or away from the galactic center, like spokes on a wheel.

http://www.space.com/475-rebel-stars-cr ... s-sun.html

Maybe this is the first step toward the relisation that all stars are on this path. They think some are headed toward the centre but that's because they assume our Sun is fixed in relation to the centre (orbiting). It's just that some are exiting faster than others. Galaxies look like Catherine Wheels because they behave like Catherine Wheels. Galaxy rotation is a myth.