The EM Universe

[GaryN]

Disingenuous I meant...

[Sparky]

I liked ""ingenuous"..

[seasmith]

GaryN wrote:

if the 'explosion' was so great, it should have blown it all away?
The event is obviously still occuring, it isn't dead, as the flux tube is still there ...

My point exactly. They are confusing an incredibly intense and rapidly oscillating electric current,
for an unbelievably dense matter-ball spinning at the speed of light while precessing spin vs magnetic axies and so producing a "beam" containing the entire EM emission spectrum !
(at least that's what it sounds like they're trying to say)

Galaxies come and go, but the 'beat' goes on ...

~∞~∞~∞~

[Solar]

Hi Solar, maybe I'm misinterpreting your intention, but my 'light' of creation can not be thought of as like the Sunlight that illuminates our world. Maybe the Kabbalah has a word for it, though I think the originating emanations were called spirit rather than light.

“The Sun is a source of energy, life and warmth. The origin of life, the essence of the holy Kabbalah, the source of all spirituality is in the Sun. It is the fountain of light and a visible representation of spirit in action. The Sun is the eye of God, and the eyes are the windows of our soul. Therefore, you can connect with the soul of God through the Sun.”

http://www.awarenessmag.com/marapr1/MA1_KABBALAH.HTML

Yes, I realize that.

I'm going to have to start from the beginning here and read this thread; particularly your post. I’ve only gone back to page 21 thus far but it is obvious to me that we share the same, or a VERY similar, “model”. I’m looking at your join date and I don’t recall that we’ve ever dialoged directly. This is amazing to me since the “model” that you have reasoned is so very very close to mine although I loathe the word "model". The essence appears the same and you’ve shared some of the ramifications of extending the principles onto cosmic electrodynamics which are also fitting. Of course, unlike yourself where you appear to have expressed some of the basics in this thread, I on the other hand have only eluded it on occasions (here and somewhat in this thread here just for example).

I’m a bit stunned but delighted that someone else has come to the 'perspective' you seem to be looking at things from AND found some interesting docs in the literature in relation to it such as:
The inner annular Gap for pulsar radiation: gamma-ray and radio emission

… for example. I’ve been looking for this kind of information to coincide with certain principles and to correlate with another Science that puts the principle into experimental action for a very long time (Pulsed Phenomena in the Cosmos). You’ve apparently found it; or at least ‘Their’ version of it. My complements to you Sir; I think you're on the more correct approach obviously. That's all for now.

[celeste]

‎The pinch, IMO, is only the initiator of a process that allows for the 'tapping into' of the Vacuum energies. That's where the real power comes from. Known to the ancients as a magnetic light, or the light of creation. This is the basics of the ONLY model of the Sun that can explain the magnitudes of the energies emanated by the Sun, but, heat and visible light are NOT emitted by our, or any other Sun!

"Magnetic light" is a good name for this effect http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/pages ... m/2013/08/
The "vacuum energy" here is just the sea of axions that are flowing through space. All we need is a magnetic field to convert those axions back to photons. A pinch OR a tokamak would work.
Perhaps with the Crab Nebula, some of that strong gamma radiation is being produced in this way? Magnetic fields there are just converting the axions we don't see into the gamma rays we do see?

There is an implication in the H.E.S.S. article for those of you interested in the idea of a "central sun", but private message me for that "crazy" stuff.

[celeste]

I would like to add, that I don't think "axions" or "vacuum energy" are necessary.
Let's start with an absurdly simple case. You put an egg in a microwave, and it explodes. I don't think anyone would make the mistake of thinking the egg is internally powered. Even if someone knew nothing of microwaves, they would "get" the idea that the egg is sitting in a sea of radiation which we can't see, and converting it locally into a form of energy which we can see. The egg is simply an object that cashes in on a "sea" of high frequency energy, and emits that energy (as a point source) at a lower frequency.
I don't think anyone here at thunderbolts, would make the mistake of thinking that we have completely mapped out the full range of the E-M spectrum. Some may even question IF there is a limit to the spectrum. All I'm suggesting, is that for high energy point sources , we may just be seeing this effect of conversion of a sea of very high energy radiation (which we still don't perceive), into a local point source of lower energy radiation. In the case of the Crab Nebula, the "low" energy radiation is the gamma rays, converted from???

At any rate, I think you will agree with me here: The fact that we don't "see" enough energy flowing to the sun to explain how it may be externally powered, does not mean that the sun is not in fact externally powered.

[seasmith]

~
Solar wrote:

Pulsed Phenomena in the Cosmos

I agree that "pulse" is probably a more descriptive term here, than "beat" or "oscillation";
tho all three necessarily imply an impulse and a recoil (as discussed in the G-cloud thread and elsewhere).
The dynamic Yin-Yang principle, so to speak .

[ Can't believe you've never had a conversation with GaryN in all these years, certainly one of the finer minds on the forum. ]

∞

[CharlesChandler]

The fact that we don't "see" enough energy flowing to the sun to explain how it may be externally powered, does not mean that the sun is not in fact externally powered.

Yes, but to stick with the analogy of an object in a microwave oven, if the Sun's energy source was external to it, then the Earth would be inside the same oven, and should get the same heating. So why is the surface of the Sun 6,000 K, while the surface of the Earth is only 300 K? It isn't just the size of the object. Jupiter is 317 times more massive than the Earth, but its surface temperature is 165 K. So there would have to be some sort of selective energy conversion in the Sun that doesn't apply to planets, moons, etc.

[Solar]

I would like to add, that I don't think "axions" or "vacuum energy" are necessary.
Let's start with an absurdly simple case. You put an egg in a microwave, and it explodes. I don't think anyone would make the mistake of thinking the egg is internally powered. Even if someone knew nothing of microwaves, they would "get" the idea that the egg is sitting in a sea of radiation which we can't see, and converting it locally into a form of energy which we can see. The egg is simply an object that cashes in on a "sea" of high frequency energy, and emits that energy (as a point source) at a lower frequency.
I don't think anyone here at thunderbolts, would make the mistake of thinking that we have completely mapped out the full range of the E-M spectrum. Some may even question IF there is a limit to the spectrum. All I'm suggesting, is that for high energy point sources , we may just be seeing this effect of conversion of a sea of very high energy radiation (which we still don't perceive), into a local point source of lower energy radiation. In the case of the Crab Nebula, the "low" energy radiation is the gamma rays, converted from???

At any rate, I think you will agree with me here: The fact that we don't "see" enough energy flowing to the sun to explain how it may be externally powered, does not mean that the sun is not in fact externally powered.

I'll skip posting my analogy and agree with this one because they express the same fundamental. Along with this and just to add though, I was going to express that it is wise and telling that graphical depictions of the wave nature of the whole "known" EM Spectrum have no 'ends'. These are just the current limits of detection and remain 'open ended' for good reason methinks.

The Milky Way's gamma ray lobes are interesting:

Gamma-rays are the most energetic form of light and are produced by the hottest regions of the universe. They are also produced by such violent events as supernova explosions or the destruction of atoms, and by less dramatic events, such as the decay of radioactive material in space - - NASA

"as a form of light..." this is interesting from principles of Cherenkov Radiation:

When highly radioactive objects are observed under water, such as in "swimming pool" reactors and in the underwater temporary spent fuel storage areas at nuclear reactors, they are seen to be bathed in an intense blue light called Cerenkov radiation. It is caused by particles entering the water at speeds greater than the speed of light in the water. As the particles slow down to the local speed of light, they produce a cone of light roughly analogous to the bow wave of a boat which is moving through water at a speed greater than the wave speed on the surface of the water. Another analogy statement is to say that the Cerenkov cone is like a sonic boom except that it is done with light. - Hyperphysics: Cherenkov Radiation

Along with this we have the 'Bremsstrahlung" principle:

"Bremsstrahlung" means "braking radiation" and is retained from the original German to describe the radiation which is emitted when electrons are decelerated or "braked"... - Hyperphysics: Bremsstrahlung Radiation

The "deceleration" 'releases' or emits' the excess kinetic energy in the form of photons. These gamma ray would then also be a form of "breaking" as the 'transverse wave' is always only 'transverse' to a longitudinal propagation. So they've asserted "faster than light particles" such as Tachyon and even though according to the:

Cherenkov Radiation

... 'something' is 'moving faster than' visible light yet things STILL get conditionally constrained to the assumed light speed limit under the guise that there is "no information":

Hence, not only is the phase velocity generally greater than c, it approaches infinity as w approaches the cutoff frequency w0. However, the speed at which information and energy actually propagates down a waveguide is the group velocity... - Phase, Group, and Signal Velocity

To me this means 'We don't know what it is; so its irrelevant' LOL! All this seems to be trying to say is that according to the definition of a "signal", or definable "information", - a detectable and measurable 'response' - nothing is detected until the longitudinal prorogation has passed and left the excited presence of the EM Spectrum behind moving transverse to its direction of propagation like a wake or ripple in water.

[Solar]

The fact that we don't "see" enough energy flowing to the sun to explain how it may be externally powered, does not mean that the sun is not in fact externally powered.

Yes, but to stick with the analogy of an object in a microwave oven, if the Sun's energy source was external to it, then the Earth would be inside the same oven, and should get the same heating. So why is the surface of the Sun 6,000 K, while the surface of the Earth is only 300 K? It isn't just the size of the object. Jupiter is 317 times more massive than the Earth, but its surface temperature is 165 K. So there would have to be some sort of selective energy conversion in the Sun that doesn't apply to planets, moons, etc.

Incorrect: This is because I think I know what the "voltage regulator" might be but simply haven't said what I think it is. It is also the case that celestial bodies tend to have some form of electric and magnetic fields which is somewhat analogous to the charged body 'separating' itself from the influences of its environment like a Debye Sheath; they 'self-regulate' the integration of external influences don't they?

[Sparky]

CC:

So there would have to be some sort of selective energy conversion in the Sun that doesn't apply to planets, moons, etc.

I suggest that it isn't a selective energy only for the sun, but anywhere we get magnetic fields being distorted sharply enough to engage vacuum energy. The sun's complex magnetic fields and energetic play with those fields is more than enough to tap into vacuum energy, a limitless supply that appears locally to each point of magnetic distortion. http://www.cheniere.org/references/ener ... vacuum.htm

[CharlesChandler]

I think I know what the "voltage regulator" might be...

Keep working on it -- you never know where it might lead. But I never found a realistic external power source.

[celeste]

The fact that we don't "see" enough energy flowing to the sun to explain how it may be externally powered, does not mean that the sun is not in fact externally powered.

Yes, but to stick with the analogy of an object in a microwave oven, if the Sun's energy source was external to it, then the Earth would be inside the same oven, and should get the same heating. So why is the surface of the Sun 6,000 K, while the surface of the Earth is only 300 K? It isn't just the size of the object. Jupiter is 317 times more massive than the Earth, but its surface temperature is 165 K. So there would have to be some sort of selective energy conversion in the Sun that doesn't apply to planets, moons, etc.

I know Solar has addressed this (and I'm interested in where Solar's ideas may take us), but I think I can make the point clear. If the sun and earth are sitting in some field (axions,vacuum energy,or E-M at some yet undiscovered frequency), all we need is for the sun to have a high enough magnetic field strength to "tap into" these and convert them to the energy we see, while meanwhile, the Earth (and it's clearly weaker magnetic fields,if you'll give me that?),let the same flow of energy pass right through it. That is the beauty of that H.E.S.S. article. You can have "axions" flowing everywhere through space, but only converted to gamma rays where the magnetic field is strong enough.

[CharlesChandler]

The sun's complex magnetic fields and energetic play with those fields is more than enough to tap into vacuum energy, a limitless supply that appears locally to each point of magnetic distortion.

I'll jump into a black hole first. But seriously, just as Tesla refuted Einstein, saying that space cannot be warped, because space doesn't have any properties that can get warped, likewise a vacuum doesn't have any energy, and that's by definition, because a vacuum is defined as the absence of anything. So I'm not going to chomp on any of that.

If the sun and earth are sitting in some field (axions,vacuum energy,or E-M at some yet undiscovered frequency), all we need is for the sun to have a high enough magnetic field strength to "tap into" these and convert them to the energy we see, while meanwhile, the Earth (and it's clearly weaker magnetic fields,if you'll give me that?),let the same flow of energy pass right through it.

The Sun's average magnetic field is 1 Gauss. The Earth's is .5 Gauss. So far so good. But Jupiter's is 4 Gauss. So Jupiter should be the star, and the Sun should be a planet. (?)

[celeste]

The sun's complex magnetic fields and energetic play with those fields is more than enough to tap into vacuum energy, a limitless supply that appears locally to each point of magnetic distortion.

I'll jump into a black hole first. But seriously, just as Tesla refuted Einstein, saying that space cannot be warped, because space doesn't have any properties that can get warped, likewise a vacuum doesn't have any energy, and that's by definition, because a vacuum is defined as the absence of anything. So I'm not going to chomp on any of that.

If the sun and earth are sitting in some field (axions,vacuum energy,or E-M at some yet undiscovered frequency), all we need is for the sun to have a high enough magnetic field strength to "tap into" these and convert them to the energy we see, while meanwhile, the Earth (and it's clearly weaker magnetic fields,if you'll give me that?),let the same flow of energy pass right through it.

The Sun's average magnetic field is 1 Gauss. The Earth's is .5 Gauss. So far so good. But Jupiter's is 4 Gauss. So Jupiter should be the star, and the Sun should be a planet. (?)

I think you are aware of Donald Scott's filament model, and what it says about the magnetic fields we observe?
At the very least , I know you won't fall into the trap of thinking that the mainstream is correct in their measurements of magnetic field strength, while all the while be wrong about velocities (redshift = recessional velocity),masses (throw in dark matter when you need it),and so on? Charles, if you know of any reason that Scott's model should be wrong, please let me know. Otherwise, we are left in a world where the continuously varying magnetic fields of a current filament, disappear from view, while weaker, but consistent , magnetic fields (say from a spinning ball of mass undergoing compressive ionization?), show up strongly. I'm just asking.