The EM Universe

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?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:32 pm

I think the proposed model of the Cosmos put forward by Bahram Katirai
will end up changing our understanding of the objects observed by
astronomers, and re-write the maps that until now have shown distances
that are far in excess of their true values. If proven true, his model
will shake astronomy and astrophysics to the core. Of course there will
be extreme opposition from the mainstream to even consider such radical
proposals. Think Galileo.
Kitirai was missing the Electric component to his model though. He still
has gravity as his primary force, whereas the latest improvements in
the measurement of the distances of the objects surrounding us has shown
a structure more likely to be formed by electrostatic an/or electro-
magnetic forces than gravity.

Image
In this image we see a sphere, a disk, and potentially the radio
lobes associated with the pinch in a large scale flux tube. I will use
the term flux tube, rather than Birkeland current, as I believe much
of the energy carried by these filaments is in the form of a
longitudinal scalar magnetic 'wave', as apposed to the electrical
potential from the ionised contents.
For gravity to be arranging the structure seems highly unlikely,
whereas electrical charge would space the objects out so as to achieve
equilibrium. The objects could achieve their charge from the photoelectric
effect, or, if these objects are metallic spheres, then they may be charged
through induction by their movement through a Sun originated EM field.
The objects being charged spheres could account for the colors detected
by our instruments, as a charged sphere in a plasma environment would
result in a 'glow', causing the spectral signatures we now interpret as
being from a star. The earth also glows at a number of wavelengths, one
being for Hydrogen, so seeing Hydrogen emissions from
these distant objects does not necessitate them being stars. The signatures
of other elements also does not mean they are being produced by a star,
as we know the interstellar medium contains all the elements, and it
could be that the medium the objects exist in could have differing levels
of the elements in different locations, or layers.

Image
The disk and shell structure is much easier to account for, IMO, in an
EM environment. The logarithmic scale model may better indicate the shell
nature, but obviously can not convey the dimensions properly.

Image
This linear scale model is also showing a 4 lobed structure, a sure sign
to me that Electromagnetism is involved.
Is it possible then, that what we now believe are star clusters, are
really Oort spheres, that the stars do not shine with their own light,
but only from the reflected light of the central, true Sun? Depending
on the age and energy being dissipated by the central Sun, there will be a
differing density of planets (and their likely moons), different overall
size, and perhaps different shapes. Some spheres, some ellipses, some
predominantly still in disk form.

Image
As even galaxies will only appear as points of light, at the estimated
distances, it is possible that these are really star clusters, but if
star clusters are really only planetary clusters, we would have to
reduce our size scale drastically. At certain wavelengths, we can detect
the flux tubes and the central energetic features, which indicate
a pinch, and likely only one central Sun. What we see here as stars, may
only be planets illuminated by the glow of the hydrogen in some of the
double layer shells surrounding them. It could also be that at different
scales, there are finer flux tubes emanating from the central object
that have their own pinches, and that the larger objects are stars, but
whos individual Oort type planetary clouds are not visible at the
distances involved. We need much more accurate distance measurements to
allow us to put everything in perspective, and determine sizes.
Image
How big these objects are is again dependent on distance, but we do
know from magnetic field measurements and other clever instrumentation,
that the energy levels from some are huge, some calculated to put
out more energy than could be produced by a chain reaction of super-
novae, suggesting that this is a very large flux tube feeding the
central star, in this case referred to as a Black Hole.
I do not suggest that astronomers are trying to con us with their
present day picture of the Cosmos, only that the limits of technology
to accurately determine distance, and their entrenched beliefs that
electricity 'does nothing' in space, have limited their ability to
envision any other model.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:47 pm

This Miles Mathis paper fits in with an extended Katirai model, but you will
need to accept a far different model of the Cosmos.
The E/M fields of the solar system bodies.
http://milesmathis.com/venus.html
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby CTJG 1986 » Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:42 am

GaryN wrote:This Miles Mathis paper fits in with an extended Katirai model, but you will
need to accept a far different model of the Cosmos.
The E/M fields of the solar system bodies.
http://milesmathis.com/venus.html


Hmm, I do agree with much of his work but some of his terminology may be confusing me, lol.

Personally I think it is unlikely that anyone who only focuses on the EM aspects of the universe is going to be able to truly understand the nature of planetary EMF's. We live in an electric universe and that is a universe in which EM is only half the picture and magneto-dielectric energy is the other half.

When people think of magnetic fields being produced by electric currents they typically think of AC or DC current only since IC and OC are dielectric, but I think they forget that there is no such thing as an entirely longitudinal wave/current and there is always some transverse movement which produces small amounts of magnetic energy - hence we have magneto-dielectric energy.

I saw an article a while back about some NASA researchers being worried about the 2 'magnetic breaches' in Earth's Magnetosphere and how the Earth was losing it's magnetic energy at an alarming rate and would have laughed my butt off if it wasn't so saddening.

Even with an extremely simplistic and outdated model of the Earth's electrical cycles I predicted the formation of 2 holes or 'breaches' in the EMF over 9 years ago, which will eventually grow and 'consume' the entire detectable magnetic field leaving us like Venus without a planetary EMF(other 'breaches' may form as well in the future but it starts with 2).

Though I can't claim any success for my predictions unless the most important hypothesis of them all is actually empirically proven or disproved, and that won't be for another 10-20 years likely. I only wish I could get the process to go faster somehow, lol.

Without that one key aspect being verified my theory and any verified predictions based on it are no more than lucky guesses, hence why I don't like to discuss it in much detail and prefer to be vague and overly-simplistic when trolling for other perspectives on it. :)

Anyways, this EMF activity that those researchers were/are worried about is not a bad thing in my view but on the contrary it is the start of one of two dielectric phases in the Earth's cycle in which life on Earth will flourish(a 'Golden Age'), once we get past the turbulent transition period as the EMF actually 'consumes' itself which we are currently in.

The reason that Venus can have no Magnetic Field while still behaving the way it does in regards to the 'Solar Wind' is because the electric charge field that produces the EMF always exists but right now it simply is in equilibrium and the field is neither expanding nor contracting and thus producing no magnetic energy.

Pure magneto-dielectric energy does produce a very weak electric field but nothing near what an EM field produces.

As Miles stated I do believe as well that the Moon's EM potential is very high, but the field(s) we detect right now is a magneto-dielectric field and not a true EMF as the moon, like Venus is in a dielectric phase of it's own right now.

The Earth, Venus, Earth's Moon and all other planets and cosmic bodies are 'leaky capacitors' as EU theory stipulates, and when the energy input from the Sun reaches the same level as the output 'leakage' then the charge field ceases to expand or contract and the detectable EMF gradually will disappear as the magnetic energy being produced declines to nothing.

When the EMF 'disolves' completely the earth will be exposed directly to the Sun's magneto-dielectric energy which during the Magnetic Phases of the cycle is partially blocked and mostly 'diffused' by magnetic energy of the planetary EMF which leaves the Earth dominated by EM energy primarily.

During the Dielectric Phases the planetary EMF no longer exists and thus does not diffuse that magneto-dielectric energy and allows the Earth's surface to be 'bathed' in that pure energy, and since all life on Earth functions on/through magneto-dielectric energy it is a time of thriving life.

Noting of course as well that it is the Solar System's movement through the plasma medium as the Galaxy rotates that brings us through 4 differing regions of charge that control the cycles of the Earth and all other planets, those 4 quadrants being the result of the Birkeland Current that connects our Galactic Nucleus to the 'bigger picture'.

And the Earth's and other planet's orbits around the sun also produce a similar cycle, as I'm sure the orbiting of galaxies around 'galaxy clusters'(or whatever they are orbiting) likely would produce as well.

Well, it's a crazy perspective I know but it sure makes sense when you fully understand it, which I admit I probably am not providing the greatest help with.

I might add that a very simple ancient 4 quadrant 'Sun Wheel' is a very useful tool in trying to put a graphic form to the cycles.

But anyways I guess I'm not really making any specific points and just kind of rambling, but I would be interested on some alternative perspectives on it if anyone is willing.


Jonny
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.
CTJG 1986
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:22 pm

Just looking at M61, that hexagonal galaxy, and as Katirai mentions,
the center of the Galaxy does not look like a collection of millions of
Suns, it looks to be a well defined disk. I don't know how this was
imaged, so again it could be open to speculation.
Image
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:45 pm

Hi Jonny,
I'm really leaning towards an Aether as being the only answer to
why there are still so many puzzling and unanswered questions about
even the basics. Again, I think Miles Mathis offers an answer that
plugs a lot of holes, but would require a big shift of thinking in
the scientific community, something they don't seem to like doing.
If the ideas of Katirai and Miles Mathis hold up, then with the
inclusion of Alfven and a re-interpretation of the ether of Maxwell,
I think there could be light at the end of the tunnel. Then we just have
to figure out where Tesla fits in!
http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html
I agree on the cycles idea, by my reasoning we are due for a change
very soon. I'm all for a "Golden Age", but yes, a pretty rough
transition period might be in store.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby CTJG 1986 » Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:16 pm

GaryN wrote:Hi Jonny,
I'm really leaning towards an Aether as being the only answer to
why there are still so many puzzling and unanswered questions about
even the basics.


I agree that there is definitely an 'aether', though my view on what it is is a bit too complicated and I honestly don't know how to put it in words that aren't confusing(even to me). Essentially I suppose it is simply an energy that underlies the entire universe which interacts with 'local conditions' to create everything in universe.

I don't view it as a coincidence that there are 4 states of matter and 4 quadrants of electricity I can say though, but I won't elaborate on that since I'm still trying to figure it out.

Again, I think Miles Mathis offers an answer that
plugs a lot of holes, but would require a big shift of thinking in
the scientific community, something they don't seem to like doing.


Agreed there 100% as well, a consensus community is a status-quo community specifically meant to maintain the existing order and not to further scientific understanding if it goes against that.

If the ideas of Katirai and Miles Mathis hold up, then with the
inclusion of Alfven and a re-interpretation of the ether of Maxwell,
I think there could be light at the end of the tunnel. Then we just have
to figure out where Tesla fits in!
http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html


Tesla fits in because he understood the electrical cycles of the earth and that magneto-dielectric energy was going to be far more valuable in the not so distant future. We are just leaving the 'Iron Age' phase of the Magnetic cycle(Negative AC) in which EM is most dominant and are entering a dielectric phase in which IP/OC will be dominant, dielectric technology will become very important.

I agree on the cycles idea, by my reasoning we are due for a change
very soon. I'm all for a "Golden Age", but yes, a pretty rough
transition period might be in store.


We are already in the transition window and if the Mayans were correct then it will last approximately 25 years, so another 15-20 years from now in my view.

And the Mayans do have the lengths of the 'Ages' down right based on the 4 quadrant cycle as at approx. 5,200 years per age it would place the end of the last Positive Magnetic Phase(DC) which ushered in the last Ice Age at about 10,400 years ago.

When you consider that it would take time after the end of that Magnetic Phase for all the ice and snow to melt and the Ice Age to truly end it's easy to see 400 years or so being a reasonable approximation of the delay between the change of the electrical phase and the official end of the Ice Age itself.

So that does place the last Ice Age in the Positive Magnetic Phase as my model predicts, and the next one will be in approximately 5,200 years when the Dielectric Phase we are entering ends.

Though with dating techniques not being that reliable beyond about 10,000 years ago I don't see any way to know for sure how long before that last Ice Age that previous mythological 'Golden Age' occurred so I am not sure whether we are entering the Golden Age(IC) or Silver Age(OC) but either way it will be a good time for all life on Earth.

Though the last dielectric phase came after the last Ice Age and I don't see a history for that being as great as the Golden Age would be so I do think we are entering the Golden Age.

Well, here's hoping anyways. :)

PS - here's some of NASA's perspectives on 'magnetic breaches'(which fyi do happen in smaller form due to the smaller seasonal and solar cycles as well).

[Edit: I forgot to add the link, lol)

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... antbreach/

A bit laughable, even in comparison to my views... I would love to get my hands on some "bundles of magnetic fields" to play around with though. :lol:


[I also edited for grammar and to correct a few misstatements to make it clearer]

Jonny
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.
CTJG 1986
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby CTJG 1986 » Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:38 pm

Just as an added note - the Earth's electrostatic energy is actually the magneto-dielectric 'charge field', during magnetic phases when the EMF diffuses the magneto-dielectric energy from the Sun the 'electrostatic' potential is quite low, but in the Dielectric Phases it becomes dominant.

I sometimes refer to the low-level electrostatic potential as being the "EM electrostatic energy" which I realize may be a bit confusing, so I just wanted to clarify that I simply say that in reference to the magneto-dielectric charge field "electrostatic" energy when it is inferior to the EM forces during the Magnetic Phases of the cycle.

Note also that I could have the Negative and Positive Magnetic Phases reversed as with dielectric energy increased potential can indicate a reduction in size(opposite of EM), but my model generally assumes that positive = expansion of the field rather than contraction.

But that doesn't alter the actual cycles, just the order I have them placed.

Edit: I should actually correct this for clarification - the expanding field is definitely the Positive Phase and the contracting field the Negative Phase, I am not certain though whether increased energy potential causes expansion or contraction.

Jonny
The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.
CTJG 1986
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:09 pm

I was looking for images of the stars taken from balloons. With reduced atmospheric
effects, those stars should be nice and bright and clear, we would be able to see
faint distant stars that surface telescopes have missed. So where are the images?
Lyman Spitzer, Jr, had great hopes for high altitude astronomy. From 1961 , Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists.
There are also some figures given for the resolving power of telescopes.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=1wkAAAA ... rs&f=false
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:42 pm

Oh this is such fun, I can reinterpret their fancy billions of stars images to
something much simpler. The electric Universe is inherently simple.
Image
Looks to me like the central Sun is, by way of its surrounding torus, creating
a dusty plasma. As the charge on the surface of the torus accumulates, tendrils of
charged particles will migrate away searching for somewhere to equalise. As the
tendrils turn to fingers, and eventually arms, they begin to carry more current,
develop the curving motion, allowing for the formation of geometric Coulomb structures,
the sphere being the most common. A Coulomb ball, with layers determined by the
availability of specific specie within the flux tube forms. The spheres, smaller bodies
and dust will move outwards, and eventually be ejected from the tube, and
migrate by repulsive forces through the equatorial disk to the outer limits of the
Suns electric field, where they will then spread out to reside within spherical charge
double layers of the outer shells. The blue objects are the larger spheres of the
outer regions of the Suns Oort sphere, and are behind the Sun. Objects this side of
the Sun in the Oort sphere would not bee seen, but would be seen as a totally black
objects if we we close enough.
Image
A rare astronomical delensing event allows the viewing of far away planets by amazed
observers in Switzerland in 1566.

Seriously though, if Katirai is correct, there will be no stars visible from space or from
the moon without some fancy equipment, and the light we see from earth may be so altered as
to make all past distance observation figures meaningless. IMO. :D
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:35 pm

How to tell a star from a planet. (If Katirai is correct, then the whole universe
needs knocking down in size a whole order of magnitude.)
Stars like our Sun are not the two-a-penny objects portrayed by the billions
in many astronomical images. Stars and other energetic events are the foci of
current pinches in cosmic scale flux tubes connecting multiple stars, or quasars,
or black holes. The energy from these events ranges over many orders of magnitude,
stars being towards the lower end of the scale. The tubes can be imaged where they
become more energetic close to the pinch.
Globular clusters display the pinch.
Image
Most of what we now consider to be stars in our local neighbourhood, are in
fact planets. At radio frequencies, there will be no 'jets' observed, and
no flux tube detectable. They will show the typical bulls-eye pattern of
the density map of a fluorescing, charged region surrounding a planet.
This is Betelgeuse, presently estimated at 640 LY away, though estimates have
ranged from 180 to 1300. Most likely, IMO, a gas giant, and much, much closer.
Image
Try and find images of jets or flux tubes with any of the local 'stars' too.
Mars fluorescing in X-rays.
Image
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:55 pm

Came across this image from 1647 showing the Sun with lots of well organised sunspots. More of them, and
the two rows have moved closer together. Just how I expect the EM Sun to behave.
http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/ ... spiece.png
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:43 am

@me
The spheres, smaller bodies and dust will move outwards, and eventually be ejected from the tube...

New Theory of Evolution for Spiral Galaxy Arms
In the simulations, Grand found that some stars gradually move outwards and inwards along the spiral arms. Stars traveling at the leading side of the spiral arm slide in towards the center of the disc, whereas the stars traveling at the trailing side are kicked out to the edge

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111343.htm
I'm rather tempted to think that the 'stars' move outwards, as they suggest,
but it is the voids/bubbles that move inwards. Things need to balance out.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Thu May 05, 2011 12:47 pm

A Magnetized Jet from a Massive Protostar
Abstract
Synchrotron emission is commonly found in relativistic jets from active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and microquasars, but so far its presence in jets from young stellar objects (YSOs) has not been proved. Here, we present evidence of polarized synchrotron emission arising from the jet of a YSO. The apparent magnetic field, with strength of ~0.2 milligauss, is parallel to the jet axis, and the polarization degree increases toward the jet edges, as expected for a confining helical magnetic field configuration. These characteristics are similar to those found in AGN jets, hinting at a common origin of all astrophysical jets.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6 ... 9.abstract
The common origin, IMO, is the Magnetic Light of the Creator bringing our physical
reality into existence. Black holes are the creation of the Dark Forces who would
keep us from the knowledge of our Cosmic origins and our inherent connection to the
clear white light of creation.
Church of the EM Sun, anyone? :D
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby fosborn » Thu May 05, 2011 3:33 pm

The common origin, IMO, is the Magnetic Light of the Creator bringing our physical
reality into existence. Black holes are the creation of the Dark Forces who would
keep us from the knowledge of our Cosmic origins and our inherent connection to the
clear white light of creation.
Church of the EM Sun, anyone?


You are quite zealous in these speculations and I am glad you clarified why.
I wish you were only kidding about the church of Bahram Katirai. :|
I know, you said EM Sun, but your investigations say otherwise.
fosborn
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Fri May 06, 2011 12:48 pm

Hi Frank,
You are quite zealous in these speculations and I am glad you clarified why.

Yes, quite zealous for someone who has always considered himself, up 'till recently,
a Mechanist! It was the Magnetic Light announcement that started some gears
turning in my mind, and then yesterday in our library, a book presented itself
to me, "Gnosis of the Cosmic Christ, a Gnostic Christian Kabbalah", by Tau
Malachi. The first few pages have intrigued me immensely. I have never looked into
the Kabbalah, just one of those things I never made time for, but so far I am seeing
a direct correlation with the idea of a light based EM machine, guided by an all pervading
'spirit', creating our physical reality. I think I have had an epiphany.
I wish you were only kidding about the church of Bahram Katirai.

I'm surprised at the reaction to discussion of Katirai, and the implications for
our view of the Cosmos, should he be correct. Although I have yet to come up with
proof his proposal has any merit, looking onto the equipment and methods used to
build the standard astronomical models has convinced me that they have reached a
point where their data is so tenuous and their math so convoluted, that they are
seeing what they want to see in the data, and not what can be proven beyond any
reasonable doubt.
In reading more about Katirai, it seems he was a very spiritual man, given to
learning, which is one of the features of the Baha'I faith. My impression of meeting
some of the Baha'I refugees who fled Iran after the Shahs overthrow, was that they
were extremely intelligent and educated, as well as being modest and rational. I
just don't think Katirai had any interest in personal fame or financial gain, and
was sincere in his beliefs. Mistaken, perhaps, but to my mind, he can not be positively
disproven.
I'll collect my evidence and return to Katirai once I am on what I consider to be
a firmer footing, but as an example, the X-ray brightening of Cen. B seems to correspond
to the Sunspot highs and lows with, roughly, a 1 year offset. I have to try and find
longer period, finer resolution charts to determine if the offset is 1 year, or perhaps
a full cycle plus a year, or maybe no correlation at all. I suspect it is one year,
the distance to Cen. B, IMO! As has been found with Earth and Mars, I believe their
ionospheres are affected strongly by Solar X-ray flares:
BU SCIENTISTS DISCOVER MARS IONOSPHERE CHANGED BY FLARES FROM THE SUN
http://sirius.bu.edu/data/press.html
In this article, the COROT satellite has supposedly detected variations on the
surface of a distant stars that they interpret as surface granulation, similar to
our Sun, yet they can not show them on the nearest stars. COROT also found an
exoplanet that must be twice as dense as lead to fit in with their models. Am I
being unreasonable in my criticisms of some of their conclusions?
The scientists were taken by surprise at this object and described it as highly unique. The uniqueness comes from the fact that the object was found orbiting close to its parent star, which is unusual. If this object is classified as a planet, it would be the most massive and densest planet found to date (With a density about 2 times that of lead!). COROT has also detected three distant stars that are similiar to our sun in that they exhibit similar oscillations and surface granulation. This is a first in stellar astronomy.

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/ ... 28805.aspx
I know, you said EM Sun, but your investigations say otherwise.

I'm not following you here Frank, can you clarify please?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests