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 » Mon May 09, 2011 10:37 am

Raging storms sweep away galactic gas
They infer that 1200 times the mass of our Sun is being lost each year from the galaxies with the most vigorous outflows. That is enough to strip them of their entire reserves of star-forming gas within one million to 100 million years. In other words, some galaxies could completely expel their star-forming gas in as little as a million years. Inhibiting star formation in a galaxy is known as negative feedback.
These winds could be generated by the intense emission of light and particles from young stars, or by shockwaves from the explosion of old stars. Alternatively, they may be triggered by the radiation given off as matter swirls around a black hole at the centre of the galaxy.
The fastest winds appear to be coming from the galaxies that contain the brightest 'active galactic nuclei', in which a giant black hole is feeding from its surroundings.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-rag ... c-gas.html

Replace the black holes and agn with the Light of creation. Suns are just
less powerful versions, but are still Creators.
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Thu May 12, 2011 12:54 pm

Just how long will it take to sink in? :roll:
Stars producing hydrogen clouds, not clouds producing stars.
Image
Galaxy NGC 4214: A star formation laboratory
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-gal ... atory.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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby orrery » Sun May 15, 2011 7:45 pm

Gary, I've read the work from Katirai. As a follower of that work, I'd be interested to know what this looks like to you.

View image here:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1105/vl ... otated.jpg

http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2009/01/ ... cholka.jpg

View image here:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0402/sk ... ne_big.jpg
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Mon May 16, 2011 12:35 pm

Hi orrery,
I'd say it looks like a lot of dust and rocks, planetoids and planets in the
central plane of the Oort sphere, lots of stuff produced by our Sun during
the time when it was much more energetic. I'm not saying that is what Katirai
thought it was, that's just my interpretation.
It could be the disk of the Milky Way, but I don't have the equipment to be
able to determine one way or another, just have to (for now) believe what the
experts say. What are you thinking you see?
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby orrery » Mon May 16, 2011 2:08 pm

GaryN wrote:Hi orrery,
I'd say it looks like a lot of dust and rocks, planetoids and planets in the
central plane of the Oort sphere, lots of stuff produced by our Sun during
the time when it was much more energetic. I'm not saying that is what Katirai
thought it was, that's just my interpretation.
It could be the disk of the Milky Way, but I don't have the equipment to be
able to determine one way or another, just have to (for now) believe what the
experts say. What are you thinking you see?

I'm curious about why it doesn't seem to move even though the Earth & Sun both move.
"though free to think and to act - we are held together like the stars - in firmament with ties inseparable - these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them - each of us is only part of a whole" -tesla

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology
User avatar
orrery
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: USA

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Mon May 16, 2011 11:46 pm

I'm curious about why it doesn't seem to move even though the Earth & Sun both move.

I'm not sure what you mean here orrery. Do you mean why there are no streaks from
a time exposure? Or the objects don't move with respect to each other? Or am I too
tired and my brain has logged off for the day? :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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed May 18, 2011 2:20 pm

* Gary said last year in answer to "why you hypothesised your dual torroidal bands?":
My contention, as simple as I can make it, is that the electron vortices (which are under tension) spiraling into the poles form conical antennas, and that it is the antennas that are responsible for earths magnetic field and the spherical (Schumann cavities) and toroidal (Van Allen belt) structures surrounding the earth.

* The antenna idea is like Brant's ABIS model [Aether Battery Iron Sun]. The iron sun acts as an aether antenna and converts the aether to electricity.
* I saw that you also say light produces everything from the centers of galaxies. Brant says light is massless charge aether until it decelerates, when it becomes photons. Kanarev says photons have mass. Brant's ideas are partly from Aetherometry, maybe you know.
* In these first images you posted on this thread -
http://www.radartutorial.eu/08.transmitters/pic/mag06.gif
http://psp.tephras.com/vector/shapes/SunSymbols.gif
Image
Image - you show a solar antenna [?] diagram and ancient images of the Sun. Notice that that would be polar views of the Sun. The ancient Sun was Saturn, which was seen from its south pole.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Thu May 19, 2011 11:22 am

Hi Lloyd,
I have been looking at Brant's model, and (of course!) I still like mine more.
I'm not saying mine is correct, and hopefully there will, in my lifetime, be
developed some way to see the true structure. It is Electromagnetic at heart,
I believe, and any fusion ocuring is the result of those EM energies, rather
than a gravity/fusion core model producing EM through some dynamo mechanism.
I still think the pinch is the primary energy source, and what is happening at
the very center of the pinch is the crux of it all. The magnetic light idea
fits in with the Kabbalahs model, but there is something beyond our understanding
(or mine anyway), that I had seen as a vacuum spark, but that is perhaps a crude
oversimplification.
Is this central event the interface between the metaphysical and the physical?
I would like to believe in the idea of the One, the sum total of all knowledge,
expressing itself through the pinch, but the Mechanist in me still thinks it
might just be a machine, one releasing the etheric energies and simply 'flowering'
following principles yet to be discovered.

Re:NASA: Free Floating Planets.( viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4609 )
Perhaps as the instruments get more sensitive, we will find that
most of the objects out there are planets, planetoids, and various
size irregulars. Is that Katirai I hear, having a giggle from
the astral plane?
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu May 19, 2011 12:00 pm

Gary, it seems pretty certain that matter, space, time, energy etc all consist of consciousness and the most important kind of consciousness is caring. That's why we care about all this stuff. Si?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Mon May 23, 2011 10:04 pm

Gary, it seems pretty certain that matter, space, time, energy etc all consist of consciousness and the most important kind of consciousness is caring.


I'm still thinking about that, Lloyd. The Universe seems to be indifferent.
-------
How do they do that? They manage to see through the light of thousands of stars,
to the center of Alpha Centauri, and detect the motion of individual Suns, orbiting
a black hole like planets orbiting a Sun. Amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUGdgiG- ... re=related
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed May 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Gary said: I'm still thinking about that, Lloyd. The Universe seems to be indifferent.

* It seems indifferent to some people some of the time.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu May 26, 2011 6:43 pm

Me;
I know, you said EM Sun, but your investigations say otherwise.


GaryN wrote;
I'm not following you here Frank, can you clarify please?


Well, never mind.
I was being frustrated at how little I understand about Astronomy. I am reading Katirai's book for the third time. I still see a lot of problems with it.
But as a wise moderator said, (recently on this forum) something about not pitching the baby out with the bath water. So I have found more Patience and energy to push forward.

Also thanks to David Talbott's last Live Web cast. He gave me a real tool, talking about points of confidence concerning his theory. To focus and establish them. Or something so cool like that. 8-)
It made an admonition of JJohnson about rigorous logic sink in a little more. ( a long way from both of those, just trying not to pitch the baby out at this point.) :lol:

So I apologize for my rant or rants. :oops:

But the obvious finally occurred to me (Dah!), your not a Katirai purest. :o

It seemed to me, he forthrightly admits constraint. He knows his sun must be more dense and more massive to accommodate all the extra matter within its gravitational influence. So he proposes the mass and density of the Sun is wrong. He goes with a dense radioactive core. I think you reject this aspect of the model.

Also what really surprises me, he never mentions the need for Starlight to be amplified in our atmosphere (if you know where I missed it let me know). I guess you saw this as a flaw in the model and corrected it.

Also a question I have, as the Oort cloud is calculated well beyond the Sun's heleopause, which is where I would think the Sun's electric influence ends. Yet you propose an electrostatic equilibrium of a sort? I suppose, so as to accept the Suns current calculated mass and density ?

Why would Katirai's Oort galaxy have a heleopause to begin with ? Or a why would there be any kind of bow shock or dual layer? Sense there are no external galactic disk for a plasma to accelerate from.

Are there not more than one G2V class stars in our galaxy and does not Katirai's concept allow only one per Oort Galaxy? I haven't finnished my third reading and actually started over half way through, because I went into autopilot. I wasn't retaining much, because I kept getting sidetracked on nagging questions.

I think you have gone so far afield with his model, you need to refer to your own.
As an example ;
There is Plasma Cosmology and then there is EU.

I think we should have a contest for your version of Katirai's Oort Cloud Galaxy. The winner gets 5 gold stars and a get out jail free card when the Mod's are sending me (Oops, I mean anyone) a nasty gram! ;)

My first try; Electric Oort Stars or EOS. 8-)
It will look suspicious if I win on the first try, so I have allready prepared for rejection. :)

Thanks
Frank
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu May 26, 2011 7:06 pm

Electric Oort Stars


You know if you say it 5 times fast, it comes out sounding like electric oysters. Or is it just me?
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Mon May 30, 2011 12:28 pm

Hi Frank,
I'd have to look at the Katirai book again to see where I departed from his
ideas. I know he did not mention anything to do with an EU model, that was my,
what I thought then, logical extension of his proposals. I don't think he
included an Oort sphere, just the clusters having a single star in the middle.
The first thing I did after a quick read was to look into the distance issue,
and some of the BAUT members filled me in on the standard methods, but I am
not convinced. The cosmic ladder looks very shaky, and it is at rung 7 where I
believe the big problems start, where they use color to infer absolute brightness,
and using that brightness to calculate distance. The color I believe is more to do with
fluorescence of the elements around a planet, and that is where I fall off the ladder.
The Cepheids of rung 8 are not IMO, what they think they are, and they are so bright
because they are closer than assumed. Then you are on to supernovas, which again are not
what they think they are, and then red shift, which I discount totally.
Even nearer distances could be off, if it is found that numerous plasma bubbles
exist around the solar system, or the Oort cloud, or anywhere between us and the
target. Plasma lensing is an accepted phenomena in radio astronomy too, though I
think there are probably other variables that may affect the light more, and
differently, than so far proposed. We don't know the diversity of the electrical
phenomena out there.
Plasma Theory of 'Gravitational Lensing' of Light
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/lensing.htm
Then there are effects at plasma or dielectric boundary layers, and a lot of other
stuff that gets beyond my comprehension, but makes me wonder how it affects all
the large distance calculations at optical or radio frequencies.
So, I will not discount Katirai and his distance questions just now.
I think radio astronomy is going to be the method that will prove or
disprove the Katirai model. The EVLA is beginning observations that
should be able to tell us if an object is a star or a planet. Some
previous work is already making me wonder.
An image of the Sun, clearly showing, in my interpretation, the dual
internal tori.
Image
So can we see 'sunspots' on Alpha Centauri, or any other star? I'm hoping
the EVLA can answer that one.
https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/evla/index
The surprising magnetic field of a red dwarf.(20 LY distant) Almost looks like the Earth field.
Image
However, the result obtained was not what the researchers were expecting. Whereas existing models predict that the chaotic motion of matter inside the star (which is able to carry away the energy produced in its center) should form a complex magnetic field with little organized structure, the structure of the magnetic field of this star appears to be as straightforward as that of a bar magnet.

Maybe it is not a Sun?
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:15 pm

GaryN wrote;
I'd have to look at the Katirai book again to see where I departed from his
ideas. I know he did not mention anything to do with an EU model, that was my,
what I thought then, logical extension of his proposals.


I agree,no mention of EU in Revolution in Astronomy.

I don't agree, that its any kind of a logical extension of EU. Maybe GaryN EM concept, but not EU;
I wrote;
Also a question I have, as the Oort cloud is calculated well beyond the Sun's heleopause, which is where I would think the Sun's electric influence ends. Yet you propose an electrostatic equilibrium of a sort? I suppose, so as to accept the Suns current calculated mass and density ?

And.
Why would Katirai's Oort galaxy , have a heleopause to begin with ? Or a why would there be any kind of bow shock or dual layer? Sense there are no external galactic disk for a plasma to accelerate from.


And also now for clarification,or your Oort sphere also?




GaryN wrote;
I don't think he
included an Oort sphere, just the clusters having a single star in the middle.



You got this all wrong;
Katirai says clusters are forming planets inside the orbit of Pluto.
Also galaxy disk are a single star .
All the examples in his book were galaxy disk;
Chapter 11 Page 65
Galaxies are Planetary Systems

example galaxy's ;
Fig. 1 NGC 5746, Edge on spiral galaxy.

M63, Spiral Galaxy in Canes Venatici.
Fig. 4

M88, Spiral Galaxy in Coma Berenices. Credit Robert Gendler
Fig. 3

NGC 2683, Spiral Galaxy in Lynx. Credit: Robert Gendler
Fig. 2
M99, Spiral Galaxy in Coma Berenices.

Galaxy Group HCG 87 Credit: GMOS-S Commissioning Team, Gemini Observatory
Fig. 6
Credit: FORSI, 8.2-Meter VLT, ESO
“A Peculiar Cluster of Galaxies”
Fig. 7
The Centre of a Galaxy has Only One Star Instead of Millions
of Stars.



GaryN wrote;
I don't think he
included an Oort sphere, just the clusters having a single star in the middle.


No. I didn't intend to infer Katirai's book used a sphere in anyway. Only your theory utilizes a Oort Sphere structure. Which has no explanation in Katirai's concepts or EU theory (Thunderbolts project genre) .

I wish you would stop associating your EM universe NIMI, with the Thunderbolts project, EU. Its bad form to intensionally confuse their theory with your speculations IMO.


Reason fore edit, realized I had altered my original quote and made it accurate.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests