The Boring Sun

[fosborn_]

I understand the words, "Atmospheric light Transformer model" and agree that is occurring, but don't understand how as much.

Don't worry, nobody does!
Miles Mathis looks at the number of explanations offered jusy for why the sky is blue.
http://milesmathis.com/sky.html
He is correct that it is not because of scattered sunlight, and if there is no visible light coming from the Sun, meaning it is not visible from cislunar space, then it can not be scattered Sunlight. The processes going on in our atmosphere are numerous and complex, so as well as fluorescence there can be chemiluminescence.

You write as if Miles Mathis charge field and spin theory is compatible with your transformer theory. His model has star light in it. yours doesn't. There is no agreement between your thinking and his, as he indicated in correspondence with you some time back if I remember correctly. Yet here, you seem to be blurring that issue. You should make it clearer where his thinking ends and yours begins..

Frank
Luna 3 using a 200mm lens at 50,000km onto 35 mm aerial-reconnaissance film (obtained from American spy balloons...

GaryN..That would have been the 2485, Hawkeye film. Just incredible specifications,

Thats pure fiction on your part. There is nothing to indicate that is the film, It wasn't even in use at that time...

[fosborn_]

It's seems in using Miles Mathis, you use a theory that falsifies your own. That's funny.

[GaryN]

You write as if Miles Mathis charge field and spin theory is compatible with your transformer theory.

No, I don't agree much with Miles at all, but was using his paper to show just how many proposals there were for the reason the sky is blue. Miles believed that the stars would be visible in space, but that the atmosphere diffused the starlight, making them more visible to us on the surface.

Thats pure fiction on your part. There is nothing to indicate that is the film, It wasn't even in use at that time.

Not pure fiction I don't think. From what I gather the film that was released to the public as the 2485 had been used during WW2 by the military, and only when they had crafted even better ones was it made available.

[fosborn_]

Not pure fiction I don't think. From what I gather the film that was released to the public as the 2485 had been used during WW2 by the military, and only when they had crafted even better ones was it made available.
User avatar
GaryN

Posts: 2509
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Sorry till you can show otherwise, still your speculation..

Miles believed that the stars would be visible in space, but that the atmosphere diffused the starlight, making them more visible to us on the surface.

This I find much closer to some sort of reality..
http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html

[moses]

<Miles believed that the stars would be visible in space, but that the atmosphere diffused the starlight, making them more visible to us on the surface. GaryN>

Whereas I say the atmosphere bends the light from stars, making them more visible to us.
Cheers,
Mo

[GaryN]

This I find much closer to some sort of reality..
http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html

I really can't thank you enough for linking to that paper Frank. It's been a while since I paid any attention to what Miles has been saying, but on re-reading it now, I think I have had an epiphany. Either that or I have totally 'lost it'.

It's going to take me a while to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, but I feel confident they are all going to fall into place. When it's done, I'll contact Miles with what I think is probably the only real solution to it all, and should help reconcile any differences between his model and that of the Electric Sun proponents. Miles has seen the solution, just not recognised it, when he points out just how Light the sun is. And I don't mean by density, but by the Gamma-ray producing vacuum arc and the charge produced by way of two photon physics. He can recycle it however he likes.

I'll post an outline when I feel it is coherent, but could take a while, as I'll likely have to look through junglelord's posts all over again.
If I am correct, then the declining magnetic field of the Sun is due to the dual magnetic vortices moving towards equilibrium. The field we have now is due to the difference between the magnetic fields of the vortices, the underlying fields are hugely larger. We may be moving into a period such as began in the 1560s and lasted 'till 1610, and we may see the signs in the Heavens as they did then, and experience the cold, wet and wild weather that likely inspired Shakespear's "The Tempest". With the magnetic field in equilibrium, the least we may have to be concerned with would be the cold and wet induced by cosmic rays seeding clouds and cooling the Earth, the worst, well, I daren't think it.

1560-1610: Major advances by all glaciers. Hmm...

[kevin]

This I find much closer to some sort of reality..
http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html

I really can't thank you enough for linking to that paper Frank. It's been a while since I paid any attention to what Miles has been saying, but on re-reading it now, I think I have had an epiphany. Either that or I have totally 'lost it'.

It's going to take me a while to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, but I feel confident they are all going to fall into place. When it's done, I'll contact Miles with what I think is probably the only real solution to it all, and should help reconcile any differences between his model and that of the Electric Sun proponents. Miles has seen the solution, just not recognised it, when he points out just how Light the sun is. And I don't mean by density, but by the Gamma-ray producing vacuum arc and the charge produced by way of two photon physics. He can recycle it however he likes.

I'll post an outline when I feel it is coherent, but could take a while, as I'll likely have to look through junglelord's posts all over again.
If I am correct, then the declining magnetic field of the Sun is due to the dual magnetic vortices moving towards equilibrium. The field we have now is due to the difference between the magnetic fields of the vortices, the underlying fields are hugely larger. We may be moving into a period such as began in the 1560s and lasted 'till 1610, and we may see the signs in the Heavens as they did then, and experience the cold, wet and wild weather that likely inspired Shakespear's "The Tempest". With the magnetic field in equilibrium, the least we may have to be concerned with would be the cold and wet induced by cosmic rays seeding clouds and cooling the Earth, the worst, well, I daren't think it.

1560-1610: Major advances by all glaciers. Hmm...

Ouroboros,
The duality is of spin of 720 degree, the outside and inside of the spherical chase.
The sun (plasma pinch point) is a consequence of larger scale self similar, it will vary relative to inputs and outputs universally .
The planets will have been that plasma pinch point once, as the mass is created in that pinch point as compressed memory.
Then the son of the sun will appear next to the darkening present sun as a new pinch point forms near by and a new planet will appear.

There is no force called gravity, stop falling for including it, it's a local consequence of the duality creating a net inrush into creation.
In our case 55/34, it's all Fibonacci based.
Kevin

[fosborn_]

GaryN..I really can't thank you enough for linking to that paper Frank. It's been a while since I paid any attention to what Miles has been saying, but on re-reading it now, I think I have had an epiphany. Either that or I have totally 'lost it'.

Glad to help kickstart some nurons..enjoy the journey.

[GaryN]

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive! - Walter Scott

Before contacting Miles Mathis I did a little research on him, and on what other people thought about him. From brilliant analytical thinker to absolute delusional crackpot. I certainly believe he has managed to show the errors and inconsistencies and even outright fraud put forth by the mainstream sources on some topics.
This one I did have to agree with, pretty well in its entirety.
The Wiki-Mandarins
http://mileswmathis.com/wiki.html
I kept my inquiry to him short and to the point, referred him to Websters theory, pointed out the lack of a decent photograph of even our own Sun from outside of Earths atmosphere, and asked if he thought Websters theory tenable, considering the accepted science involving attenuation, starting with Gamma-rays and working on down through the various processes known to exist and that result in the eventual reducing of the energies to microwave noise. With the conservation of energy law, the Gamma-ray energy can never just disappear, little packets of high energy end up as large amounts of low energy.
His prompt and brief reply was that the name Webster is a red flag, and that they were one of the families. Otherwise he was not currently that interested in this problem.

Non-commital as to the validity of an ALT model, a safe move given that he really would be in for some abuse were he ever to even hint of the possibility of our Sun not being visible from clear space.
Not currently that interested. I'll take that as a positive, perhaps in time he will be more interested, and I believe that if he is really the great thinker and questioner of authority that he professes to be, that the seed of the idea may eventually grow. This I think is how epiphanies come about. When we have learned though various means for a sufficient time, the knowledge, even though we may not be conscious of it happening, is being processed in many and complex ways, and eventually there is reached a synergetic threshold, the whole 'picture' becomes greater than the sum of all the individual pieces or pixelspixels of the accumulated information and knowledge.

Along the way, I came by some youtube videos that show some of the explanations that the mainstream uses to answer certain questions about what is happening out there.

Why Is Space Black?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS18GPk1LYo
What this does is confirm Hubbles expanding universe theory. And Penzias and Wilson, what a joke. ALT to the rescue!.

What does Space really look like?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYSZRaBCHzA

Andromeda is not visible from outside of Earths atmosphere. Detectable in the UV though. Think ALT
Looked at another way, the supposed stars visible to us from within our local bubble are so far away, even the closest ones, are seen by Hubble as just one pixel, though they really take up much less than one pixel when you consider their (conventional) size and the field of view of Hubble. We see stars from Earth, even though they are well below the limits of detection, let alone resolution, by the human eye. We see them because of their intensity. But, if there is visible light coming from this point source, then by another reasoning, the wavefront of those stars would be flat, planar, by the time they reach Earth, and it would not be possible for our eyes to focus the light in order that it excites a rod or cone and trigger the vision circuits of the brain. Even the wavefronts from our Sun would have a large enough radius to be considered flat at Earths distance, and therefore non-focusable to our eyes.

Where Invisible Light In Space Comes From
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cww8nSLNl2M

From dark matter, of course! ALT has a different solution.

So, maybe I am every bit as crazy as Miles appears to others, and everyone else to everyone else whos ideas and beliefs clash. I'm with Kevin here, "to Me it's water off a ducks back, as I am quackers to most."
But only empirical science is ever going to convince me I am the quackers one.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. Thomas Jefferson

[fosborn_]

GaryN..I kept my inquiry to him short and to the point, referred him to Websters theory, pointed out the lack of a decent photograph of even our own Sun from outside of Earths atmosphere, and asked if he thought Websters theory tenable.
His prompt andbrief reply was that the name Webster is a red flag...
he was not currently that interested in this problem.

The only needed information,, IMO
If you as you have said your ALT would be a revolution in astronomy( paraphrase...), I don't think Miles is on the same page.

[moses]

<We see stars from Earth, even though they are well below the limits of detection, let alone resolution, by the human eye. We see them because of their intensity. But, if there is visible light coming from this point source, then by another reasoning, the wavefront of those stars would be flat, planar, by the time they reach Earth, and it would not be possible for our eyes to focus the light in order that it excites a rod or cone and trigger the vision circuits of the brain. GaryN>

Do we see a star by a quite intense excitation of a very small area of the retina, or by a smaller intensity spread over a much greater area of the retina. Focus does not come into it. All focus does is determine which part of the retina the light will hit, not the size of the area the light will hit.

Light coming in as a flat wave will still impact the retina. Thus visible, but maybe fuzzy. This statement of yours needs a tremendous amount of explanation. Maybe a reference to someone else who thinks flat waves cannot be seen.

Cheers,
Mo

[Cargo]

I asked my 12yr today, while walking to sports practice with the low after dinner Sun bathing us face on in incredible light, "Do you know out in Space you can barely see the Sun?"

The quick reply was along the lines of, Yes. It only spreads out and looks so big because of our atmosphere.

I thought that was very good. There's always hope.

[GaryN]

This statement of yours needs a tremendous amount of explanation.

The suns radiation travelling through the vacuum, if indeed it does travel, is what needs explaining. The 3 accepted models of light do not fully explain it, IMO.
Three models of light
http://umdberg.pbworks.com/w/page/52122 ... of%20light

There are other models of how the energy from the Sun might be be transferred to the atmospheres of planetary bodies, and also other models of what the photon and electron are, some going back many years. Oahspe stated "that which is called light is polarity of corporeal needles in solution, caused by the lines of vortexya."
From:
http://www.studyofoahspe.com/id17.html
This is similar to how Ouspensky described it in his New Model of the Universe, but his decription of light is as of an electron transformed into quanta, but that electrons are not, in our reality, a permanent thing.
So I can not explain the invisibility of the Sun in space, but only come to the conclusion that it is the interaction of its radiation with matter that leads to the creation of the type of light that we can detect or sense with our eyes.

Cargo:

The quick reply was along the lines of, Yes. It only spreads out and looks so big because of our atmosphere.

Which is true, their is diffusion involved lower in the atmosphere, but if your youngster had told the teacher that the Sun was not visible at all from space?

Here is just another example of the misinformation from the experts, the atmosphere of Titan.

Titan's Strange Atmosphere
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007 ... sphere.htm
The image supposedly shows the Sunlight being scattered in the atmosphere, but actually this image is not from a camera showing the colours, but from the spectral instrument in its airglow mode, and composed of 'images' taken using the methane and nitrogen filters, the light being a fluorescence of the molecules. The evident banding in the nitrogen will be due to the electrical charge state of the layers of nitrogen. Would there be sufficient intensity of light to be seen by eye or with my old Kodachrome 64 perhaps? We'll never know. And Titan, like most objects, will have a hydrogen halo, so how far out does the transformation of solar radiation to light begin?

[moses]

Gary,
what about the planar wave? You more or less said that a planar wave would be not visible to us.

And of course we cannot see the Sun from space because we would always have to look at it through some medium. And the medium may change the light in a fundamental way. Or the medium may bend the light.

The visibility of stars is very much dependent upon the medium. However mainstream science cannot handle anything but the light coming straight from a star without modification. If the light gets bent then the straights are wrong, and the distances are all wrong.

Cheers,
Mo

[fosborn_]

SOLAR IRRADIANCE
Irradiance is the amount of light energy from one thing hitting a square meter of another each second. Photons that carry this energy have wavelengths from energetic X-rays and gamma rays to visible light to the infrared and radio. It can be measured for any glowing object, including stars, the Moon, and the overly bright high beams of an oncoming car...
The solar irradiance is the output of light energy from the entire disk of the Sun, measured at the Earth. It is looking at the Sun as we would a star rather than as a image.

The solar spectral irradiance is a measure of the brightness of the entire Sun at a wavelength of light. Important spectral irradiance variations are seen in many wavelengths, from the visible and IR, through the UV, to EUV and X-ray. As we look at the solar irradiance we should remember that space weather is related to ionization, while climate is related to absorption of

FUV and EUV varies 30% and 100% per solar cycle. If that is what is creating an image of the sun in our atmosphere, it would dim and brighten considerably.