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 » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:47 pm

Hi Nick,
This is an incorrect statement. The Electric Sun model does not "get rid of fusion altogether!"
While, it does get rid of fusion at the core of the Sun as a result of gravitational compression, fusion is taking place in the atmosphere of the Sun.

From my reading, he is talking about the fusion from the heat of gravitational pressure,
and not the surface fusion.

probably produced by fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).


Why "other than hydrogen and helium"? I don't see an explanation for the origin
of hydrogen on the electric-cosmos site. My model has the Sun producing everything,
is the Creator, as told to us by the Ancients before the misappropriation of the term
by the churches. Thats how I see it anyway.
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 nick c » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:16 am

hi GaryN,
From my reading, he is talking about the fusion from the heat of gravitational pressure,
and not the surface fusion.
That is correct. But Mathis is using a strawman argument when he says that the Electric Star model:
Now, the electrical Sun people will say, "Right, so get rid of fusion altogether!" But I happen to think we have some pretty strong evidence for fusion. Neither the mainstream fusion theorists nor the electrical Sun people can explain all the phenomena we see,
It is a strawman because the electric star hypothesis does not "get rid of fusion altogether!" as Mathis has directly stated. "Altogether" means that Mathis is saying that Scott, Thornhill, et al. are excluding fusion, well...altogether. That is simply an incorrect statement. I think that this oversight by Mathis shows that he has not actually paid too much attention to the electric sun model. If the neutrinos detected are explained by fusion on the surface, there is no need for fusion at the core. In fact, we do not know too much about the interior of the Sun or what if anything is going on there. In any event, fusion does take place in the electric sun model and the evidence for fusion (neutrinos) does not preclude the electric sun model. In fact the quantity of neurtrinos detected falls far short of the amount required by a fusion powered Sun.
Also, imhop, between Bruce, Juergens, Thornhill, and Scott we are moving in the right direction to explaining not only the phenomena seen on the Sun but also, that which is being observed on other types of stars, because in essence the 'electric sun' model is really the 'electric star' model. Of course, it is a work still in progress.

GaryN wrote:Why "other than hydrogen and helium"? I don't see an explanation for the origin
of hydrogen on the electric-cosmos site. My model has the Sun producing everything,
is the Creator, as told to us by the Ancients before the misappropriation of the term
by the churches. Thats how I see it anyway.
Well my guess is that hydrogen and helium are not included because they were probably the main constituents (ionized to some degree) of the original molecular cloud from which the Sun was formed (in a z pinch.) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... ation.html
As far as the origin of Hydrogen goes....that is basically a question about the creation of the universe, and is beyond the scope of the EU at this time. [There does not exist any data, information, observations, experiment, etc to show that matter (or the universe) can be created 'ex nihilo.' As I see it the branch of myth labeled as 'creation' stories are not that at all. They are not stories of the creation of the universe, but rather, deal with events that the ancients observed in the sky.]

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2447
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:29 pm

Nick,
There does not exist any data, information, observations, experiment, etc to show that matter (or the universe) can be created 'ex nihilo.


No, I don't think we will ever be able to figure out how it all started,
but matter is not created ex nihilo, it is just part of a never ending
cycle of converting energy from one form to another, not out of nothing.
If the creation of hydrogen is "outside the scope of the EU at this time",
then you need to move over to the EM Universe, creating hydrogen is easy!
Image
The cosmic womb of our scalar EM monopole Mother births another few billion
tons of the seed of life. The radiant energy of the Father aspect will
shape the seed to fulfill His purpose.
Sounding pretty romantic there, for a Mechanist. ;-)
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 allynh » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:03 pm

Since Thursday I have been in a nonstop fugue trying to answer a question. Each possible answer led to another series of questions. At the end of each day I had many browser windows open with dozens of tabs each. I simply put my iMac into sleep mode to try and resolve the issue the next day. The next day I got further along the chain with even more windows/tabs open at the end of that day. This morning I checked the Forum to see the latest posts, read the exchange above, and something popped.

I'm like the Butterball Turkey with the popup indicator that shows when it is fully cooked or "done".

I'm "done", my brain is cooked.

I had a cookie and read through _Einstein's Last Question_. In the paper, they keep referring to "space".
He wrote: What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances).

Substitute the word "aether" for "space" and you have what I'm talking about when I say that everything is Fluid Mechanics. Everything, all particles, etc.., are the aether itself taking on the appearance of the various particles. Everything is aether in its many forms.
w/space wrote:In 1950, Einstein [4] thought about the mechanism of the transmission of force from one particle to another and concluded that space must possess a property that extends throughout space to connect particles.

w/aether wrote:In 1950, Einstein [4] thought about the mechanism of the transmission of force from one particle to another and concluded that aether must possess a property that extends throughout aether to connect particles.

w/space wrote:We will see below that ordinary space fulfills this role as the wave medium of the Universe.

w/aether wrote:We will see below that ordinary aether fulfills this role as the wave medium of the Universe.

w/space wrote:These leading scientists above had concluded that the logical structure of matter is quantum waves in space.

w/aether wrote:These leading scientists above had concluded that the logical structure of matter is quantum waves in aether.

The substitution works, because they never defined space. Ha!

That means in the conclusion you have:
w/space wrote:Unity of the Universe. The wave medium - the space around us - is the ONE source of matter and the natural laws. Since the waves of each particle are inter-mingled with the waves of other matter and all contribute to the density of the medium, it follows that every charged particle is part of the universe and the universe is part of each charged particle.

w/aether wrote:Unity of the Universe. The wave medium - the aether around us - is the ONE source of matter and the natural laws. Since the waves of each particle are inter-mingled with the waves of other matter and all contribute to the density of the medium, it follows that every charged particle is part of the universe and the universe is part of each charged particle.

Here are some Wolfram Demonstration pages to look at. I searched on the phrase "electron orbitals". Just download the free Mathematica Player so you can download and run the demonstrations.

Visualizing Atomic Orbitals
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Visua ... cOrbitals/
popup_4.jpg

Atomic orbitals show the electron density for an electron of a given energy. Plotting these electron densities in three dimensions gives the shapes representing the various atomic orbitals. The subset of atomic orbitals visualized are 1s, 2p, 3d and 4f.

Linear Combinations of p Orbitals
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Linea ... POrbitals/
popup_p.jpg

The real forms of atomic orbitals are constructed by taking appropriate linear combinations of the complex forms of these orbitals. The one-electron wavefunctions resulting from the solution of the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom are complex functions except when . Boundary surface pictures of atomic orbitals typically only show the real part of these complex functions and often leave out the sign information as well. Here, boundary surfaces of the orbitals are drawn with coloring to indicate the real and imaginary components as well as the positive and negative signs. These color-coded atomic orbitals illustrate the linear combinations of the complex wavefunctions that produce the familiar and orbitals.

Linear Combinations of d Orbitals
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Linea ... DOrbitals/
popup_d.jpg

Chemistry students encountering atomic orbitals for the first time often wonder why the orbital looks so different from the others. The answer is related to the fact that boundary surface pictures of atomic orbitals typically show only the real part of these complex functions and often leave out the sign information as well. The one-electron wavefunctions resulting from the solution of the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom are complex functions except when . The real forms of atomic orbitals can be constructed by taking appropriate linear combinations of the complex forms. Here, boundary surfaces of the orbitals are colored to indicate the real and imaginary components as well as the positive and negative signs. These color-coded atomic orbitals illustrate the linear combinations of the complex wavefunctions that result in the familiar four-lobe pictures.

Linear Combinations of f Orbitals
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Linea ... FOrbitals/
popup_f.jpg

It is less common to find the atomic orbitals illustrated in chemistry textbooks than the , , and orbitals. Boundary surface pictures of any of these atomic orbitals typically only show the real part of these complex functions and often leave out the sign information as well. The one-electron wavefunctions resulting from the solution of the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom are complex functions except when . The real forms of atomic orbitals can be constructed by taking appropriate linear combinations of the complex forms. Here, boundary surfaces of the orbitals are colored to indicate the real and imaginary components as well as the positive and negative signs.

Hydrogen Orbitals
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/HydrogenOrbitals/
popup_h.jpg

Equiprobability surfaces for hydrogen orbitals correspond to the wavefunctions . Here is the principal quantum number, is the total angular momentum quantum number, and is the magnetic quantum number. Hydrogen orbitals are covered in a first-year quantum mechanics course. The pictures presented are typically ambiguous in what they display. The proper way is to show equiprobability surfaces.

Polar Plots of Legendre Polynomials
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Polar ... lynomials/
popup_2.jpg

Legendre polynomials are solutions to the Legendre differential equation, which is a form of Laplace's equation in spherical coordinates. These forms commonly occur in antenna patterns and electron orbitals, among others.

I think what you are saying is that the sun has shells the way an atom has electron shells. That in effect the concept of electron shells "scale up" to planetary, star, galactic size. Am I right, or do I need to have another cookie.
allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:47 pm

Hi allynh,
Each possible answer led to another series of questions. At the end of each day I had many browser windows open with dozens of tabs each.

I was in a very similar situation a few days ago, when an unanticipated family
event knocked me for a loop, and I totally 'lost the thread'. Not sure if I will
regain it any time soon, but it involved electron self-interaction, which kept
Feynman busy for a good long while, quantum numbers and electron configurations,
I thought I had had a revelation, but for the moment it is lost. Most of my
insights come through meditation it seems, but at the moment they are not 'clean'.
I think what you are saying is that the sun has shells the way an atom has electron shells. That in effect the concept of electron shells "scale up" to planetary, star, galactic size. Am I right, or do I need to have another cookie.

In my model of the Sun, the DL shells are the result of the colliding wave-fronts
of the scalar EM in-out waves, as in the electron model.
Image
The charge confining double layers are the strongest at the center, allowing for
creation of the heavier nuclei, and emission of the higher energy particles when
the DL limits are exceeded. Hope I am making some kind of sense, or at least some
decent nonsense!
I have been finding a little solace in some of the ideas at this site, though they
make no mention of an EU explanation for the existence and configuration of the
Universe.
All things are one, derived from the same single original source, inextricably interconnected non-locally throughout the entire universe;

All things are aspects of one grand unified whole, joined energetically at the quantum level, woven together through resonant energy connections within an underlying enfolded realm known as the zero-point field;
....
The universe is essentially isomorphic, or in the words of the ancient mystics, “as above, so below”. In a universe that is interconnected and interdependent, where all things belong to a grand unified whole, quite literally then, “what one does to others, one does to oneself.”


http://www.quantrek.org/philosophy/philosophy.htm
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 allynh » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:30 am

GaryN wrote:In my model of the Sun, the DL shells are the result of the colliding wave-fronts of the scalar EM in-out waves, as in the electron model.

The charge confining double layers are the strongest at the center, allowing for creation of the heavier nuclei, and emission of the higher energy particles when the DL limits are exceeded. Hope I am making some kind of sense, or at least some decent nonsense!

You are describing an atom. Neat.

I tracked down a bunch of links about the EM Universe, and books. I'll know more when I've read the books, and all of the harvested web pages, but essentially the concept would explain transmutation at all scales, from the atom on up. That is deeply scary. Ha!

Oh, that's neat. I met Dr. Mitchell when I was a kid. He was doing a photo op/meet-and-greet with the kids of the local TB Association. I'll have to work through the site and see what they are talking about.

Thanks...
allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:15 pm

I 'd been reading some of JLs past posts, and as he had said on numerous occasions:
ONLY longitudinal waves travel in a vacuum.

So, in that case, I thought, it should not be possible to see the stars
when you are in space, or on the moon or other body with no atmosphere,
without the use of a diffraction grating. Is my thinking correct?
So I have been looking, and can find no images of the stars taken by
the Apollo astronauts or moon landing teams with their Hasselblads.
Did none of them think to point their cameras upwards?
When the lunar surface images showing no stars in the background are
discussed, it is said to be because the stars are 'washed out' because of
the brightness of the Lunar surface, and the exposure settings required, but
the Lunar albedo is only .07, not very reflective at all. And no atmosphere
to diffuse that light.
Is there something strange here, or is it me that's strange? :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 CTJG 1986 » Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:48 pm

GaryN wrote:I 'd been reading some of JLs past posts, and as he had said on numerous occasions:
ONLY longitudinal waves travel in a vacuum.

So, in that case, I thought, it should not be possible to see the stars
when you are in space, or on the moon or other body with no atmosphere,
without the use of a diffraction grating. Is my thinking correct?
So I have been looking, and can find no images of the stars taken by
the Apollo astronauts or moon landing teams with their Hasselblads.
Did none of them think to point their cameras upwards?
When the lunar surface images showing no stars in the background are
discussed, it is said to be because the stars are 'washed out' because of
the brightness of the Lunar surface, and the exposure settings required, but
the Lunar albedo is only .07, not very reflective at all. And no atmosphere
to diffuse that light.
Is there something strange here, or is it me that's strange? :D


I do not think it is you who is strange although I do think you are off a little bit(very slightly) in this line of thinking. :)

Longitudinal waves are a dielectric phenomena not an electromagnetic phenomena.

Longitudinal waves travel through a vacuum because they travel through 'flux tubes' or 'field lines' in which the core(the tube part) is empty space, since these waves meet no resistance they can reach potentially unlimited velocities of propagation.

[See my last post in the 'alignment with black hole' thread down below here for a bit more on the 'flux tubes'.]

EM waves are transverse electrical waves that instead of "flowing" through the vacuum of the 'flux tubes' traverse those 'flux tubes' perpendicularly and travel through the electrons rather than the empty vacuum space.

Those electrons offer resistance to the transverse electrical waves and this places stress on the 'flux tubes' creating torsion, and it is this torsion that we know as magnetic energy.

My point to be made is that perhaps the light itself is dielectric and travels longitudinally but it is the magnetic torsion and the resulting EMF around a cosmic body such as Earth that acts as a diffraction grating for that light energy allowing it to manifest in the visible spectrum due to the disturbance of those 'flux tubes'. So a body with no discernible atmosphere but which is encompassed by an EMF could possibly still allow for this diffraction.

Though one could argue that a lack of EMF would prevent an atmosphere and thus EMF's and atmospheres go hand in hand, but I personally do not hold that an EMF is necessary for an atmosphere as it is the base electrical energy that allows that, magnetic energy being just one of it's manifest forces.

Maybe it really is that simple, but then again maybe I am just even stranger than you... which is a definite possibility. :D

Jonny

Edit: For clarification purposes when I have used the term 'field line' I actually should probably have used the term 'line of force' as Dollard and others prefer, but I refer to the same thing regardless.
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 Feb 14, 2011 4:38 pm

Thanks jonny, always good to see some 'spiced up' thinking!

Re: your post from upstairs viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4132&start=15#p47416

Again, this is not in any way endorsed by the official EU TB theorists to my knowledge and I only mention it here as it does tie into the official theories somewhat, but ultimately I am just throwing out some ideas as the discussion around here has been a bit stifled since Nereid and 'Physicist' have showed up. [Edit: in fairness that also probably has a great deal to do with JL's passing as well.]

Spice things up a little.


Agreed, JL certainly added spice, and I am still refer back to many
of his posts in my efforts to gain insight into the bigger picture.
The accepted models are missing something that would tie together a lot of
loose ends in many disciplines, I feel. I would never say the the SM
practitioners are not intelligent or knowledgeable or not open to new
ideas, just seeming somehow 'flat'.
After reading your posts, I just googled longitudinal magnetic tube
(I'd been thinking about an electron (stretched?) in a one electron diameter
tube) and almost wish I hadn't, though there may be something of interest
for Charles and his solar models. Somehow I got directed to
Relativity versus the longitudinal magnetic field of the photon.
I think I'm going to turn my computer off and take up flower arranging. ;-)
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 CTJG 1986 » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:14 pm

GaryN wrote:Thanks jonny, always good to see some 'spiced up' thinking!

Re: your post from upstairs viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4132&start=15#p47416

Again, this is not in any way endorsed by the official EU TB theorists to my knowledge and I only mention it here as it does tie into the official theories somewhat, but ultimately I am just throwing out some ideas as the discussion around here has been a bit stifled since Nereid and 'Physicist' have showed up. [Edit: in fairness that also probably has a great deal to do with JL's passing as well.]

Spice things up a little.


Agreed, JL certainly added spice, and I am still refer back to many
of his posts in my efforts to gain insight into the bigger picture.
The accepted models are missing something that would tie together a lot of
loose ends in many disciplines, I feel. I would never say the the SM
practitioners are not intelligent or knowledgeable or not open to new
ideas, just seeming somehow 'flat'.
After reading your posts, I just googled longitudinal magnetic tube
(I'd been thinking about an electron (stretched?) in a one electron diameter
tube) and almost wish I hadn't, though there may be something of interest
for Charles and his solar models. Somehow I got directed to
Relativity versus the longitudinal magnetic field of the photon.
I think I'm going to turn my computer off and take up flower arranging. ;-)
Image


Haha, the 'flux tube' ideas I put forward are purely my own ideas but they do have their roots in both relativistic quantum mechanical theory and more alternative Tesla, Dollard et al. electrical theory.

Ultimately it was JL that put me on the path to these ideas, Tesla's and Dollard's work has played into it a great deal as well but it was a chance encounter a few weeks ago with a retired quantum physicist from Germany at a coffee shop in Kitchener that allowed me to tie things together a little better.

Note however that these are not my actual accepted views, just some ideas I'm tossing around right now.

Thanks to a blizzard we both had a few hours to kill there and 'gravitated' toward a discussion on the fundamental make-up of the universe, and he mentioned his personal view on atomic structure in regards to the fundamental component of all atomic or subatomic particles being a 'quantum vortice in the space-time continuum'(STC from here) which is created through a torsion effect in the STC caused by relativistic(gravitational) disturbances produced by matter(mass).

At the heart of these micro-vortices is empty or vacuum space, but far from being empty it is 'pure relativistic energy' which is often referred to as the ZPE Field. Note that I am not entirely sure what that 'relativistic energy' is that was just his term, lol.

The work of Eric Dollard and Nikola Tesla focuses largely on longitudinal dielectric energy which propagates 'longitudinally' along the axis of 'lines of force'(what I often have referred to as field lines) which permeate the STC, aether, ether, universe, plasma pudding or whatever you want to call it.

Magnetic energy is electrical energy that propagates transversely or 'broadside' to the axis of those 'lines of force'.

Now if we have atomic and subatomic particles which contain electrons and ions which are reactive to EM forces along with these 'quantum vortices' containing vacuum space and we have an object like Earth that acts as a capacitor building up an electric charge field those electrostatic forces could act on the electrons and ions aligning the atoms so that those 'quantum vortices' form an electric 'flux tube' of sorts.

At this time I am operating on the assumption that those theoretical 'flux tubes' created by aligned 'quantum vortices' are the [electric] 'lines of force' that Dollard, Tesla and others have theorized.

But I am well aware of what making assumptions can lead to...not that I actually care. :P

As I've said a number of times it's an interesting avenue of thought to venture down at least.

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 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:33 pm

Poor, puzzled planetary scientists. When you start with a completely wrong
model of how the planets formed, you just keep digging a bigger hole.
Solving the Puzzle of Why Mars is so Small
Mars is a small planet. In fact, for scientists who do solar system modeling, the planet is too small. “This is an outstanding problem in terrestrial planet formation,” said Dr. David Minton from the Southwest Research Institute. “Everyone who does simulations of how you form terrestrial planets always ends up with a Mars that is 5-10 times bigger than it is in real life.


http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/37 ... s-so-small

Image
The Coulomb ball formed in an energetic torus is the seed of a planet. When a Sun
first sparks into existence, the antenna fields are so powerful that numerous tori are
produced, the number and spacing depending on the magnitude and frequency of the
primary dipole antenna.
As for the molten, spinning ball of conventional theory, why would there be a sphere
and not a more oblate structure?
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 allynh » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:38 pm

Here is another Wolfram Demonstration Project that looks interesting.

Dipole Antenna Radiation Pattern
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Dipol ... onPattern/
popup_5.jpg

popup_6.jpg

popup_7.jpg
allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:55 am

Thanks again allynh. I've messed with Octave for Linux, haven't tried
Mathematica, too much else on the go right now, single handedly trying
to expose all these astronomy shysters. :D

Image
Yet there is still much that astronomers don't understand, such as how do the properties of stellar nurseries vary according to the composition and density of the gas present, and what triggers star formation in the first place?
While the image shows lots of hot, young stars in the disc of NGC 2841, there are just a few sites of current star formation where hydrogen gas is collapsing into new stars. It is likely that these fiery youngsters destroyed the star-forming regions in which they were formed.

Totally backwards again. The central event in this case is not dissipating as
much energy, therefore there is less current flowing in the arms, hence less
stars. Not as many stars, less gas production.
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1104/
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 allynh » Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:05 pm

Here are some more Wolfram Demonstration Projects. They are all starting to look disturbingly familiar.

Complex Spherical Harmonics
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Compl ... Harmonics/
popup_8.jpg

Spherical Harmonics
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SphericalHarmonics/
popup_2.jpg
allynh
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: The EM Universe

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:01 pm

Hi allynh, don't forget that the field pattern will change with the length of the dipole too. As we get more
observations, I think we'll see many recognisable shapes out there.

Back to seeing stars from the moon, or from in space...
Here is a short video about the supposed moon landing hoax, but listen to Armstrong
towards the end of the clip.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/784856/no ... e_on_moon/
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

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests