Zero Gravity at the Center of the Sun

[edcrater]

The question of heat arising through pressure at the center of a body seems a different question from that in a collapsing gas bubble.

Imagine a theoretical body with a liquid core and the elements sorted by weight, as seems expected. Presumably any gas bubbles would have gone 'upwards' faster and sooner than heavier elements would have got sorted. Suppose the centermost element is say, silicon, bubble-free. The conventional nuclear model would hold that there is sufficient pressure to cause sufficient temperature to fuse silicon, i.e. at least 2? or 5? or more million K [ignoring the bubble phenomenon if it exists]. I have never seen such a thing substantiated, and subjectively it seems highly unlikely. I can imagine it getting hot by our standards, but MILLIONS of degrees????

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and if it existed it should be commonly known and published, as it is the foundation of their cosmology. Nuclear-core people should carry it around with them like an ID. Michael also quotes their model in his post. I wonder, Michael, if you are familiar with a proof of it? Or is it a mantra that gets chanted by the novitiates?

[flyingcloud]

why do the bubbles have to be made of gas?

it's all fluid

what of a conglomeration of heavier elements make them appear as a homogenous mixture within this fliud?
perfect stratification occurs?

a bubble of molten lead, a bubble of molten iron, pick your own element

they get sorted somehow, shake it up

[seasmith]

~
Upriver wrote:

As far as understanding the "conflux of energies at that point".
That is the whole idea of science...

Upriver,
I agree completely, and would appreciate any expert insight into what all is going on in the center of the bubbles, and the "plasma emissions outside the core". (without the "mysticism" )

thankyou,
s

[junglelord]

From what I have learned. The universe creates its most energetic processes in the terms of releasing energy when implosion is introduced. A Birkeland Current causes implosion due to its helix configuration and Double Layers.
A Z Pinch is from the implosion of two like charges in a Birkeland Current for my comparison.
I wonder about this model in terms of Sonoluminessence. Is it the imposed critical distance between two like charges that causes the huge energy and temperatures to be produced? I would hedge a good bet in that direction. The seperation of charges and magnetic fields by a Birkeland Current is a source of incredible power when you then force them to connect.

[moses]

If the surface of the Earth is at a big electrical potential so that
all bodies on the surface are charged, then dangling two such large
bodies at a depth in the Earth should produce a repulsive force
between them. This could explain the Tamarack Mines mystery :
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm
One could work out the charge on each of the two bodies. The interactions
with the surrounding rocks would be all balanced and sum to zero.

Also the increase in gravity with depth could be due to there being an
attraction between the surface charged body and some oppositely charged
region at depth in the Earth. Thus as we get closer to this oppositely
charged region there is greater attractive force. The electric potential
above the Earth would be the sum of all the charge in, and on, the Earth.
This may be a minor effect on satellites.
Mo

[edcrater]

Just an observation on the 'bubble' question.

Even if {big if?} there is a high temperature inside the bubble, it seems it is manifested in a very small mass. Therefore the heat total in joules will be very small, and probably insignificant as contribution to the total temperature rise of the macro-mass in question.

[markspann]

I would be grateful if MGMIKRKIN or JUNGLE LORD would care to weigh in on the claim by Thornhill (and I believe Scott, too) that the sun, and by extension probably all stars, are isodense bodies. That is to say, the sun exhibits the phenomena of "ringing like a bell" - at a periodicity of I think about every 26 or 28 minutes - through recent helioseismology measurements, which is possible only if the entire body of the sun is uniformly dense, or so the Electric Sun theorists surmise at any rate. This truth (if it is indeed true) runs totally counter to all suggestions by the standard model that increased proportional density is required to provide the sufficient temperature/pressure combination at the sun's core to ignite and then continue for billions of years a stable solar hydrogen-to-helium fusion process. And by necessity, isodensity requires the adoption of the view that gravity is a subatomic EM phenomena , and is specifically not a property of the mass, per se, of an object, as the standard Newtonian and Relativistic models maintain .

One would not expect the heavier elements to aggregate at the center of any body (whether comprised of gas, liguid, or a solid or even an amalgam thereof) as claimed by the standard modelists, if in truth the center of that body exhibits the chatacteristic of zero net sum gravity and isodensity. I concur that the greatest inner pressure must exists at the center regardless of the center experiencing net zero sum gravity. However, it seems to me that the atoms and molecules of the heavier mass elements do not respond any differently to outside pressure gradients than the lighter elements, at least in the sense that they would have no tendency to aggregate at the center of an isodense body with zero sum gravity at it's core.

Please reply with your thoughts on this, gentlemen.

[edcrater]

markspann: Can anybody have a go?

I think that if the sun fissions gas-giants, and gas-giants fission terrestrial planets, the sun cannot be isodense. Since the gas-giants must have rocky centers to provide the material for rocky planets, so too must the sun have a rocky core to provide the rocky core of the gas-giants.

However, the gas in the sun lying on top of the rocky core might be isodense, and this gives rise to the issues of helioseismology. Perhaps the vibrations can still occur in the isodense gas, while 'going around' the rocky core [which of course might be quite small in relation to the gas volume]. Of course, vibrations might still pass in a variable density gas.

On the other hand, if planetary fission doesn't exist, and "planets form in polar-aligned groups of 7 to 9 along the second current filament that parallels the filament in which the star forms", as the plasma doctrine goes, then no rocky core is necessary in the sun, and the "isodense throughout" theory is viable. [Of course the sun might have a core as a result of its own formation in a z-pinch. I suppose it depends on what material is existing at the time when it is z-pinched. If it's all molecular or atomic hydrogen in that neck of the woods, then there's no rocky core.]

However, it seems to me that the atoms and molecules of the heavier mass elements do not respond any differently to outside pressure gradients than the lighter elements, at least in the sense that they would have no tendency to aggregate at the center of an isodense body with zero sum gravity at it's core.

I like this point, and it modifies my earlier point....""Imagine a theoretical body with a liquid core and the elements sorted by weight, as seems expected. Presumably any gas bubbles would have gone 'upwards' faster and sooner than heavier elements would have got sorted."" I concede that the heavier elements would not behave differently to the lighter ones in responding to pressure, so there might be no sorting at the core, though there would be away from the core.

[junglelord]

The Harmonic Resonance of the "bell ringing" has always intriqued me more then just as a cause of the suns material. It is infact a harmonic resonance relationship to its input and its output. This input is of course from the Galactic Core at the very minimum. The harmonicly coupled event is to me a transformer reaction.

[edcrater]

My team of researchers have found this reference:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... ments#dest
""Another important phenomenon known as ‘Marklund convection’ occurs along the discharge axis. It separates the chemical elements radially. Marklund convection causes helium to form a diffuse outer layer, followed by a hydrogen layer, then oxygen and nitrogen in the middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium in the inner layers. So electric stars should have a core of heavy elements and an upper atmosphere mostly of hydrogen. This renders the difference between stars and planets to be more apparent than real.""

Of course, the core would not be a "nuclear core", just a terrestrial planet.

[webolife]

Gravity isn't some thing that accumulates. It is the description of interaction of particles due to centropically directed pressure. Only by measuring interactions of particles, and sums of such interactions of innumerable particles, can we even speak of gravity. That "more particles" is correlated with "greater mass" causes some to imagine greater gravity, as though somehow gravity is contained in mass or in the particles themselves. Mass is a function of gravity, not the other way around. Gravity, or whatever EM pressure summation you wish to describe it by, accumulates and aggregates particles, increasing total mass measurement at a centroid or in the field of the centroid. This may be measured at that central locus, even if there is no appreciable matter there. Hence just as a basketball may be determined to weigh, say, a kilogram, and that weight is said to be located at its "center of gravity", so an "active" galaxy may be said to weigh millions of suns, and that weight located at the galactic centroid might be called a "black hole", this does not necessitate that there be any, let alone a supermassive, body there! The lights are on, but nobody's home
Can this apply also to the center of the sun?

[edcrater]

There is another source for a solid core here:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... ments#dest
""Measurements of stellar radii are misleading since the photosphere is a bright plasma ‘skin’ at great height in the atmosphere above the solid surface of the star. That height, in the case of the Sun, may be estimated simplistically as follows: the Sun has a mass equivalent to 333,000 Earths; if most of the mass of the Sun is in heavy elements similar to the Earth, the Sun would have a solid diameter somewhat less than 900,000 kilometers, compared to its optical diameter of 1.4 million kilometers. That suggests the photosphere is some 250,000 kilometers above the surface of the Sun.""

I think we have enough information now to kill off the "isodense" theory.

[rennurerof]

Some here might be interested in the "gravity is a PUSH" idea.
Do any of you EU specialists (I'm just a spectator) have any opinions on this, pro or con?

Some food for thought...

Gravity as Attraction

Gravity as a Push

In this 'Push' scenario based on Tesla's thoughts, the aether is particulate, the particles being neutral and an order of size smaller than gross matter at the sub-atomic level, which is merely formations of energetic vortex swirls in the aether medium. It is also dynamic, with the aether particles vibrating, producing a constant state of aether flux. Normally this is expressed as a Brownian movement of random chaotic motion, similar to molecules in the atmosphere which are constantly bumping into one another with perfect elasticity, rebounding first one way then another, until in the sum of things they end up having gone nowhere with no imbalance of energy. However, conditions can arise inwhich an imbalance occurs with a resulting spontaneous mass movement of aether particles into areas of dimished opposition; or a resonant state can occur inwhich the vibrational energy can become additive. Energy is only expressed at the level of gross matter via the movement of particles. All movement is the result of a push, and the definition of terms such as attraction, suction, pull, etc. must reflect this.

In this gaseous aether sea of movement, gross matter is bombarded constantly from all directions, so any single object experiences a uniform pressure from all sides. However, gross matter, being vortex swirls of aether particles, acts as an imperfect transmitter, so that the energy from an aether particle impinging on one side of an object is not perfectly transmitted through to the antipode. The denser and more massive an object of gross matter is, the greater this shielding effect becomes.

Gravity then is merely a special case of a push resulting from the imbalance of aether pressure due to the imposition of an object of gross matter. For example, if two bodies are alone in space there will be a diminution of pressure upon the surface of each object which faces the other. This in effect will result in a push on each object toward the other.

For an object on earth the aetheric pressure is not uniform as the entire bulk of the earth is, to a certain extent, attenuating the aetheric pressure coming from below the object, while there is no shielding effect from above. This unequal pressure results in the object being pressured, or pushed in the direction of less pressure - toward the area of the greatest level of shielding.

For an object on the floor of a hollow tube expanding along an axis through the earth, this disequilibrium of aetheric pressure (gravity) will reach its greatest expression somewhere below the surface as the rising bulk of the earth diminishes opposing transverse or grazing angle pressure from below.

Zero gravity conditions will not be achieved at the center of the earth because the opening at the top of the tube allows the maintenance of normal aetheric pressure within the tube, while it is shielded equally in all other directions. Because of this imbalanced state, a object on the floor of such a tube might experience weightlessness only just before breakthrough at the antipode; or, weightlessness might only be achieved at the center of the earth with the tube open at both ends.

[junglelord]

In this 'Push' scenario based on Tesla's thoughts, the aether is particulate, the particles being neutral and an order of size smaller than gross matter at the sub-atomic level, which is merely formations of energetic vortex swirls in the aether medium. It is also dynamic, with the aether particles vibrating, producing a constant state of aether flux. Normally this is expressed as a Brownian movement of random chaotic motion, similar to molecules in the atmosphere which are constantly bumping into one another with perfect elasticity, rebounding first one way then another, until in the sum of things they end up having gone nowhere with no imbalance of energy. However, conditions can arise inwhich an imbalance occurs with a resulting spontaneous mass movement of aether particles into areas of dimished opposition; or a resonant state can occur inwhich the vibrational energy can become additive. Energy is only expressed at the level of gross matter via the movement of particles. All movement is the result of a push, and the definition of terms such as attraction, suction, pull, etc. must reflect this.

In this gaseous aether sea of movement, gross matter is bombarded constantly from all directions, so any single object experiences a uniform pressure from all sides. However, gross matter, being vortex swirls of aether particles, acts as an imperfect transmitter, so that the energy from an aether particle impinging on one side of an object is not perfectly transmitted through to the antipode. The denser and more massive an object of gross matter is, the greater this shielding effect becomes.

KUDOS to you my Good Man.
Excellent Post.

[markspann]

To EdCrater and JungleLord:

Thanks for your input guys, and for those links to the Holoscience articles!!
And thanks for the snippet regarding Marklund convection...and if one reads just a bit further into that article, we find this :

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... ments#dest

"Measurements of stellar radii are misleading since the photosphere is a bright plasma ‘skin’ at great height in the atmosphere above the solid surface of the star. That height, in the case of the Sun, may be estimated simplistically as follows: the Sun has a mass equivalent to 333,000 Earths; if most of the mass of the Sun is in heavy elements similar to the Earth, the Sun would have a solid diameter somewhat less than 900,000 kilometers, compared to its optical diameter of 1.4 million kilometers. That suggests the photosphere is some 250,000 kilometers above the surface of the Sun.

Note: An immediate objection may be raised by helioseismologists, who claim to be able to determine what is going on inside the Sun by the way the Sun ‘rings like a bell.’ However, helioseismology assumes the standard thermonuclear model of stars and interprets the oscillations of the photosphere as a purely mechanical phenomenon. In fact, the question of what causes the Sun’s ‘ringing’ remains unanswered."
- attributed to W. Thornhill

Well, indeed, there is much more to this subject than meets the eye, so to speak! On initial inspection, the idea that anything other than an isodense body could maintain a harmonic resonance, as JugleLord pointed out, is quite counterintuitive. A body with a denser core, one would think, would disperse and dampen any point-source initiated pressure waves, as does our planet earth, as in the case of earthquakes. The sun's "ringing like a bell" phenomena, whether or not such helioseismology measurements are even valid. then, certainly does lead to the conclusion that IF the sun posesses a denser core, or even IF it is layered due to Marklund convection, and IF it is also vibrating harmonically, THEN the energy input that is powering almost certainly must be coming from outside the sun (i.e galactically and inter-galactically, as the Electric Universe model maintains) in either and axially or concentrically uniform and steady fashion. So now that I further consider the information in your posts, I can see that it may not at all be necessary for a body to be isodense even though it be found to be vibrating harmonically in space.

Thanks!