Epsilon Aurigae

[kc0itf]

What insights does the Electric Universe give us here?

http://www.citizensky.org/content/star-our-project

[Lloyd]

Why don't you mention the data or fact that's most interesting to you from the article? That would be easier to answer.

[moses]

What insights does the Electric Universe give us here?
http://www.citizensky.org/content/star-our-project kc0itf
epsilon Aurigae is interesting. I wish we could have 'question of the
week' here on the forum and it gets answered by somebody in the
management.
Mo

[KickLaBuka]

What insights does the Electric Universe give us here?

Hmm, it's so nice to read things that agree with the concept of electromass. See page 19 of my book. Splendid.

[seasmith]

`

I wish we could have 'question of the
week' here on the forum and it gets answered by somebody in the
management.
Mo

Mo,

Great idea.
Some Management Involvement here would definately lend some credence to the purely EU discussions that take place here (more formerly, than presently), and further the cause of world enlightenment.
Who could be against that ??

s

[KickLaBuka]

lend some credence to the purely EU discussions that take place here

Sir, I would be fine to stop posting if that is what you want. But purely EU is a contradiction of terms. From what I have read of EU, it INSISTS on allowing alternatives. That is the basis of its whole structure! But I have read the rules and understand that my posts are over the edge. No problem.

[seasmith]

KickLA Buka wrote,

Sir, I would be fine to stop posting if that is what you want.

My dear good sir,

You have completely missed my drift, and it is my fault for not being clear.

My referenceto "purely EU" is only the recognize the fact that any questions picked for reply by the Forum Founders would neccesarily be screened to appeal to fairly 'mainstream' curiosity.
Isn't that the point of this forum, to broaden the coverage and knowledge of EU ideas ?

Believe me Kicka, i post as much off-the-wall content here as anybody ...

BTW, I enjoy reading your posts.

s
~

[KickLaBuka]

Seasmith,

You have completely missed my drift

This is my problem. I am very "vulnerable." I know it was said not to talk about insanity, but since I have crossed the boundary into insanity, I'll take it that I get to talk about being insane anytime I want. BTW, there is no need to apologize; just correct my thinking and my judgment and we're good. Never a hard feeling. This is science.

I enjoy reading your posts

Please by all means visit my website and then we can talk about the electromass word. I presume that the management is doing the same.

[mharratsc]

Reading the article and another one it is based on- it's a load of baseless conjecture.

All they know is that the star is variable. They suspect it is a binary star, but they can never see the companion that is "eclipsing" it. Turn of the century they thought it might be a "semi-transparent"(???) star, but now they seem to think that the companion is a 'disk with a hole in it', because there is a period of minor brightening at the centerpoint of the eclipse period. In addition, the "eclipse" lasts pretty damn long by eclipse standards.

From what I know about the Electric Universe theory it is most likely that the star is indeed part of a binary pair (as binary pairs are more common than single stars I believe) but the fluctuations in the luminosity of the star are due to the variable electric current/stress that the star undergoes during it's cyclic period (much akin to our Sun's solar cycle). Prof. Smith mentioned that a binary companion can act as a capacitor in the circuit with a primary star causing fluctuations (I would presume that a brown dwarf or giant planet could fit the bill also depending on the electrical load), so that might explain why they are beside themselves trying to see an optical companion to this primary.

That is my explanation based upon very rudimentary understanding of this stuff. I hope that if I'm 'off base' with any of it, someone with a touch more knowledge than myself can make the appropriate corrections


Mike H.

[KickLaBuka]

ugh, this is a tricky observation. OK, we know that the center of the milky way has at least two distinct electron flows through the axial plane of the galaxy. Good. We know that a flow causes a circular magnetic field. Is it possible, and work with me on this, that this anomaly's "companion" is not a companion at all, but the charged-mass rotates in its own orbit in and out of the main flow--darker when it's closer to pluto, and brightening when it gets into the flow. The flow is the second point in the ellipse, and so the eclipse is long.

Just a thought. I'm standing firm to my book--which in turn does postulate; but not everything I say here can be valid.

[Lloyd]

* Okay, if you don't want to make the topic easier to discuss, I'll try to do that. Here's a quote from your site:
http://www.citizensky.org/content/star-our-project.
The “Star” Of Our Project is epsilon Aurigae, a mysterious, bright, eclipsing binary variable star. ...
* What could the mysterious invisible secondary be?
A 1937 paper by three of the greats of observational astronomy, Gerard Kuiper, Otto Struve, and Bengt Strömgren, suggested the system was an eclipsing binary composed of an F2 star and an extremely cool and tenuous star that they described as "semitransparent". According to this model, the F star was being eclipsed by this ‘transparent shell star’, and its light was scattered by the extremely thin atmosphere of the eclipsing star.
- A 1965 paper by Su-Shu Huang introduced the suggestion of an edge-on thick disk as the eclipsing body. In 1971, Robert Wilson introduced a tilted, thin disk with a central opening, suggesting that this model could most easily describe all of the observed effects of the eclipses, particularly the mid-eclipse re-brightening.
- There is a slight brightening during mid-eclipse, suggesting the disk has a hole in it which the F star shines through. The central brightening was stronger in 1954-56 than in earlier eclipses. It is possible that the hole is growing. The time of minimum light lengthened by about 64 days while the overall duration of the eclipse had decreased by 44 days! ...
* What is the nature of the object or objects at the center of the disk?
It could be two B type stars in a tight orbit. This would account for the mass with less luminosity than 1 larger star. A pair of stars would act as a gravitational eggbeater, keeping the center [of] the disk clear.
* What is the scale of this system?
The primary is 300 times the diameter of our Sun! The secondary orbits almost at the distance of Neptune from the Sun. Both components are 14 [to] 15 solar masses.
* If the astronomers were thinking of a nebular disk that will form planets according to the Nebular Hypothesis, then they're mixed up, since the Nebular Hypothesis is wrong, which assumes that gravity, maybe with an assist from electric and or magnetic forces, compresses nebular disks into planets. Instead, electrical forces form planets from stars and often leave behind many small asteroids, comets and meteors, which are like spilled droplets from making a cake.
* According to EU theory the mass of a celestial object cannot be determined. Only the electric current, voltage, current density, electrical stress or the like and the magnetic field can be determined. When close enough, the gravitational force might be estimable.

[KickLaBuka]

According to EU theory the mass of a celestial object cannot be determined

I thought I had you hooked when you said maybe we can start thinking outside of this electricity. If you look at pages 13 and 26 of my book, you will notice a corellation between mass and charge. It must be possible to determine both. What's really screwy is the distance question. It changes the whole "size" of the universe, because astronomers misinterpreted red-shift. Do you refuse to read it or did I not explain it well enough?

[nick c]

If you look at pages 13 and 26 of my book, you will notice a corellation between mass and charge. It must be possible to determine both.

How do you distinguish between mass and matter?

In Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe I argue for the origin of mass and gravity in the electrical nature of matter. Mass is not a measure of the quantity of matter. The ‘universal constant of gravitation,’ G, is neither universal nor constant since it includes the mathematical dimension of mass, which is an electromagnetic variable. In the powerful magnetic field of a plasmoid, charged particles are constrained to accelerate continuously in the complex pattern of the plasmoid. Like electrons and protons in particle accelerators on Earth, the apparent masses of those particles become enormous as they approach the speed of light. So to report that the object at the center of the galaxy has the mass of 4 million Suns is meaningless in terms of the amount of matter trapped there electromagnetically. The matter there is not constrained by gravity, nor is it there as a result of gravitational accretion. Maxwell’s laws apply at the Galactic Center, not Newton’s.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7qqsr17q

I have read your book and am still digesting it. But, I think it best not to divert this thread with a discussion of "Electromass." Perhaps you could start (if you haven't already) a thread in the NIAMI or Future of Science forum where the discussion can be centered around your concept and its' points of agreement or disagreement with the EU?

nick c

[mharratsc]

It's odd- in retrospect, the concept seems so simple... add energy, and matter becomes more massive, rather than 'mass increasing from velocity'. Why has it taken this long to arrive at such a logical deduction?

It makes so much more sense, really.

There are probably new laws that need to be discovered regarding the relationships, spin of sub-atomic particles and whatnot- but essentially... there it is! in a nutshell.

Occam's Razor, once again.

Mike H.

[Lloyd]

Where's the link to your book? I never did find it. I don't have time to read it anyway, but others may.