New thinking

[GaryN]

I enjoyed watching Mel Acheson: Playing with New Thinking and then the two videos by Ghada Chehade, but wonder if the EU/TB teams can ever question the very basis of the present cosmological model, and that of course is the nature of our own Sun. I am just astounded at the resistance of both camps to admit that everything is based on an unquestionable ASSUMPTION that the Sun is a hot, bright ball of fusing hydrogen. If this could be shown wrong then it likely means that all those objects we see in the night sky are not stars at all, and the whole house of cards collapses. There is no empirical evidence to support the bright, hot sun model, and neither camp can show me otherwise.
Of course I am in the EU camp, but now am incorporating the metaphysical aspects of the Sun and have found a few spiritual advocates who agree with the non-visible Sun model. David Icke is one, which of course could be seen as a bad thing, but he has quite a large following. Then there is Eric Dollard, an electrical engineer who I believe is very qualified to speak on the subject. Love to see him and Don Scott in a tete-a-tete.
If the Sun is not what we are told then of course it must mean there is a very large conspiracy afoot, as none of the space capable nations have ever come forward with this knowledge, but none have shown us any photos of the Sun from space using the same type of equipment that we would use from Earth, and also use Sun sensors in their missions that CREATE coherent near-infrared photons using a grating. The sensor is most efficient at this wavelength. Deep space Sun sensors do NOT utilise visible light.

Maybe the EU needs to get spiritual minded?

New Thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought

[jacmac]

GaryN:

but wonder if the EU/TB teams can ever question the very basis of the present cosmological model, and that of course is the nature of our own Sun.

The whole reason for the existence of the EU is to question the "standard model."

I am just astounded at the resistance of both camps to admit that everything is based on an unquestionable ASSUMPTION that the Sun is a hot, bright ball of fusing hydrogen.

The EU has said there is some fusion on the "surface" of the sun; but that is quite different from an internal fusing hydrogen core.
You are challenging the "hot and bright ball " part, I assume from your other posts. Why would your denial of the "hot and bright ball" for the sun lead to a metaphysical explanation ?

I have seen some Eric Dollard video's and I am asking where he gets into the "metaphysical aspects" of the sun.
I recall he proposes "other dimensions" but I never saw any explanations. Perhaps you can expand on that ?

[Lloyd]

Charles Chandler has the best model for the Sun IMO. He agrees that fusion only occurs near the surface, due to electric discharges.

I don't know why you say the Sun and stars are not visible from space. The Sun is visible at this site from SOHO: https://scied.ucar.edu/image/compare-su ... ltraviolet

I don't have time to write more now.

[GaryN]

Why would your denial of the "hot and bright ball" for the sun lead to a metaphysical explanation ?

That depends on how you interpret metaphysics.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

If it could be proven that the Sun is not a hot and bright object and is not even visible from space (simple experiment) then we need to move on and work on a completely new model. The model may not involve anything magical or mystical, but science not discovered (or revealed?), or not accepted by mainstream. To me it must involve an aether of some sort, but there are also a number of aether models. I wonder if it may be that new thinking is not required, but a new look at old thinking?

THEORIES OF AETHER AND ELECTRICITY (1910)
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Hist ... lectricity

@Lloyd

I don't know why you say the Sun and stars are not visible from space. The Sun is visible at this site from SOHO:

The only people who have been to space told us quite clearly that the stars were not visible, why would you not believe them, unless you are a moon landing hoaxer? Certainly the Sun has a great radiant flux that can be detected by instruments such as SOHO, but what about its luminous flux? We register that with an ordinary camera and a solar filter, but there are no simalarly obtained photos of the Sun from space. The Apollo astronauts did not talk about or photograph the Sun from cislunar space.

[Roshi]

The only people who have been to space told us quite clearly that the stars were not visible

Who said that?
Maybe it's about not being able to photograph stars together with the surface of the Moon when on the moon, because of camera dynamic range?

[GaryN]

Who said that?

All of them, apart from Edgar Mitchell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEt1SKz1MRk

[JP Michael]

A genuine question for GaryN

If the bright orb of the sun (and stars) is an atmospheric effect, what altitude(s) of earth's atmosphere would one need to ascend in order to observe its hypothesised disappearance?

[GaryN]

Good question JP Michael, but without experiments we will never know for sure. From a high altitude balloon it was reported that the stars could only be observed during the day if they knew where to look for them. I can find nothing for night time visibility.

Visibility of Stars at High Altitude in Daylight
https://opg.optica.org/josa/abstract.cf ... a-49-6-626

The problem with the balloons though is that the payloads are mounted under the balloons, thus blocking the direct zenith view. I envisage a "cone of invisibility" that may begin even lower than 100,000 feet altitude, and widens with elevation, and by LEO altitude will cover the whole zenith facing sky. That's the feeling I get from EVA astronauts such as Chris Hadfield.

"It was the most magnificent experience of my life. Alone in a one-person spaceship (my suit), just holding on with my one hand, with the bottomless black universe on my left and the World pouring by in technicolour on my right. I highly recommend it."

"bottoomless black" No mention of stars or planets.

A sounding rocket with the appropriate instruments would be the way to go, and would have visible, IR and UV sensors as from different elevations probably all photometry values will vary. I don't have a spare million dollars or so, even if they would approve such a mission.

[perpetual motion]

37,000 miles give or take, beyond that there is no more pressure to hold an atmosphere down.
Myself, I think that this magnetosphere is what is holding our atmosphere in place.
So, to say that it is killing two birds with one stone. As keeping the Positrons and Electrons from the Sun
at bay and keeping our atmosphere down.
That is my thoughts on this anyway.

[GaryN]

I have been corrected by someone who claims to have worked on the early Star Tracker devices first used for the ICBM guidance systems. The reason we can not see stars from space is that the light from the distant objects (stars supposedly) has assumed a plane wave form as the expanding wavefront becomes basically flat. Our eyes can not see plane waves, and neither can a conventional camera unless a grating is used to recreate the spherical wavefront. This also means that the energy from the emitting object is conserved as plane waves do not fall of with distance.(conservation of momentum) Even at our Suns distance SOHO and other space based solar observation systems have to use gratings. Hubble would see nothing without them.

No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness

.-Aristotle

This Youtube author would seem to meet the madness criteria anyway!
What is LIGHT? The eternal mystery- Theoria Apophasis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MhqZ84ZenQ

[GaryN]

Chip-scale star tracker

A chip scale star tracker that captures plane-wave starlight propagating in free space with a wafer-thin angle-sensitive broadband filter-aperture.

.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US9019509B2/en

“Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.”

Nikola Tesla

With an Aether model then perhaps we need to consider our Sun as an acoustic monopole? That idea opens up a whole new can of worms. This perhaps is why little has been said about the plane waves measured by the Parker solar probe.

[GaryN]

Me in opening post:

Maybe the EU needs to get spiritual minded?

I can think of no better teacher at the moment than this man, and here in this Youtube video he briefly explains the electro-magnetic Universe:
https://youtu.be/9y0KMOX61vc?list=PLUkd ... fVsB&t=416

[danda]

“Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.”

Nikola Tesla

With an Aether model then perhaps we need to consider our Sun as an acoustic monopole? That idea opens up a whole new can of worms. This perhaps is why little has been said about the plane waves measured by the Parker solar probe.

That's an interesting quote from Tesla. Can you provide the source please? I had in mind that he agreed with transverse nature of light, but also believed that much faster longitudinal ether (electromagnetic) waves exist. Perhaps his thinking evolved over time?

If light waves are indeed longitudinal, that simplifies things a lot and indeed the ether can behave like a gas or fluid, and not necessarily an elastic solid. (Solids support both transverse and longitudinal waves, eg earthquakes). Either way, the ether must be quite dense to support the speed of these waves.

Of course, there is a history of observations that support the light-as-transverse wave interpretation. In particular, I believe the polarization of light is cited as evidence.

Anyway, I'm curious to dive a bit deeper into this. Tesla's logic/evidence would be a starting point I suppose.

[GaryN]

Hi danda, the quote seems to have originated from this newspaper article: Tesla Sees Evidence Radio and Light Are Sound - N.Y. Times, April 8, 1934.

Ken Wheeler talks about Tesla in this and other Youtube videos:
https://youtu.be/vy9Vk_26ah4?list=PL8PM ... YKnSYs&t=1

[danda]

Thanks GaryN. I found the article here:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/ ... -are-sound

A key excerpt:

“It is true,” said Mr. Tesla, “that many scientific minds envisaged the theory of a gaseous ether, but it was rejected again and again because in such a medium longitudinal waves would be propagated with infinite velocity. Lord Kelvin conceived the so-called contractile ether, possessing properties which would result in a finite velocity of longitudinal waves. In 1885, however, an academic dissertation was published by Professor De Volson Wood, an American, at a Hoboken institution, which dealt with a gaseous ether in which the elasticity, density and specific heat were determined with rare academic elegance. But, so far, everything pertaining to the subject was purely theoretical.

What, then, can light be if it is not a transverse vibration? That was the question he asked himself and set out to find the answer.

“I consider this extremely important,” said Mr. Tesla. “Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.”

I myself when I was younger considered that light might simply be sound in a different medium. It would be simple and elegant, just as the universe should be. But then all the transverse wave stuff threw me off that track. These days I no longer trust such "well established" "consensus" conclusions. (question everything.) So I am quite curious to read the work of this Professor De Volson Wood.

I will post a link if I find it.

edit: found it.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mcgEA ... &q&f=false

a later work (1907) seems to find an error in Wood's analysis and shows that a gaseous ether doesn't work:
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/ful ... 7.000.html

I dunno if this ever went any further. Interesting that Tesla was still citing Wood's work in the late 30's.