FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Solar: The Gas Model Crumbles!

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:09 am    Post subject: Solar: The Gas Model Crumbles! Reply with quote

Marathi song by Vasantrao Deshpande: "Tejonidhi lohagol, bhaaskar he gaganaraaj, divya tujhyaa tejaane jhagamagale bhuvan aaj; he dinamani vyomaraaj..."

which translates as: "O store of energy, ball of iron, O Sun, king of sky, the world scintillates with your powerful light. O gem of the day, king of brightness, ..."

An alternative translation is: "Red, Hot like iron, round like a fire ball. The Sun is the king of the sky. He brightens this world everyday, each day with his radiance and glory..."

This image of FE IX/X (iron ion) emission from TRACE shows increased electrical activity
on the surfaces that face toward the cosmic wind. The cosmic wind blows through the upper plasma layers
resulting in differential rotation in the upper plasma layers, while the iron surface below rotates uniformly.

When it comes to compelling evidence of a solid surface on the sun, seeing is believing.


The TRACE and SOHO programs use very sophisticated software to create what are called "running difference" images like the top image from TRACE and the chronologically ordered examples from SOHO. These images were created by NASA at the frequency of various ferrite ions, using software that essentially compares sequential snapshots, subtracting one set of images from the other, and thereby isolating only the more consistent and "stronger" features from each image. This image processing technique creates a very detailed "snapshot" of the stronger, more obvious features of the iron calcium ferrite surface of the sun that lies below the photosphere.

SOHO images the sun using a 195 angstrom filter that are sensitive to iron FE XII emissions.
The photons are emitted in the electrical arcs and reflect off surface "structures" that are consistent
over many days. These structures influence the energy release patterns in the upper plasma atmospheres.

The sequential photos and the video speak volumes. These movies were created by "stringing together" a series of running difference images from many consecutive days.
As you can see from the series of snapshots, and from the movies, we can make out more than just a single random pattern emerging from just one composite image. Instead we can see a CONSISTENT set of surface features in these images that MOVE from left to right as the sun rotates. These features are completely consistent and move UNIFORMLY across the surface. In other words, they do not move at different rates near the equator than they move at the poles like the photosphere. Whatever this "structure" is, it absolutely cannot be the photosphere or the chromosphere because of it's consistency. This photographic evidence stands in direct opposition to present theories of the sun which claim that the sun is a giant ball of gas and has no solid surface below the photosphere.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Macroscopic mass defect

One of the predictions of the EMRP theory is the macroscopic mass defect, which results as a direct consequence of the complete shadowing of the incoming ultra cosmic radiation. When the depth and density of matter in the direction of the wave propagation reaches a point in which the number of wavelets is outnumbered by the number of matter (standing wave) targets, all incoming wavelets will have been reflected back radially outwards from the massive body. This leaves the central core of matter totally shadowed from the external electromagnetic field, and thus totally isolated from any inertial or gravitational effects. In other words, the massive spherical centre will look like a dark flat disk to the exterior, and most matter within the sphere, no longer communicates with its force fields.

This has great implications in the way we think planets, stars and our own sun are composed. We would of course expect to find evidence of this macroscopic mass defect in the biggest bodies of our solar system, in which the sun gets its first place. This theory in fact supports the main issue that Professor Oliver K.Manuel, now long time member of Blaze Labs Yahoo team, has been pushing forward for the past years about the origin of the solar system with Iron-rich Sun. The main problem with Oliver's issue was that although he has all the physical evidence that a lot of iron is present in our sun, the gravitational force of the sun shows that its total mass is that of a ball of the same radius as the sun but with a density slightly greater than water! Would you believe that? The present accepted density for our sun is just 1.41g/cm3, yet we know it contains a vast quantity of metals which one cannot account for in its mass. How can we explain this? Simply by taking into account the totally shadowed spherical core within the sun's volume of matter. As shown in the diagram above, the macroscopic mass defect of our sun is far from negligible. From the planet data density curve, we find out that Earth is just in the limit of the curve in which the total body mass is proportional the product of its density and volume, that is it's core is just starting to look like a disk to external force fields. This means that the earth's radius is the limiting depth beyond which Earth's density increasingly shadows external ultra cosmic radiation from penetrating any deeper. For the same reason, planets of bigger diameter show mass anomalies which cannot be explained by current theories, since they will look more disk-like at their cores. The only way out for present theorists is to assume these are planets of light density material or mostly composed of gases. However, from the way planets are presumably formed, one would expect to find similar kind of matter, and hence densities within all components of our solar system, including the sun. Thus, it becomes evident, that all planets having bigger radius than Earth, have an internal mass defect core, leaving only a cored spherical shell and a saturated disk as their effective mass. The matter within the mass defect core (hidden behind the disk), will not show up in external force field interactions! If one assumes that this apparent mass of a flat saturated disk, belongs to a spherical body, then it is obvious that when the density is calculated as density=mass of disk/volume of sphere, this will result into a ridiculously low apparent density. Armed with this concept, we can even calculate the size of such dark core for all planets, and know their respective missing mass and also their 'inert' mass.

EMRP Gravity Theory finds Dark matter

If one applies Newton's law of gravity, or even the latest refined theory of Einstein's laws of gravity, to the way galaxies spin, one will quickly stumble into a big problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because according to the known laws of gravity, its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces which exactly balance the centifugal forces. But here is a hunch : there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin, and we're not off by a small percentage, there should be about nine times the existing matter.

It was in the late 1970's when, Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this anomaly for the first time. This missing mass was termed dark matter. The best response from physicists was to suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding which can only be solved by accepting the EMRP gravity theory, even at the expense of invalidating some of the currently most established theories. Astronomical observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90% of the mass in the universe. The missing 90% of dark matter is obviously in the totally shadowed cores of the massive bodies such as stars. This is another prediction that comes straight forward from the application of the explained macroscopic mass defect.

Xavier Borg, Blaze Labs

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Particle Physicists Face Moment of Truth

The looming moment of truth for the particle physics community is the lead story in the Science Section of today's New York Times, 15 May 2007, "A Giant Takes On Physics’ Biggest Questions"
http://tinyurl.com/2jgu9g or http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/15cern.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

To mimic conditions "when the universe was less than a trillionth of a second old", an army of scientists invested $8,000,000,000 [eight billion dollars] of public funds and thirteen [13] years of their professional careers building the Large Hadron Collider.

A few quotes from today's news story illustrate the seriousness of their position:

1. “We are now on the endgame,” said Lyn Evans, of Cern, who has been in charge of the Large Hadron Collider, as it is called, since its inception.

2. "The day it turns on will be a moment of truth for Cern, which has spent 13 years building the collider, and for the world’s physicists, who have staked their credibility and their careers, not to mention all those billions of dollars, on the conviction that they are within touching distance of fundamental discoveries about the universe.  If they fail to see something new, experts agree, it could be a long time, if ever, before giant particle accelerators are built on Earth again, ringing down the curtain on at least one aspect of the age-old quest to understand what the world is made of and how it works."

3. Dr. Mangano pointed out that it had been a long time since high-energy physicists had made a fundamental discovery. . . . “There are many students who have never seen data,” Dr. Mangano said.  “I don’t know how much longer we can keep going like that.”  What comes out of the Large Hadron Collider, he said, “will determine the future of the field.”

4. “If you see nothing,” said a Cern physicist, John Ellis, “in some sense then, we theorists have been talking rubbish for the last 35 years.”

Dr. Ellis is right.  Students who "have never seen data" while this project was underway might have learned something useful by studying mass data for the 3,000 different types of atoms that comprise the observable universe.

By studying only 3,000 data points, they could have confirmed or refuted conclusions that contradict the basic assumption of the $8,000,000,000 collider project:

1. "Repulsive interactions between neutrons in compact stellar cores cause luminosity and a steady outflow of hydrogen from stellar surfaces.  Neutron repulsion in more massive compact objects made by gravitational collapse produces violent, energetic, cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. Rather than evolving in one direction by fusion, nuclear matter on the cosmological scale cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission).  This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures." —  (Abstract) Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) page 107.

2. "Systematic properties of heavy nuclides reveal a fine structure in Coulomb energy that parallels variations in mass arising from n-n interactions between neutrons.  These results confirm an earlier suggestion [1] that n-n interactions in the nucleus are repulsive.  Neutron emission may release up to 1.1%-2.4% of the nuclear rest mass as energy.  By comparison, 0.8% of the rest mass is converted to energy in hydrogen fusion and 0.1% is converted to energy in fission. Neutron emission in the core of the Sun may trigger a series of reactions that collectively produce the Sun’s luminosity and an outpouring of protons and neutrinos from its surface." — (Abstract) Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) page 197.

I wish success for the collider project, although particle physicists should have been aware that their models do not explain astronomical observations:

Particle physicists claim that the forces between neutrons (n) and protons (p) are all attractive [n-n, n-p, and p-p], except for repulsion between positive charges (+) on p.  Gravity is another attractive force.

If true, the cosmos should be coalescing.  But observations reveal the opposite—fragmentation.

The universe is fragmenting—in violent stellar explosions, in stellar winds, in stellar storms, in gamma ray bursts, and in jets of material squirting from the polar regions of stars, neutron stars, and even supposed "black holes."

Trends in the masses of 3,000 different types of atoms suggest that repulsion between neutrons may be the driving force for stellar luminosity and cosmic fragmentation.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 225

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

first ive come across these posts, just brilliant, love this stuff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.