Is the Sun really hot?

obyvatel said:
The discussion on this topic thus far has been carried out within the framework of traditional science in the 3D human framework - specifically the electric sun model.

The reason is this excerpt from Morgan's post: [quote author=morgan]]"In reality, the surface of their 'source of heat,' like that of all the ordinary suns of our Great Universe, is perhaps \ more covered with ice than the surface of what they call the 'North Pole.' [/quote]Which is a direct reference to the work of Gurdjieff. Thats my main reason for writing this.

[quote author=sarek]
In terms of esoteric cosmology there really is barely a difference between 1 K and a million K. If you map esoteric cosmology onto what "science" has found out and if you extrapolate what its saying to its logical limits you will see what is meant here.
[/quote]
[quote author=obyvatel] If there is "barely a difference between 1 K and a million K" in whatever esoteric cosmology you are referring to, then it does not "fit the observable universe" at the 3D level.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here. [/quote]

Here's what I said:
In terms of esoteric cosmology there really is barely a difference between 1 K and a million K.

There is only one esoteric cosmology, what I said is in relation to our physical level of existence. It was an impression of scale I was trying to convey. The enormous differences in order of magnitude may well be what prompted the esoterics to phrase it in this way.
In other words, everything in our universe is cold in esoteric terms.

But, I do not want to carry this thread further off topic than it needs to be, so it might be best if I leave the discussion at this point.
 
Laura said:
However, physicists have always been aware of nagging problems with the conventional view of how stars form and how they burn. And now, Italian physicist Renzo Boscoli, has published details of a theory that is staggering: the theory that far from being hot underneath its atmosphere, the sun may, at its core, be a ball of ice in which not hot, but cold fusion reactions are taking place.

The conventional view of how stars form is that a cloud of interstellar hydrogen collapses under gravity until, under enormous pressure, the atoms of hydrogen become so hot they fuse to form helium. Once ignited, the core of the newly formed star burns continuously, transmuting hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon and so on, until the fuel is exhausted and the star's life is over.

There are some problems with this view. For instance, when gases are compressed, as under gravity, they also heat up, and this makes them expand. As temperature increases, the outward force due to expansion will become greater than the force of gravity compressing the gas and the gas will simply dissipate in space again. How then could the condensing hydrogen cloud ever ignite spontaneously?

There are many other puzzling features of the sun: how can a surface at 'only' 5,800 degrees Kelvin give rise to a corona of 1 million degrees Kelvin? Why does the surface rotate faster at the equator than at higher latitudes? Why does the planet Mercury have a strangely perturbed motion?

In two ground-breaking papers published in Infinite Energy magazine, Renzo Boscoli offers some astounding answers to these puzzles.

Boscoli points out a phenomenon discovered in the 1930s but -- like many such anomalies -- virtually ignored since. French physicist Georges Ranque discovered that if you make a body of gas rotate, as in a turbine, the hottest (most energetic) molecules are somehow separated to the outside of the mass, while the gas at the centre gets colder. It is relatively easily experimentally to make a 'Ranque tube' where the difference in temperature between air in the middle and air at the outside is more than 100 degrees C, simply by causing the air to rotate.

This experimental result appears to contradict the laws of thermodynamics and at present remains unexplained. But Boscoli points out that its implications for the formation of stars may be immense.

While a cloud of hydrogen condensing under gravity is an unlikely candidate for a new star because heat would make it expand and dissipate again, a rotating cloud of hydrogen would give rise to a remarkable object -- one where the temperature at its exterior would continue to rise while the temperature at its core would continue to fall. At first the hydrogen core would become so cold it would liquify and finally solidify.

Says Boscoli, 'If this mass of gas . . . would begin to rotate upon itself, it would necessarily assume a progressively flatter ellipsoidal form as its rotational velocity increased. And . . the Ranque effect would begin to be exerted, therefore producing a cooling at the centre and a heating of the periphery of the ellipsoid.'

He adds, 'Due to a constant Ranque effect I see no reason why the centre would not continue to cool towards absolute zero.'

Boscoli first conceived his ideas some thirty years ago. He has published them for the first time because the Arecibo radiotelescope has reported finding an enormous hydrogen cloud that is very cold (around minus 200 degrees C) and that is rotating on its own axis.

Boscoli goes onto add that nuclear reactions such as that of the H bomb are impossible at absolute zero. But he believes that 'cold' nuclear fusion reactions may be possible due to the immense gravitational pressures. The reaction he envisages is that of the gravitational collapse of a proton and electron, producing a neutron.

Boscoli's theory solves the problem of Mercury's strange orbit and the sun's differential rotation. It also explains sunspots as simply holes in the atmosphere. If Boscoli is right, there may after all, be 'something new under the sun.'

One thing that this theory does not answer is that how does this explain the energy output of the sun as it has been sustained for billions of year already.
That output can be precisely measure and it can be determined which types of physical processes are capable and which are not capable of yielding such an output.
Of course, no one likely has made these calculations using LENR models as those were not known in Boscoli's time but they are decidedly less energetic than fusion processes.
 
sarek said:
One thing that this theory does not answer is that how does this explain the energy output of the sun as it has been sustained for billions of year already.
That output can be precisely measure and it can be determined which types of physical processes are capable and which are not capable of yielding such an output.

The Electric Universe theory explains the cold sun quite well, in my opinion.

They think that all the stars are receivers for energy that floats throughout the galaxy and even between galaxies. In fact, the formation and shape of galaxies seem to be primarily influenced by electric and magnetic forces, not by gravity - which is many magnitudes weaker.
 
axj said:
sarek said:
One thing that this theory does not answer is that how does this explain the energy output of the sun as it has been sustained for billions of year already.
That output can be precisely measure and it can be determined which types of physical processes are capable and which are not capable of yielding such an output.

The Electric Universe theory explains the cold sun quite well, in my opinion.

They think that all the stars are receivers for energy that floats throughout the galaxy and even between galaxies. In fact, the formation and shape of galaxies seem to be primarily influenced by electric and magnetic forces, not by gravity - which is many magnitudes weaker.

To extract energy from electrical field you need second point of contact.

Any star needs a partner.
 
Having read this topic so far, I'm amazed that there's been no reference to a remark of the C's about stars here:

Q: (L) Well, I don't know how to ask it. (J) Move on. (L) What is the source of energy generated by stars?

A: Transfer points cause friction thus producing energy.

Q: (L) Transfer points of what; from what to what?

A: Dimensions.

This ties in with the notion that stars are windows between dimensions and/or densities -- which has certain consequences for their inner workings.
More on that in this topic throughout: Inter-dimensional windows and Seth's co-ordinate points.

In short, it seems that friction is the main source for energy and this energy (of whichever unspecified nature) seems to be the main source for the observed differences in temperature.

Then track this back to this post of JayMark earlier in the current thread to get a fuller picture. FWIW.

EDIT: spelling.
 
sarek said:
One thing that this theory does not answer is that how does this explain the energy output of the sun as it has been sustained for billions of year already.
That output can be precisely measure and it can be determined which types of physical processes are capable and which are not capable of yielding such an output.
Of course, no one likely has made these calculations using LENR models as those were not known in Boscoli's time but they are decidedly less energetic than fusion processes.

As said, the EU theory explains (theoretically) that the Sun might be ''driven'' by electric (Birkeland) currents flowing through the Universe and into the sun. Since the mainstream understanding of the Universe only relies on gravity being the sole force acting at such scales, it is no wonder that they think that nuclear fusion is the only way such amounts of energy could be generated. The problem is that this nuclear furnace theory cannot be proven in any way. In other words, it is merely an assumption based on a lack of knowledge and/or corruption of course, osit.

When I think about how much stronger the EM force is compared to gravity, I don't see why electric currents couldn't very easily generate such energy and possibly fusion as well perhaps in the corona and/or on the Sun's surface. And since that the idea that our Universe is made up almost entirely of plasma is being more and more accepted, I don't see why electric currents couldn't flow through it's entirety.

Now also since, as we know in electricity, electrons (or charged particles in general) are never being ''used up'' per se, merely utilized, I don't see why the Sun couldn't be powered by electric currents for billions of years - perhaps even indefinitely. The reason why a star ''dies'' might have to do with a process we are totally unaware of and have nothing to do with a ''lack of initially present internal fuel'' so to speak. It might just be part of a cycle which we don't fully understand yet, if at all.

The EU theory further explains that as well referring to consciousness and ''intelligence'' through the Universe. Or course, this is only speculative but rare are the scientists who consider (and/or admit) that consciousness is perhaps fundamental to our reality - not a mere derivate of matter.

There's so much left to understand here but it really is, IMO, fascinating to say the least. Personally (and this is just my personal opinion) I find the EU theory MUCH more interesting and fascinating than the ol' mainstream gravity-only model which never discusses consciousness and it's possible ''entanglement'' to actual matter.

Of course, I could be wrong. But this is how I understand it so far and am open to any other input.

Peace.
 
Back
Top Bottom