Roadhizzy
Jedi
@psychegram
Electric Sun comments:
Electric Sun comments:
The WAVE
- Thread starter Scottie
- Start date
Roadhizzy
Jedi
Oops, mistype .. From what I've gathered studying the old EU and new Plasma Cosmology is that the birthing and early formation phase is nearly 100% electrical, but the far less dynamic older systems with rock bodies etc rely a lot more on gravitational force. Although the elephant in the room = what is gravity. Is mass even static. Is physics even static from one galaxy to the next. We project our reality and understanding out to the Cosmos, but very often we do not see what we expect. Or we have to add a hundred new footnotes. The reliance on dark energy, red-shift being absolute, dark matter, blackholes, etc I see as complete bollocks. Placeholders to make it work. Just like the cosmological constant. So much more to learn, and unlearn, by the time we arrive at UFT and elegantly simple mechanics that Nature ALWAYS run on (inho) Cheers!
Roadhizzy
Jedi
Missed one glaring failure of the solar nuclear model (too early, no coffee yet lol):
The observed radiation does not match fusion. The workaround is to say the radiation is trapped for 10000+ years in order to down-shift the gamma rads. Flares and CMEs disrupt the "containment field" should we not see signals of way higher nuclear wavelengths and particles?
The observed radiation does not match fusion. The workaround is to say the radiation is trapped for 10000+ years in order to down-shift the gamma rads. Flares and CMEs disrupt the "containment field" should we not see signals of way higher nuclear wavelengths and particles?
psychegram
The Living Force
Precession is, conventionally, explained as a natural result of a spinning object with a torque applied at an angle to the axis of rotation. In the case of the Earth, the torque is a consequence of the rotational axis being tilted with respect to the orbital plane, together with the equatorial bulge resulting from the centrifugal force arising from the Earth's rotation.
The phenomenon can be observed in a spinning top.
To me that seems to be a much more straightforward explanation than large-scale Birkeland currents.
What you're missing is the density of the solar material and just the sheer amount of it. Nuclear fusion happens in the core, which is buried under a lot of stuff, and the deep stuff especially is very dense - 150 g/cm^3 (compare that to lead, 11 g/cm^3). When gamma photons are emitted in a given reaction, they don't just fly out into space because there's a lot of stuff between them and empty space. That means a given photon has a 'mean free path' - the average distance it travels before encountering an electron, ion, or atom - that is extremely short. Each time it encounters an electron, it's scattered off in a random direction. Each time it encounters an ion or atom, there's a chance it will be absorbed, after which it will be re-emitted. Each one of those interactions randomizes the path of the photon. Further, each time a photon is absorbed and re-emitted by an atom or ion, there's a good chance that rather than one photon of the same energy being emitted, several photons of lower energy (with the sum ultimately equalling the energy of the original photon) will be emitted instead.
The combined process results in two key effects. First, it takes a long time for a quantum of energy generated in the core to be released from the surface of the Sun; something on the order of 500,000 years. Second, by the time that energy ultimately escapes, it is not as a single gamma ray but rather as a large number of photons of much lower energy. This is why the spectrum of the Sun (and every other star) is not a few spikes at gamma ray wavelengths corresponding to proton-proton fusion reactions, but a thermal spectrum.
Roadhizzy
Jedi
Curious if you have watched all the SAFIRE Project videos and updates? Between that and some geological evidence of transmutation via massive plasma strikes, I really think that fusion isn't the only option available. I have a theory on cold fusion as well in stellar/planetary cores that really isn't fusion but more of a production/assembly line in that very exotic state that could only be found in much cold/dense environs (superconductor) - partly from Cass and the NH4 crystal comment (pyramid anyone) - transistor?
The "cold" center and extremely hot corona are also oddities beyond the "energy is trapped for half a million years before we get to observe/measure it"
I get the density and grav/EM angle, it's obviously how science dealt with the massive inconsistency. I always think there's a far more elegant approach. Law of One calls our star the sub-Logos. Writing the "laws" of physics, carrying all of the templates of atomic/subatomic particles. Emitting all the energy that created & fostered life here. Intelligent Energy. The cause to the effect known as evolution :D
The "cold" center and extremely hot corona are also oddities beyond the "energy is trapped for half a million years before we get to observe/measure it"
I get the density and grav/EM angle, it's obviously how science dealt with the massive inconsistency. I always think there's a far more elegant approach. Law of One calls our star the sub-Logos. Writing the "laws" of physics, carrying all of the templates of atomic/subatomic particles. Emitting all the energy that created & fostered life here. Intelligent Energy. The cause to the effect known as evolution :D
woneill1701
Jedi
The torque and precession implies a force acting to rotate the axis of rotation about a different axis.
With a top, that torque comes from the external force of gravity trying to pull the top’s centre of mass downwards, acting against the bottom point of the spinning top to create a pivot point. The forces of gravity and the reaction at the pivot point cause the top to tilt - resulting in rotation about a different axis and subsequent precession.
What force is acting on the Earth to cause its rotational axis to rotate?
The earth is spinning in free space. Unlike a top, there is no pivot point in contact with a table to oppose free rotation. If there was an externally applied force causing the earth’s axis to rotate, it would!
Gyroscopes are SO cool!
psychegram
The Living Force
The gravitational force of the Sun acting upon the Earth's equatorial bulge is what causes the rotational axis to precess.
I feel like such a dweeb when I read posts like this.
It’s like you are speaking another language.
I soooo need more neurons firing
It’s like you are speaking another language.
I soooo need more neurons firing
woneill1701
Jedi
But if that were the case the earth would just flip over.
The precession of a top only happens because the axis of rotation is constrained by the contact point with the table.
If you have a gyroscope and apply a rotational force (and a typical Gyroscope can be said to have an equatorial bulge), it merely rotates the axis through precessional motion UNTIL the rotational force is dissipated.
Also, the torque on a top only exists BECAUSE of unbalanced forces and a constraint on its ability to balance that force.
Just hold a gyroscope in your hand and apply a rotation!
(Very few people have fully analyzed/understood precessional motion! It is not required to get a degree in Physics!)
Most Physics degrees gloss over gyroscopes!
If the earth were subjected to a rotational force, it would simply rotate its axis of rotation! It would not precess like a top!
The ONLY reason for precession like a “top” is if the axis of rotation were constrained in some way!
(Apologies: This was always a trick question! Precession of the earth like a top is impossible unless the earth is spinning on a table!)
woneill1701
Jedi
The interaction between the earth’s magnetic field and that of the Sun, could possibly effect a constraint on axial rotation, but so far I have never seen anyone link the two…
@woneill1701 Well, I think there are several factors involved for the precession and from my point of view, if we add up it is gravitational and electromagnetic. I started to do some research very quickly and I found the Inner core super-rotation
Assuming this opposite/contra-rotation, it could result in the actual precession of the axis and its stability because when there is such counter-rotation, torque is usually minimized. Now if the magnetic field weakens or strengthens, that can (?) changes the velocity and therefore could induce torque.
But what could alter the earth's magnetic field? Assuming EU theory and plasma cosmology, electromagnetic changes in the solar system would be the torque-inducing factor. Perhaps there is a whole chain of events, as in cascade coming from the galactic nucleus through the Pleiades, Arcturus, arriving to our solar system.
Assuming this opposite/contra-rotation, it could result in the actual precession of the axis and its stability because when there is such counter-rotation, torque is usually minimized. Now if the magnetic field weakens or strengthens, that can (?) changes the velocity and therefore could induce torque.
But what could alter the earth's magnetic field? Assuming EU theory and plasma cosmology, electromagnetic changes in the solar system would be the torque-inducing factor. Perhaps there is a whole chain of events, as in cascade coming from the galactic nucleus through the Pleiades, Arcturus, arriving to our solar system.
psychegram
The Living Force
The Earth is a big object. It has an absolutely ridiculous amount of angular momentum compared to a gyroscope.
Note that the gyroscope precesses until its rotational kinetic energy is dissipated, at which point it falls over.
The Earth, of course, will never "fall over" since it's not balanced on a table. Its rotation period is, however, slowing, thanks to tidal friction from the Moon. Hundreds of millions of years ago, the day was much shorter; in the distant future, it will be much longer. Obviously, if the Earth's rotation were to be slowed to the point of basically stopping, precession would also cease (although I believe the Sun is expected to become a red giant long before then).
The torque on the Earth also exists due to unbalanced forces - in particular, the gravitational tug of the Sun, acting on the Earth's equatorial bulge, which is not in balance because the Earth's rotational axis is tilted wrt the orbital plane.
woneill1701
Jedi
There could be many factors that could cause the earth to wobble like a top…
And this could be one of them! The top on a table analogy, unfortunately, isn’t!
I do believe we, on this planet, also know a lot less about the Physics of 3D than we like to think we do.
My original point was that the idea proposed by the ”See The Pattern” guy was both elegant and simple - the simplest I have seen.
I like simple and elegant!
It also provided an interesting idea of why Sirius featured so prominently in ancient Egyptian astronomy.
I’m not saying he was right, but I like the simplicity of the hypothesis.
Btw: Gyroscopes and rotational motion are generally both poorly understood and historically under-researched. I believe there is as rich a world of Physics in rotational dynamics and geometry as there was found to be in 3D Dynamics and Geometry by Lorentz and Maxwel etc…
Yes, all Physicists learn about Moments of Inertia and Torque, but that is no more advanced than BASIC Newtonian Dynamics. Most then put it on a shelf and never give it a second look. Sad!
woneill1701
Jedi
Wrong!
The Earth IS a big gyroscope! Its equatorial bulge doesn’t make it different to any other gyroscope. Gyroscopes in free space don't automatically precess their axis in a constant gravitational field.
If it were subjected to a rotational force it would flip over. Obviously, it’s inertia would make the speed of the flip proportional to the strength of the force, but it would flip in a single motion.
It wouldn’t wobble!
(Unless, of course the force causing the Torque was itself oscillating.)
psychegram
The Living Force
Forgive me, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. All that is required is a rotating object that is not perfectly spherical, with the axis of rotation tilted wrt the force acting upon it. All of these conditions are satisfied by the Earth-Sun system.
