017 EU Meetup January 9, 2018

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Correct. I think we can see this even better on the scale of the heliosphere. Or in the case of the Local Chimney, which is just different geometry.  With the local chimney, we do have a “dense wall” of neutral gas and dust, surrounding a “hot sparse plasma”. A local “bubble” as they say. Same interesting dynamics though as Edmund Halley stated. The dense wall of neutral material “rotating as a solid”, with concentric shells inside, where “magnetism dominates”.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 17, 2017, at 7:44 PM, Juan Calsiano <juancalsiano@gmail.com> wrote:

One thing to have in mind is that the evidence for solid body rotation at the tachocline does not preclude a relatively “hollow” sun (“hollow” meaning less density at the geometrical core than at the tachocline spherical surface).

A spinning helium filled balloon also showcases solid body rotation. The density in the interior of the balloon is far less than the density of its plastic surface, i.e. it is “hollow”. Even more, you have a decreasing density gradient from the surface towards the center of the balloon, i.e. the very center is “more hollow” than the rest of the interior of the balloon. This gradient is due to the Bernoulli Principle (which is just a consequence of the conservation of energy in a fluid medium).

On 17 December 2017 at 23:06, Jim Weninger <jwen1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sorry, Juan and David.  I’m a bit behind in answering some of your emails, but this is what has been occupying my time in the last couple weeks:

We’ve talked about the idea of hollow sun,moon, and planets.  Not new at all, and Edmond Halley was more correct than they give him credit for here

https://www.wired.com/2014/07/fantastically-wrong-hollow-earth/

But the sun does show solid body rotation at the tachocline, which is just a bit below the differentially rotating surface.  Just read the couple paragraphs under “The Interface Layer (Tachocline)” here

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

They think the sun’s dipole field is generated there, but they realize the field is more complex. As with Earth, they are modeling more deeply embedded multipoles, as shown for Earth on page 4 here:

http://helios.fmi.fi/~juusolal/geomagnetism/Lectures/Chapter4_multipole.pdf

Note their “Basic assumption”, and note in the images, how the field lines cross the surface of the Earth, based on those dipoles “located at the center of the Earth”.

But look at the actual magnetic field lines from this image:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/faq1.jpg

Does it look like we have dipoles located at the center of the sun?  Or packed just below the spherical surface?

I’ll argue that Edo’s model is not just right for the nucleus, but for the sun as well.

I’m stating quite point blank now, that the universe is not just fractal in nature, but that the solar system to atom scale is an exact copy.

I’m still working on the list of properties on the solar system scale that become quantized/discrete just by accepting Titius-Bode.    The most recent is this:  We can calculate in advance the amount of energy needed to “strip” a planet from its solar system orbit.

Here also, Juan may remember our conversation on why the only stable spin directions for a planet in the long term, are “upspin” or “downspin”.  i.e., a planets rotation axis aligned with its orbital axis, or opposite to it.    For David and Edo, note that Wal Thornhill was right in stating that orbits should circularize over time (even though he had the mechanism wrong). But what happens in a circular orbit is as we see for Venus.  Venus has one of the most circular of planetary orbits, and of course, has it’s spin axis most aligned with its orbital axis.  (I think David may remember why this happens?)

Next up: read Charles Chandler’s ideas on compressive ionization here:

  http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=9717

And don’t worry if you haven’t agreed with me on anything in this email so far.  The compressive ionization idea is why we really don’t get neutron stars forming. But this idea is also key for understanding radioactive decay, if Edo’s model is right.  The same “pressure/density” idea for forcing  electrons out of an atom works for forcing electrons out of a nucleus. And don’t worry, Juan, BOTH scales are best explained in your world view, rather than the particle bias I’m using here.  We both know that what we are talking about is that the increased density outside is refracting waves outward rather than having waves refracted/internally reflected towards the atom or nucleus.

Sorry if all this was too cryptic, but I just wanted to get this out of the way, so everyone knows where I’m headed.  As always, any arguments against this would be greatly appreciated, before I get too far off track!

Jim