NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.

Rass

NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
«  »Last edited
If you go visit the NASA website for information about solar anatomy expect to be misled. Our Sun is NOT mostly made of hydrogen and helium. It is in fact abundant in heavy elements similar to what you would expect to find on planets. With the latest advances in technology, NASA is in the best position to know what is really going on when it comes to our Sun. Interestingly, they continue to chose to ignore the liquid and semi-solid characteristics that point to a more liquid-plasma arrangement. Why is this significant? Imagine a perfect natural example of cold fusion that can be observed and understood with some basic analysis. Gentlemen, we have such an example and it is the Sun!

(For now, let's stick with the technical details and ignore the political motives that led NASA to mislead the public.)

Forget the exotic theories and exotic materials for cold fusion experimentation. We should look at the Sun and how gas/plasma interact with molten metals. As a starting point, look into catalysis science and how electric currents are generated from molten metals. Volcanic lightning is a great example.

With the liquid-plasma solar model taken into consideration, I sincerely believe the H-Cat experiments are on the right path when it comes to cold fusion. These are simple experiments where one can take a catalytic converter from a car and run hydrogen/HHO gas through it to create an immense amount of heat. The catalytic properties of every metal is different. Some require pre-heating while others are quick to react.

Just skimming the surface here(pun intended). There is another heretical and ignored scientific model that points to natural cold fusion of Earth. More on that later. Any comments?

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #1,  »
Simple question for anyone willing to answer. Assuming there is a constant supply of hydrogen to react with the metals for cold fusion; how many grams of transmuted elements will I have in the mix? After 15 minutes? After 1 year? After 1 million years? After 4.5 billion years?

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #2,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Rass on January 30th, 2017, 01:52 PM
If you go visit the NASA website for information about solar anatomy expect to be misled. Our Sun is NOT mostly made of hydrogen and helium. It is in fact abundant in heavy elements similar to what you would expect to find on planets.
Ummm, no. The sun consists of approximately the following, by mass:
Hydrogen: 71%
Helium: 27.1%
Oxygen: 0.97%
Carbon: 0.4%
Iron: 0.14%
Silicon: 0.099%
Nitrogen: 0.096%
Magnesium: 0.076%
Neon: 0.058%
Sulfur: 0.04%
57 other elements in trace quantities.

The above data was empirically derived by analysis of the solar spectrum, which comes from the photosphere and chromosphere of the Sun. Yet again QM proves itself useful... it is the quantization of photon energy levels and the resultant spectral emission lines that are different for every element which was the underlying basis for QM, after all... so this is very basic science, in terms of how much else QM has revealed.

It is thought to be representative of the entire Sun with the exception of the solar core because of the degree of mixing which takes place between the layers of the Sun's interior. Obviously, we can't see the core, so knowing what's there is more of an educated guess, but knowing the fusion processes taking place, the rate at which they take place, the temperatures at which they take place, and how long they've taken place, we have a pretty good idea.

For instance, we know the solar core is far too cool to fuse much more than hydrogen to helium, so carbon production will be pretty low. We also know total solar mass is right at the cusp where CNO (carbon-nitrogen-oxygen catalyzed) fusion can take place (only 1.7% of He produced in the sun is via the CNO process).

What you're proposing is that our sun is predominantly a CNO fused star, and that's not the case, nor will it ever be the case unless the sun takes on at least 30% more hydrogen from some source. Our sun fuses via the proton-proton reaction.
Quote from Rass on January 30th, 2017, 01:52 PM
With the latest advances in technology, NASA is in the best position to know what is really going on when it comes to our Sun.
You don't have to believe NASA, there are plenty of research organizations studying the sun other than NASA. None of them state what you claim, except for:

  • Dr. Oliver Manuel, formerly of University of Missouri... but he... how do I put this delicately?... he's had several personal problems. He also thinks our sun has a "pulsar core" made of iron... I'm sure you can spot the problems in his belief, not the least of which can be easily discerned by simple orbital distance calculations.
  • M.A. Padmanabha Rao · Former Professor of Medical Physics, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehra Dun, India... he apparently claims the sun is a giant chunk of uranium, giving off "Bharat Radiation".

In fact, the sun's composition was confirmed by neutrino emission, which lead to the discovery that there are three types of neutrinos (electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino). The combined neutrino emission confirmed the sun's hydrogen proton-proton fusion cycle.
Quote from Rass on January 30th, 2017, 01:52 PM
Interestingly, they continue to chose to ignore the liquid and semi-solid characteristics that point to a more liquid-plasma arrangement. Why is this significant? Imagine a perfect natural example of cold fusion that can be observed and understood with some basic analysis. Gentlemen, we have such an example and it is the Sun!
No, that could only happen if the sun was predominantly a CNO-I cycle star. It is not.

As for your "Birkeland Sun" research, Birkeland was studying the auroras, that spiral of charged particles which are magnetically induced toward the poles as they seek the lowest energy potential. His finding that the sun emitted a stream of plasma tends to coincide with the fact that the sun is plasma, in the strictest definition of the word. The Quantum Vacuum Zero Point Energy field is an extension of the stars, a paramagnetic cold plasma of entropied energy from those stars.

Many believe that Birkeland found two stable plasmic rings around the 'poles' of the terella in his experimental set-up... but what they don't know is that to simulate the effect for demonstration purposes, he often painted the sphere in his experimental setup with radium bromide in the regions he wanted to show an auroral effect. He also used phosphorescent or fluorescent paint, or pump oil to create smoke that rose from the sphere when hit with high voltage.

Birkeland also claimed that the planets throw off matter which produced these plasmic rings, citing Saturn as an example. We know today that Birkeland was wrong. The auroras are merely charged particles (air molecules excited by solar emission of plasma) spiraling toward the pole of the planet's magnetic field, fully in accordance with Faraday's Law of Induction.

Diadon

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #3,  »
Very good points Cycle and as a explorer of QM, I am sure you are aware of the great paradoxes that plague gravity bound stars? The unknown center of stars can play a great importance on how a stars fusion is maintained and its important to test possibilities. Condensed matter and electrical phenomena are very over looked in mainstream  cosmology. Its really quite unfortunate if you ask me that we feel the need to separate physics into constituent parts. As if the universe operates on randomly devised terms that have no coherency throughout all orders of magnitude.

 To say Birkeland was wrong about matter expulsion, what do you think happen to hydrogen and helium gases on our planet? How do you think Hydrogen and helium gases are isolated on our planet? You do bring up a lot of very good empirical facts though, I appreciate that very much.
 

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #4,  »Last edited
Quote from Cycle on January 30th, 2017, 06:05 PM
Ummm, no. The sun consists of approximately the following, by mass:
Hydrogen: 71%
Helium: 27.1%
Oxygen: 0.97%
Carbon: 0.4%
Iron: 0.14%
Silicon: 0.099%
Nitrogen: 0.096%
Magnesium: 0.076%
Neon: 0.058%
Sulfur: 0.04%
57 other elements in trace quantities.
In the liquid-plasma model of the Sun, we are dealing with a liquid metallic core and plasma atmosphere. Heavy elements will be underrepresented due to the atomic weight sorting caused by the strong gravity.
Quote from Cycle on January 30th, 2017, 06:05 PM
The above data was empirically derived by analysis of the solar spectrum, which comes from the photosphere and chromosphere of the Sun. Yet again QM proves itself useful... it is the quantization of photon energy levels and the resultant spectral emission lines that are different for every element which was the underlying basis for QM, after all... so this is very basic science, in terms of how much else QM has revealed.

It is thought to be representative of the entire Sun with the exception of the solar core because of the degree of mixing which takes place between the layers of the Sun's interior. Obviously, we can't see the core, so knowing what's there is more of an educated guess, but knowing the fusion processes taking place, the rate at which they take place, the temperatures at which they take place, and how long they've taken place, we have a pretty good idea.

For instance, we know the solar core is far too cool to fuse much more than hydrogen to helium, so carbon production will be pretty low. We also know total solar mass is right at the cusp where CNO (carbon-nitrogen-oxygen catalyzed) fusion can take place (only 1.7% of He produced in the sun is via the CNO process).

What you're proposing is that our sun is predominantly a CNO fused star, and that's not the case, nor will it ever be the case unless the sun takes on at least 30% more hydrogen from some source. Our sun fuses via the proton-proton reaction.
The spectral profile of the Sun shows us that all heavy elements are present. Unfortunately, it cannot give us the overall abundance of each element. Temperatures get "cooler" as we go toward the core. The closest we can measure from the core are the sun spots and they have temperatures of about  about 3,800 degrees K. What we can measure and observe is more important than hypothesis. The fact is, the core remains a mystery where hypothesis tries to fill in the blanks. Most of what you cited is hypothesis.

Assuming all of the important reactions originate in the center and not on the surface or plasma atmosphere was the biggest mistake. With LENR research we now know that the magic can occur on the surface. Thanks to the most recent satellite observations we also know there are electric arcs of iron and silicon that play a role in the plasma atmosphere. The fact that temperatures get hotter as you get further from the core is substantial evidence that should not be ignored. Cmon, the surface is 3,800K while the outer atmosphere(Corona) is 1-3 MILLION Kelvin!

Thanks to direct satellite observations we can see the liquid and persistent surface features of the sun. These are simply not possible from a chaotic nuclear plasma core. There is visual evidence supporting tsunamis, quakes and shock waves. (Reference: http://thesurfaceofthesun.com) I am surprised you didn't ask for images or videos. Again, observation is more important than hypothesis. Can you  show me experiments that can give a gas or plasma liquid properties? without violating Boyle's law?

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #5,  »
In case something untimely happens to me, here are some more references. Sorry for the chaos guys. I want this information available to the public.

Professor Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

The Surface of the Sun
http://thesurfaceofthesun.com

A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-12.PDF

SAFIRE Project
http://www.everythingselectric.com/safire-project/
http://www.safireproject.com/


Ris

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #7,  »
All this is very interesting I love the vast expanses of our universe I'd like to run by them you know jumping and gliding soar and stuff like that.
but there is one big problem I am too small and the universe is too big for any thought

Rass


Ris

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #9,  »
a very good friend of mine

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #10,  »Last edited
Quote from Rass on January 30th, 2017, 04:12 PM
Simple question for anyone willing to answer. Assuming there is a constant supply of hydrogen to react with the metals for cold fusion; how many grams of transmuted elements will I have in the mix? After 15 minutes? After 1 year? After 1 million years? After 4.5 billion years?
Let me elaborate: If we apply the same principles of cold fusion to any planet's molten core we should expect some telltale signs.  One of these characteristics are elemental transmutations that end up deposited and recirculated. There are many LENR experiments where transmutations occur. Imagine running a cold fusion reactor for 4.5 billion years without discarding these extra elements. What should we expect? Outward growth of the reaction chamber! This is assuming we have a continuous supply of hydrogen.

Here is the real kicker! An underground 'ocean' was recently found (Reference: http://www.iflscience.com/environment/huge-underground-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/) and there is an old scientific model called 'Expanding Earth' that was long discarded by the mainstream establishment! Should we just call it a coincidence?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

This is a whole new can of worms to consider and it may be the answer to how dinosaurs and other animals were able to grow so big. Reduced Earth mass during prehistoric times = less gravity! It may also explain why some dinosaurs slowly evolved & shrank into birds https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/. And,.. why their powerful skeletal structure supports hopping as the main mode of travel.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a39tVzLeqos

Hopping is a more practical form of travel than walking for low gravity environments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnjcZ4XU1DQ

Gunther Rattay

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #12,  »
Dr. Konstantin Meyl also has set up the theory that earth is permanently growing by sucking up neutinos emitted from the sun and comes to the same dinosaur conclusion.

brettly

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #13,  »
I came across this video of a solar flare from 2012 taken by a  satellite in earth orbit ( SDO nasa)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlWmwWy0yZ0

Its quite amazing to watch, it appears as if matter is being produced at the top of the flare and falling back to the sun, the explanation though is condensing of hot plasma which follows the magnetic field lines back to the surface of the sun. The plasma being produced by the solar flare.
The time scale is approx 30mins ( its timelapsed).
There is another video shows the scale of the earth compared to the flare, somewhere between 5 to 10 earths would fit from the bottom to the top of the plasma rain structure.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011100/a011168/G2013-012_Raining_Loops_FINAL_appletv.webmhd.webm

More info the the spacecraft is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Dynamics_Observatory
Its seems they are also studying the internal structure of the sun also, I expect the data is available via research papers which can be searched on the internet. I dont think any conspiracy theories to worry about.

Diadon

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #14,  »
Yes, NASA is probably not lying about anything, just physics that are not fully understood. Isn't that the way good science goes, trying to unravel the patterns in nature? :)

Matt Watts

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #15,  »
One can say, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."

However, the corollary, "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by malice.", cannot be disregarded.

We live in interesting times.  Discernment must always be injected into any data gathered.  Hopefully what comes out is factual information.

Something I've learned from our Russian ambassadors is that we cannot throw just any data into our physics and declare our physics is always correct.  The tools of physics we use are just tools.  You can call them laws, but that would be imprecise.  The data must be appropriate for the tools we use; if they are not, the tools break or give us useless results.  Our tools of physics have very limited applications and must be properly selected.  You can use all the "scientific method" you want, but without the experience necessary to pick the right tool, you're sunk before you even start.

You've all heard of lies, damn lies and statistics.  Which leads me back to how I started this post.  It's quite possible to pick the wrong tools and still get the results you want or expected.  This can be done intentionally as well as accidentally, lacking experience.  It's the end user that needs the discernment to determine whether the results are accurate and why they are accurate, or not.  I've read a lot of pages on Wikipedia over the years and I'm most certain not all of it is correct.  Some is in error due to poor analysis and some is put there with the hope people will accept it when it is known to be incorrect.  After a while, you grow a nose that can sniff propaganda.  Once you've got the scent, it's difficult to forget and more difficult to reset.

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #16,  »Last edited
Despite the Sun's crazy magnetic field it has a consistent surface pattern of hills and valleys due to oscillations. This is characteristic of a liquid and not plasma!! I am still waiting for an experiment that can violate Boyle's law by giving gas/plasma liquid properties.

Magnetic field

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g1epPppIOM

Solar surface oscillations


Liquid oscillations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmQynxqGjY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F95Oowfg4pA

References:


http://soi.stanford.edu/press/961217.AGU/merc.121896
Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #17,  »
Quote from Cycle on January 30th, 2017, 06:05 PM
What you're proposing is that our sun is predominantly a CNO fused star, and that's not the case, nor will it ever be the case unless the sun takes on at least 30% more hydrogen from some source. Our sun fuses via the proton-proton reaction.
Something else to consider.

Water found on the Sun.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/news/sunwater.html

Diadon

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #18,  »Last edited
Rass, Many are doing experiments on this matter to be sure. Been my primary focus for about 1.5 years now. There are many of us working on these types of models for stars. I try not to speculate too much, but most of what you are saying I have been interested in for some time now. Its just about proving phenomenon empirically and doing the work. Then helping make energy truly free for all of life on this planet is the next logical step. If we grow wings, it will be difficult to keep us down ^^  Its not an easy feet of engineering by any means though when one considers the lack of industry behind it. How does a corporation make money off of abundance?

Keep exploring new possibilities my friend and please keep the information flowing ;) 

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #19,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Rass on January 31st, 2017, 11:19 AM
In the liquid-plasma model of the Sun, we are dealing with a liquid metallic core and plasma atmosphere. Heavy elements will be underrepresented due to the atomic weight sorting caused by the strong gravity.
And that stronger gravity would affect orbital distance of the planets... we know it does not, therefore the core of the sun cannot be iron.
Quote from Rass on January 31st, 2017, 11:19 AM
The spectral profile of the Sun shows us that all heavy elements are present.
In trace quantities... likely due to infall, not due to production (our sun is barely large enough to reliably produce carbon). Production of elements heavier than iron require the unusually energetic conditions of an exploding supernova... which our sun quite obviously is not (and never will be... only stars that are ~8 times the mass of our sun go supernova... our star will become a red giant, then a white dwarf).
Quote from Rass on January 31st, 2017, 11:19 AM
Unfortunately, it cannot give us the overall abundance of each element.
Really?
Quote from Rass on January 31st, 2017, 11:19 AM
Temperatures get "cooler" as we go toward the core. The closest we can measure from the core are the sun spots and they have temperatures of about  about 3,800 degrees K. What we can measure and observe is more important than hypothesis. The fact is, the core remains a mystery where hypothesis tries to fill in the blanks. Most of what you cited is hypothesis.

Assuming all of the important reactions originate in the center and not on the surface or plasma atmosphere was the biggest mistake. With LENR research we now know that the magic can occur on the surface. Thanks to the most recent satellite observations we also know there are electric arcs of iron and silicon that play a role in the plasma atmosphere. The fact that temperatures get hotter as you get further from the core is substantial evidence that should not be ignored. Cmon, the surface is 3,800K while the outer atmosphere(Corona) is 1-3 MILLION Kelvin!

Thanks to direct satellite observations we can see the liquid and persistent surface features of the sun. These are simply not possible from a chaotic nuclear plasma core. There is visual evidence supporting tsunamis, quakes and shock waves. (Reference: http://thesurfaceofthesun.com) I am surprised you didn't ask for images or videos. Again, observation is more important than hypothesis. Can you  show me experiments that can give a gas or plasma liquid properties? without violating Boyle's law?
A comprehensive study of the sun's properties in 2012 by Northumbria University using the solar-imaging telescope known as Rapid Oscillations in the Solar Atmosphere (ROSA) and a 2011 study by Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL), NCAR and the University of Oslo using NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory and the Japanese Hinode satellite, found that magnetohydrodynamic pumping and plasma jets (Type II spicules) accounted completely for the increased temperature of the corona.

Iron being the most stable of elements, speaking in nuclear terms (elements lighter than Fe can be fused, elements heavier can be fissioned, there is no energy output available from either fusing or fissioning iron), the presence of a large amount of iron in a star indicates that it has a very short time to live, as it has used up most of its fuel. That is quite obviously not the case for our sun.

Diadon

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #20,  »Last edited
Cycle is correct, and this is the comparison of known abundance in our solar system. It also shows the Atomic number in accordance with a nucleosynthesis scale. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=946&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=most+stable+elements+in+the+universe&oq=most+stable+elements+in+the+universe&gs_l=img.3...459831.466294.0.466405.36.25.0.11.11.0.151.2644.13j12.25.0....0...1c.1.64.img..1.27.1801...0j0i67k1j0i24k1.Kqu9PunlW4U#imgrc=Q4imevENWtxPIM:

Fission or Fusion, Fe certainly seems to have a universal stability about it, doesn't it? I missed where Iron came from out of that though Cycle? A molten (liquid) metal core doesn't necessarily mean Iron(Fe) does it? Hydrogen does take on properties of an alkaline metal having only one valence electron. My "crazy" theory is that hydrogen has other phase states that are not completely understood yet. It has recently been found (as I predicted before discovering Eugene Wigner and Hillard Bell Huntington) that hydrogen demonstrates super fluid properties much like helium.

Citation:
http://people.physics.illinois.edu/Ceperley/papers/115.pdf

In metallic hydrogen where the H2 is aligned by either outer electron influence (ie shock waves) or extreme pressures, there is still much to learn. Just a matter of connecting the dots rather than compartmentalizing all the sciences.


Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #21,  »
In some cold fusion models the metallic lattice behaves as a prison for the gas atoms to fuse. The kinetic energy(heat) added from the liquid metal might be an important component. Mostly everyone is working with solid state metal because it is easier to observe and safer.
Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #22,  »Last edited
It never ceases to amaze me how some complicate a recipe given from nature. Every exploded star in the universe has an abundance of heavy elements (Iron, nickel, and silicon!) located at the core of their guts with lighter elements surrounding it. There is also an abundance of water in stellar nurseries and many stars including our sun. Funny how hypothetical models are given priority over empiricism leaving humanity further in the dark.

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #23,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Rass on February 2nd, 2017, 01:15 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how some complicate a recipe given from nature. Every exploded star in the universe has an abundance of heavy elements (Iron, nickel, and silicon!) located at the core of their guts with lighter elements surrounding it. There is also an abundance of water in stellar nurseries and many stars including our sun. Funny how hypothetical models are given priority over empiricism leaving humanity further in the dark.
The operative word being "exploded". In the extremely energetic conditions of an exploding supernova, elements can receive sufficient energy to fuse into heavier elements (ie: convert energy to mass via Einstein's mass-energy equivalency principle). Obviously, our sun hasn't exploded.

Our sun doesn't have sufficient mass to fuse much more than carbon, so any heavier elements are due to infall. It will never explode, as it's simply too small, eventually becoming a red giant then a white dwarf. So unless you're stating that our sun has somehow swallowed whole the core of a star that had previously gone supernova (a star that would be at least 8 time larger than our sun, and thus the core would be at least 8 times larger than the original core of our sun, which would affect the mass of the sun, and thus the orbital distance of the planets), what you're proposing cannot be reality.

Now, that's not to say that the infallen elements aren't in the core... heavier elements will tend to settle to the core, disrupted only by magnetohydrodynamic pumping (which would tend to throw those elements away from the sun during CME events), and the heavier elements in the sun would amount to approximately the mass of 300 earths... but then, that's tiny in comparison to the total mass and size of the sun, and thus has a negligible effect upon the sun.

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #24,  »Last edited
Quote from Cycle on February 2nd, 2017, 04:54 PM
..what you're proposing cannot be reality.
You forget where the center of gravity is and its strength. Of course the heavier elements are going to be in the core. For any significant amount to escape regularly would be an incredible feat. NASA monitors specifically for iron and silicon spectral profiles. Is it all just for fun? To assume heavy elements don't play an important role AND there isn't more underneath the surface, is ludicrous. Yes, it is easier to ignore these basic principles in order to fit preconceived models but it is still WRONG. Boyle's law is a law for a reason and elements are naturally sorted by weight, even in plasmas. The same physics found on Earth should apply to the Sun.

The standard model of the sun is one big fat lie. NASA is full of it when they disseminate such B.S. Even the convection zone has to be revised in order to reflect current measurements (100 times slower than originally predicted). That is, assuming it even exists because we can't observe it directly. Ref: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected

Here is a radical idea; Why don't we gather the most basic scientific observations and build a framework around it? Whoa. Nature has given us a  recipe and we decided to butcher it by assuming some parts were unimportant. Thanks to LENR research, we know better.