The powers of the heavens shall be shaken. – Jesus, Matthew 24:29
Author’s Note: The following discussion continues an exploration into scientific subjects which attempt to explain why the Sun might nova and what we can expect to happen. I am not a champion of any particular scientific theory. I am a theologian. Scientists reading my papers might be frustrated by my neophyte explanations. I beg their patience and hope that readers will continue their own investigations. (On the nebular hypothesis see the end of the article below.)
Inside the Sun
Standard science tells us that the Sun is a solid sphere approximately 864,938 miles in diameter. We are expected to believe that its nuclear reactions occur in its solid core, and somehow, without blowing up, these reactions migrate out to the surface and continue to be propagated in an atmospheric conflagration.
The Sun’s atmosphere (including the chromosphere and photosphere) is a whopping 5 million miles thick. Obviously, there is a lot going on in there, and because of the Sun’s intense radiance, a lot that we can’t see.
Solar spectroscopy is an important field of science. Because all of the elements in the universe are atoms which are composed of moving parts, they emit radiant frequencies which can be detected and measured. Being a form of light, some are perceptible to the human eye, but most are not. Douglas Vogt notes that Iron, for example, has over 5,000 spectral-line frequency patterns which can be detected and measured (God’s Day of Judgment, p. 51). We introduced this in our review of Donald Patten’s theory of solar nova. Douglas Vogt has made it a foundational principle in his “Information View of Multi-Dimensional Reality.”
[Side Note #1 – And to help you understand Ben Davidson’s daily reports, these wavelengths are measured in “Angstrom units”: A = 1/10,000,000th of a millimeter.]
However, in recent years, we have reason to believe that the Sun contains oceans of liquid metallic hydrogen. How deep those oceans are, we don’t know.
This supposition comes from one of the more exciting developments in astrophysics: Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s theory that stellar combustion is fueled by this liquid metallic hydrogen. He has been cited before. See here for supporting links:
https://2046ad.org/for-st-patricks-day-2022/
He seems to believe that the Sun is not a solid at all, but like a massive water bubble in space, is entirely a spherical ocean of hydrogen. Evidently, this theory postulates that at the beginning of the universe, hydrogen was all there was and that it is the fusion process which has subsequently created all of the heavy isotopes which have become the elements of the periodic chart.
In other words, if the Sun has a crust at all, its mass is growing from the accumulation of these heavy isotopes and elements which do not achieve escape velocity but instead accrete on its surface.
Electric Universe Theorists are pleased with this train of thought, as they prefer to think of the universe as a vast network of Birkeland Currents with electrical strings which only exhibit mass (star systems) as a result of what is called “the pinch effect.”
In contrast, James McCanney cites Russian sources from many years ago, in which X-Ray beams were used to mark when the solar atmosphere ended and when its crustal core began. McCanney was an early proponent of electric universe concepts and his works contain discussions on Birkeland Currents, the pinch effect, and the synapses which connect the cosmos. But he has never denied the existence of stars with solid cores or Newtonian physics, as have more recent theorists:
https://2046ad.org/survival-praxis-29-when-god-shoots-pool-part-1-of-2/
If Robitaille is correct, it would be difficult to know if the Sun’s oceans are streaming above the crust as atmospheric oceans – in other words, that the crust is totally submerged by these oceans – or whether they are collected into crevasses and basins in the crust, as the oceans are on Earth. If, as he argues, hydrogen compounds, like water, are dark bodies, then the crustal measurements might be skewed with a much smaller core than previously believed. (More in our next installment).
There are problems with his theory, of course. But it mainly has to do with his belief that the Sun has no solid core at all, rather than with the notion that there is such a thing as liquid metallic hydrogen (but See the Pattern). He has not completed his presentation of his theory on YouTube, although he has in his papers. So maybe, the conversion of these oceans into heavy isotopes, the ones which do not achieve escape velocity, also coalesce to the center of the Sun and begin a process of accretion, as mentioned above. In other words, the Sun’s solid core is being formed now, like a galactic comet, which will eventually result in a supernova and a repeat of the process in a never-ending cycle of destruction and recreation.
[Side Note #2: For the record, I have always subscribed to a modified Steady-State Theory of Cosmology – now over 40 years – and have never embraced the Big Bang Theory.]
In some ways, this seems to be the opposite of the standard model which says that the Sun’s solid core is getting smaller because it is the source of its stellar fuel that is getting burned up and dissipating into space. Patten, for example, argues that the Sun shrinks at its core 12 miles a year.
But the Sun manifests a magnetic field at its core of an iron/nickel composition. This will be discussed at length in the next installment as we review Vogt’s theory of stellar modulation points. Magnetic fields cannot exist in heat above the Curie temperature, meaning that the Sun must have a core which is cool enough to maintain its magnetic field – as does Earth – and that it is non-electrical, in distinction from the electrical magnetic patterns formed in the Sun’s atmosphere.
Even though it is weak in comparison, this magnetic field dominates the fusion process on the solar surface and creates boundaries called granulation. They create regions of control like a cellular compartmentalization. We see a corollary structure on Earth in plate tectonics, except that, unlike the Sun, Earth’s atmosphere is not the setting of nuclear processes.
E=MC2 From Mass to Energy
Neutrons are formed when a proton loses its charge either through collision or by other means which cause a separation of charge. Because the neutron has mass, it still has attractive force through gravity, and through, perhaps, the Casimir Effect, which amplifies the effects of the vacuum of space.
It is the separation of charge which constitutes the fusion process, as the hydrogen atom loses a positron and an electron. Whatever is left becomes light emissions and the mass of the new neutron. An imperfect burn of heavier elements, such as helium and iron, results in isotopes and ionized charges (iron can form into nickel, for example).
There has been much discussion among scientists as to what causes the separation of charge and maintains a segregation of charge after the initial explosion. It is generally supposed that collisions of atoms at great velocity created by relativistic temperatures are a sufficient force to split the atom. We were able to make atomic bombs when we figured this out.
While a chemical exchange occurs in nature all of the time which involves the exchange of electrons – and results in kinetic energy in the form of light, heat (fire), movement (work), or adhesion of elements into compounds – nuclear exchange, on the other hand, occurs primarily at the level of the atomic nucleus in stars where there is enough heat and velocity to maintain the reaction.
The phenomenon begs the question as to what force initiates that chain reaction?
It has been long held by some scientists – and was once considered the standard theory – that the great mass and density of stars are what cause atoms to collide with enough velocity to split them. But others among plasma physicists in recent decades believe that fusion occurs on the surface of a star, and not at its core. The cause is believed to be purely electrical rather than gravitational.
As with many theories on the path of discovery, we usually find them to be partly right and partly wrong.
Bolt lightning on Earth, for example, represents fusion at a nuclear level. It is obviously electrical in nature and has no immediately obvious relationship to gravity. If electrical currents can result in nuclear reactions, is the force of gravity even necessary at all? Is gravity itself a manifestation of an electrical phenomenon, as many “electrical universe” enthusiasts insist?
Perhaps to illustrate the dilemma, we can use this analogy:
It has been known in agriculture that deep inside of piles of grain, it’s cold. For thousands of years, mankind has used storage bins of grain for purposes of refrigeration by burying the respective items deep into the grain pile. Density usually retards the movement of heat and kinetic energy. The condition of “absolute zero” represents total stasis at an atomic level. Consequently, it can be argued that the Sun, for example, does not manifest a nuclear reaction at its core, but rather coldness, as does Earth.
[Side Note #3 – You must understand, that what I am proposing here is not current scientific theory. However, measurements of solar temperatures in recent years indicate that the solar surface is much “cooler” than its atmosphere. It is suggestive of my hypothesis. I would argue that density does not result in heat but rather coldness. It is velocity and friction which creates heat, a thing which can only occur in the solar atmosphere.]
Except . . .
To pursue our analogy a little further, we also know that grain elevators can spontaneously explode into an inferno. I have seen the aftermath of such a disaster.
This happens because of the introduction of a volatile. In the case of a grain elevator, grain emits organic compounds in the form of a gas. In the Sun, while I believe that its inner core is a solid much colder than the temperatures at its surface, its atmosphere (or mantle if its structure corresponds to that of the Earth), contains “bubbles” of volatiles, which, when they fall or are pressed into the Sun, do so with sufficient stress to create the collisions required for a nuclear reaction. Much like the ionizing effect of raindrops on Earth’s soil.
If Robitaille’s theory of liquid metallic hydrogen on the Sun has any merit, we can, at least, believe that vast oceans of it would be “respirating” much like Earth’s oceans respirate water vapor and form into clouds. The emptiness of space requires dissipation. Thus, the Sun’s respirating oceans of hydrogen would continually form the fuel for atmospheric fusion when those atoms encounter violent electrical charges. But because these are oceans which do not cover the entire solar surface, we can believe that the Sun has columns of solid crustal mass from radioactive isotopes, much like Earth’s continents, over which solar weather passes. This would explain Robitaille’s claim that the Sun is the setting of fusion, fission, and chemical explosions at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels.
But, again, what would have started the process? If the universe started with only hydrogen – one positively charged proton, and one negatively charged electron – there must have been a third force which started the chain reaction.
Something with mass must dominate. To speak speculatively, the universe would have had to begin with something more like helium, which has two protons, two neutrons, and two electrons. Neutrons do not have charge, but they do have mass.
However, helium is a noble gas and is inert. So, evidently, we cannot go down that path either. We are still looking for something which interjects the volatility.
[Side Note #4: Vogt’s Theory of Multi-Dimensional Reality becomes an attractive solution which will be discussed in the next installment.]
I would suggest that a star is born when the tidal forces of a close encounter with a celestial body of sufficient size creates velocity and heat for the nuclear process to start. Since all celestial objects exhibit electrical charge to a greater or lesser extent, the close approach of a binary with a star would not only have tidal effects but electrical effects, as well. If the encounter creates a Birkeland current between the two bodies, they both will light up and commence the fusion process.
So, here, we discover the role of gravity in this process and why true stars, including our Sun, must have a solid core. Tidal action cannot occur unless there is mass.
We have discussed extensively Donald Patten’s theory of a binary encounter for our Sun with what he called – Little Brother – some 26,000 years ago. There is reason to believe that the tidal forces of that encounter set the Sun ablaze. It certainly intensified that “blaze” into a solar nova reaction and may have been what turned it on for the first time, if our Astro-Saturnalian theorists can be believed. . .
[Side Note #5: A discussion on the nebular hypothesis and plasma physics will be offered in the next installment.]
(to be continued)
James Wesley Stivers, 5/1/23
Survival Praxis is published bi-weekly only to the 2046AD.org website.
Copyright (c) reserved 2020-2023.
