Let’s Start With the Sun

It appears that one of the aspects of this blog that appeals to many of you is when I make an observation or deduction that…

1. Is absolutely, pretty much inarguably, true, and…
2. Is absolutely, pretty much inarguably, contrary to what we are told by the various arms of the PTB.
3. There is no # 3. 1 and 2 are all we need. (As a shorthand I call the stuff referred to in #2 ‘bullshit’. (by the way, it’s nice that I don’t any longer get a little red line/spelling correction under ‘bullshit’; the term has apparently been (grudgingly) accepted by the PTB as part of the vernacular.)
   

   We won’t need this stuff today. Just common sense.

So okay. I do have a list of bullshit, but how to work it all in to this blog organically? I mean, where do I start? Conveniently, we have occasional commenters that, IMO, are working for the PTB and who come here to misdirect the conversation. But even if this is not the case, we still have a spring board to discussing HTWRW.

A commenter calling himself ‘Joe’ (whom I suspect is somehow related to ‘Sean’ from past posts) writes in the last post — presumably to ‘correct’ everything I wrote — the following:

Gas in an atmosphere will dissipate equally as you outline. But in a vacuum the strongest force at work is gravity which is an attractive force. Over enough time and with enough mass/atoms stars form. Those stars eventually die, the large ones explode and create the higher order elements that exist in the universe. It’s a byproduct of The fusion reaction and it’s been replicated on earth. Hydrogen bombs operate on fusion reaction. The really big stars are believed to collapse into black holes when they die. This is the generally accepted theory in science. It may not be 100% accurate or complete but the math and experimental evidence does support it.

I say comments like this are ‘convenient’ because everything Joe writes here is high on my list of bullshit. And it’s all important stuff! (Joe’s paragraph would elicit a nod from virtually every scientist or academic on the planet. Mmmm! Oh, boy!)

Addendum: Joe’s comment also made me laugh, for this reason: It appears that he’s sort of given up. I mean it’s like he’s doing his job here, but by rote. He’s phoning it in, i.e., not even trying. No insults or explanations at all. Just weak and bald assertions. It’s like he sighed and ‘got on with his job’ – meaning repeating the mainstream bullshit — knowing it wasn’t going to fly here. (I don’t think ‘Joe’ is a bot, but only because a bot would try harder.)

According to mainstream (big bang) science, the first element to form when the universe cooled down a bit was hydrogen. In fact, aside from a bit of lithium (a tiny bit) hydrogen was all we had. It’s the simplest and lightest of the known elements. Now, according to Joe (and the mainstream), when hydrogen gets really hot and compressed it forms helium, the next lightest and simplest element. In the process a whole lot of energy is released. This is a ‘fusion’ reaction. This is what powers our sun and all the stars. This is what we’re told. It’s bullshit, as we’ll see.

Addendum: A ‘fission’ reaction is when an atom splits, likewise producing energy; the ‘atomic’ bombs that supposedly destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission reactions (fission reactions are the type used in nuclear power plants). The ‘H-bomb’ is a fusion reaction and, again, as we’re told, is the energy-producing reaction deep inside our sun and indeed in all stars. But unlike an H-bomb, the fusion reaction inside our sun (we’re told) just keeps on giving. It is, in effect, a controlled reaction.

According to the PTB (and ‘Joe’, their mouthpiece here for now), if we can harness the fusion of hydrogen (as in our sun and all stars), we would have ‘free energy,’ since hydrogen is so common here on earth (water is two hydrogen atoms, plus one of oxygen). Joe says we have created controlled fusion reaction here on earth. This is one of the many lies  in Joe’s paragraph. Well, okay, it’s more of a de facto lie than an outright one. See, the PTB have been misdirecting us about free energy for almost a century, by continually claiming that fusion energy is just ‘around the corner’ (30 – 40 years ‘from now’ is the common claim, repeated down the decades). Check out this video and pay attention. This one is good too.

The point of these videos (and why Joe is lying) is that it takes more energy to create a fusion reaction than you get out of it. And this has been going on since the 1950s. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on fusion research. (Take a gander at the video links! They are… staggering in their implications!) And they can’t seem to figure out why it isn’t working. Well, as an answer to Joe’s untruth-laden comment, I’m going to spill the beans on why it hasn’t worked, and never will: The sun is not powered by a fusion reaction. Ditto all the stars in the heavens. So they are tying to recreate something that does not exist.

Addendum: To put it another way, do you think the sun would be involved in a process of energy creation wherein you have to put more energy in than you get as an end result? Would nature do that? I don’t think so!

Isn’t it amazing that you can come to this Mickey Mouse blog of mine and hear a truth of this importance? It’s a mind blower!

But can I prove what I’m saying? That the sun and stars are not powered by internal fusion reactions? Well, let’s give common sense a try.

Regarding star formation, ‘Joe’ agrees that gas will disperse in a room, as in my soda bottle example. Then he says this: ‘But in a vacuum the strongest force at work is gravity which is an attractive force.’ (And indeed, this is what mainstream physics will tell you. Joe has gotten his talking points right.)

Mmmm. Let’s think about this. In fact, let’s do a Net search for ‘Why does gas expand in a vacuum’ and see what we get…

Try this, from… Forbes Magazine! As mainstream as you can get! I’ll paste it in:

‘Imagine you have a jar of air. Inside the jar are a bunch of air molecules and each of those air molecules has energy. They are constantly bouncing around the jar. They bounce off of each other and they bounce off of the sides or the jar. The average speed of an air molecule, at room temperature and pressure is 500 meters per second. That means the average air molecule, unobstructed, could travel the length of four and a half soccer fields in a single second.

Now imagine we transfer that same quantity of air into a larger jar. Each molecule is still buzzing around, bouncing off of other molecules and off of the sides of the jar. The volume of the gas has increased and its density has decreased.

Let’s make the jar bigger again.

Again, those air molecules are still bouncing around at high speed. There is more space available now, so they hit each other a bit less often, but they still bounce off of the sides and change direction. If this jar is about a meter across, then each molecule can bounce off of up to 500 sides in a single second. We can keep making the jar bigger, and they’ll keep bouncing.

So, let’s just delete the jar.

We’re looking at empty space because the air molecules have all, with no boundaries to stop them, expanded off of the screen.’ [Yes, the above is similar to my ‘soda bottle in a room’ tale. Great minds think alike!]

In other words, the gas cloud in a vacuum will disperse into the void, which is the opposite of ‘collapsing’ (to form a star).

Seems like you’re wrong, Joe (as is everyone else in mainstream physics).

Let’s look at it from another angle: According to Joe’s theory, gravity must be the sum of the ‘gravities’ of all the gas molecules, right? If you picture a ‘cloud’ of molecules, each molecule is a source of gravity; ‘the cloud’ itself does not have gravity, except as the sum of the gravity of each individual gas molecule. This is common sense. Now look at the diagram with the little O’s representing molecules in a vacuum. Now picture little arrows around each O, pointing in, toward the center of the molecule (the ‘O’). This represents the gravity in a cloud of gas molecules. (The gravity of each molecule would be infinitesimally small, by the way; almost nonexistent. I’m just playing along with Joe’s ‘logic’. In point of fact, molecular motion is billions of times stronger than the gravity of any molecule.)

Now, looking at this cloud, Joe, please explain how gravity would cause it to collapse ‘inward’.   

You know, I think I’ve just double disproved the ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation! Wild, no? Right here on this little blog!

But let’s have someone smarter than me prove it. I’ve taken a bit from the end of a lecture by Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Please watch and notice his frustration right at the very end, when he finishing responding to a question our friend ‘Joe’ might have asked.

You can hear it in his voice there at the end, how upset he is to have gotten a question like the one he answered, from a scientist-colleague. See, when Dr. Robitaille refers to the laws of thermodynamics, he is really referring to common sense, as in the expanding gas example I gave. That modern physics is running afoul of common sense is very frustrating to this learned man, and he has sacrificed a lot to try to straighten out his colleagues. He’s having a hard time. So am I.

I ask you to now go to the full lecture for a more technical debunking of the ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation. Hell, I’ll make it even easier and embed it here:

Addendum: If you listen to Dr. Robitaille’s talk you will hear him use the words ‘intensive’ and ‘extensive’ in describing properties used in physics equations. Now it’s easy to get lost here if you’re not a physicist. But it’s really pretty simple. Consider these two properties to be like units of measurement. Feet as opposed to meters, say. Dr. R is merely saying, in effect, that if you use meters on one side of an equation, you have to use meters on the other side. You can’t mix feet with meters in an equation and expect to get the right answer. Or even simpler, we could use the ‘apples and oranges’ comparison. Okay? Okay. Now listen to the man. He’s not only brilliant but very courageous – like the kid in ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes.’

The ‘collapsing gas cloud’ standard model of star formation is what 99.9% of astronomers and cosmologists currently believe. Utter, complete nonsense. In other words, they are clueless as to the true nature of our very own sun! Yes, I’m going to use that word again: Implications!

I’ll be back soon with more to say about HTWRW.

Allan

One of the things you might be wondering (and I hope you are) is how it could be that Forbes Magazine — which is as mainstream as you can get — could publish a scientific truth that puts the lie to the standard model of star formation, which is part of the very bedrock of modern science. Well, a better question is How does all of academia believe in the standard model to begin with? Answer one question and you’ve gotten to the root of it.

I mean: Is it really as simple as I make it out here? Because if it is this simple, it would seem to follow that we have a major problem with human nature. All I can say after some serious looking is that it pretty much is this simple, and yes we do have a major, major problem with human nature. It’s this problem that will likely equal the end of our species.

Shit. I still have not gotten around to why Possible Minds aggravated me…