The solar flashlight & muller/romero

[MonsieurM]

Farmhand, i could not have said it better

But it seems to me like a problem of semantics, it is the same as saying "what is the difference between Physics and Magic", more than a 100 years ago electricity was considered magic, until the phenomena was explained...The same holds true for "OU systems "; they are OU systems, until someone comes along with an explanation of the phenomena and gives it another name (Magnetricity system or something like that )

[142857]

Sorry for the selective quote from the other thread and I'm not saying I agree with it, but this sounds a bit like a "self runner".

I hear most scientists when they talk of these things they are usually careful to say "We believe" or "I believe" or "It is believed" or "we have come to the conclusion".

None of it sounds definate and that is probably because they cannot say for sure. If they actually know so much why do they not say "this is how it is" or "we know for a fact" and "we can prove this" instead of the usual religious belief like statements they make ?

If they don't know for sure of something and they stick to a belief, that is faith. I don't begrudge anyone thier faith or belief's but i do not consider other's beliefs as my facts.

I have my own belief's. And faith is not really required except in ourselves. Maybe some of us will prove some things maybe we won't, no harm no foul.

Cheers

busy today, dunno how much i can get to all this now...but i will. before I get to wk though consider this :

IMO
The solar system is not a "self runner" it is simply loaded with fuel....the sun has a finite amount of fuel, and if it were to just run out...the engine of the solar system very likely would not keep going.

Most likely the "input" of the solar system is the sun, which through the help of gravity and billions of years (before 'years' even existed) collected and compressed it's fuel....once it lit, once it started it's self up(through natural and explicable forces) it will run till the proverbial gas tank is empty.

The FUEL for the solar system seems pretty obvious to me? no self runner there.

?

[Farmhand]

We won't be able to make much progress unless you can consider the information presented by Wallace Thornhill in the video's. Namely and firstly that it makes more sense that the Sun is fueled by electrical power from outside of the galaxy rather than being a nuclear reaction .

This part starts to explain it.
RIR W Thornhill The Electric Universe 2/12 - YouTube

I ask myself a lot of questions and attempt to answer them with logic, which is what leads me to my conclusions on things. It puts me in a difficult position because I agree with some things that many people say but not all and I often agree with people on one point and not on another.

The way I see it there are no "closed" systems all systems are "open" to varying degrees. And therefore can and do receive "input" and send out "output" which is received elsewhere.

If our Sun has a finite amount of energy to "burn" and it has no input, being a "closed" system, when it burns where does the energy go ? Energy cannot be destroyed or created.

When you run an electrical motor and you use energy, the energy you use is merely dissapated not actually consumed or destroyed. It leaves the system and returns to the "ambiant backround", or some can recaptured and stored. When we generate heat we are simply making an area more energetic the energy dissapates and when it does it must displace something.

You cannot take without giving and you cannot give without taking, this appears to me to be a self evident truth.

To say the Sun has received all its fuel makes no sense because if that were so it should show a steady and somewhat linear decline in power, but it does not really do that. It fluctuate's in cycles.

On a side note it seems silly to be concerned about global warming if the Sun is fading.

A low pressure has potential the same as a high pressure. Low pressures are not anchored down for high pressures to flow to unless we choose a "reference" low pressure of greater magnitude. Low is drawn to high the same as high is drawn to low. A high potential is only high when referenced to a low potential in comparison to it.

There seems to be a lot of erronous assumptions made about the Sun. I don't think we know enough to be able to just say the sun is a nuclear reaction and thats it.

I'm not saying it will keep going forever. Just that it is not a closed system. It is receiving.

If energy is only used once then the whole Universe will eventually come to a stop still containing all the energy it started with but the energy would all be transformed into mass but spread out motionless. All energy dissapated.

Explosion's don't go inwards after they finish going outwards. Explosions are the result of input energy. If an explosion is a rapid equalisation of energy from high potential to low. Then What is an implosion ?

For there to have been a big Bang there must have been an input and somewhere for the accumulation of potential energy to flow to.

I can't subscribe to the idea that the whole Universe shrinks down to a ball of mass and explodes as a Big Bang spreads out then shrinks down again to repeat.

We will have to accept there is a point in the past that we as mere humans will never be able to understand beyond. Just saying a big bang happened containing abosolutely everything which is now spreading out, just seems to be a little bit presumptuous and kinda silly.

What is Gravity ?

Cheers

[MonsieurM]

let's set things straight.... (I'm with Farmhand on this one )

[Farmhand]

Hi Monsieur, Thanks for the agreeance, I think this agree's with the fractal theory. I'm glad i have so many sources of good info to try to learn from. I can only hope when I make a wrong turning that I can go back and reconsider my path till I get the right one and I hope for the wisdom to enable me to recognise it.

Cheers

[142857]

OK

I'll give it to you guys here. Farmhand, Monsieur.

This is new to me, watching videos and learning a lil....I'd certianly like to cary on this tangent. Lemmie absorb a bit more

thanks,
very interesting.

still gonna need a receptor of some sort

[Farmhand]

Back earlier in this thread I asked this question, below. And I think i have found the answer in this video.
Introductory NMR & MRI: Video 01: Precession and Resonance - YouTube

From previous post.

The gyroscopic effect such as the effect you feel when you hold a bike wheel by the axle while it is spinning, like the twisting tilting effect. What causes that ?

Precession and resonance.