|
return to
homepage
return to updates
THE
HOLE
at the center of the Sun
by
Miles Mathis
First
published January 18, 2011
Despite the
intentionally provocative title, this paper is not about an
actual hole at the center of the Sun. It is about a hole at the
center of Solar theory. If you read all the current material on
the formation of a star, you soon realize there is a problem. We
are told that stars exist by fusion, turning hydrogen to helium
(in most cases) to create their energy. Fair enough. Since fusion
requires high pressures and temperatures, we are told that stars
exhibit such pressures and temperatures. That is easy to believe,
since the Sun looks plenty hot. Problem is, we are told the
current heat is generated by fusion, and we need the heat before
the fusion. We are told that gravitational collapse creates high
pressures, which created the necessary temperatures, and that is
also easy to believe. However, we need a mechanism for that
creation of high temperature from collapse, and as it is, we
don't really have one. We can see that large celestial bodies
become stars and small ones don't, so we are told that gravity
starts the process. The star collapses and this creates heat and
the heat creates the fusion.
But without more theory,
that doesn't really fly. Why? Because the Sun isn't dense. Stars
aren't generally dense. You would expect something that had
collapsed to be very dense. But the Sun's average density is ¼
that of the Earth's. We are told that the Sun's core (where
fusion takes place) has a density 150 times that of water, but
even Wikipedia admits that is just a model. It turns out that it
is a curious model, because in order to give the core that much
density, the model gives the other 4/5's of the Sun a density of
almost nothing. Even the lower photosphere, the level just above
the core, is given a density of only 2 x 10-
4kg/m3.
That's 6,000 times less dense than the Earth's atmosphere. I
would say that is grossly counter-intuitive.
It is
illogical as well, since a gravitational collapse could hardly
work that way. Let us say that the core is the real body, and the
other 4/5's of the Sun is like an atmosphere. That is how the
current Sun is sold to us, in the literature. Even then, the
gravity of the core would have to act on the atmosphere more
strongly than that, creating more atmospheric pressure and
therefore more density. The core of the Sun is much larger and
denser than the Earth, and yet the Earth's gravity creates a
density in its own atmosphere of about 1.2kg/m3,
some 10,000 times more density than the Sun's photosphere as a
whole.
I will be told that the energy of the fusion
percolating up counteracts the gravity of the core acting on the
rest of the Sun, but if mainstream physicists propose that, they
are already admitting a unified field. I hardly think they want
to do that, because that would be admitting I am right. If they
are going to do that, I can stop this paper now. What I mean is,
they can't
propose that, because they have no mechanism for it. According to
current theory, you can't turn off or cancel gravity, not by an
E/M field, and especially not by an ion field. Gravity is
gravity, and it doesn't matter how many ions or photons are
flying up through the field. Niether Einstein nor Newton gives
them any mechanism to cancel gravity, and QM and QED don't
either. Therefore, this low density photosphere they are
proposing is unsupported by current fields, to say the least.
Another problem is that a density of 150 times that of
water is still not very high. Platinum at room temperature is
1/7th that dense. We can actually heat and pressurize platinum to
densities nearing that, so it isn't that extraordinary.
All
the theorists have really done is rig the density numbers to
support their theories. They think to themselves, "What is
the lowest density most people will buy for the rest of the Sun?
We can't get it too low or people might start asking questions."
Then they give the rest of the density to the core, and hope that
density will impress you. But the fact is, an average density of
1.4 for the Sun isn't impressive no matter how you slice it.
Without a whole lot more theory, you have to be really negligent
to accept that that sort of density can start fusion, by itself.
Now, the electrical Sun people will say, "Right, so
get rid of fusion altogether!" But I happen to think we have
some pretty strong evidence for fusion. Neither the mainstream
fusion theorists nor the electrical Sun people can explain all
the phenomena we see, so I would like to combine them both. If we
have both, we can explain more of the data. So I would like to
propose that they are both right. All of my work on the charge
field tells me that we do have fusion (see below for immediate
proof), but we need charge and E/M effects to get it started. In
other words, a star isn't born in a gravitational collapse, it is
born in a unified field "collapse," where the charge
field undergoes changes like the rest of the field.
This
helps greatly in the current problem, because
I have shown that the charge field has a mass 19 times that
of baryonic matter. Every proton is recycling a photon field that
outweighs it by 19 times as a matter of energy content. So when
you add the charge field to any problem, you get a greatly
multiplied effect. When you add pressure to any mass, you also
add pressure to the charge field. When you squeeze the protons in
hydrogen, you aren't just squeezing the protons, you are
squeezing the billions of photons.
We should have known
this decades ago, since we have known for quite a while that the
Sun is a plasma. A plasma is an electromagnetic entity. It cannot
be explained with gravity. To deflect this obvious reading of the
facts, we are told that the plasma is created by the fusion
process, but we have plasmas between here and the Moon, caused by
the local charge and E/M fields. It doesn't require fusion to
create plasmas, it only requires lots of ions in a charge field.
It is not fusion that created the plasma in the Sun, it is the
dense plasma that created the possibility of fusion. Once again,
current theory is upside down.
In short, because the Sun
was NOT dense, but contained a large amount of matter, it
coalesced into a very large sphere that was able to recycle very
large amounts of charge. You don't want too much density in a
star, because
the radius is more important than the density.
The bigger radius gives you more angular momentum, which allows
you to recycle more charge, which allows for a hotter plasma. All
this charge passing through the sphere created a hot plasma, and
the hot plasma allowed for the beginning of fusion. In this way,
we see that much of the heat of the Sun predated fusion. And in
this way, we see that the electrical Sun people are right. A good
portion of the current heat of the Sun is still
caused by the charge passing through the Sun. Fusion only adds to
this heat. We can now (with my theory) even calculate the
percentages of heat that come from fusion and from charge—see
below for the math.
I will be asked why I am allowed to
propose this when the mainstream theorists aren't. Two reasons:
1) I have the fields to justify it, since
I have unified gravity and charge. 2) Even though I have a
unified field, and can show how charge works in the opposite
direction to gravity, I am still not using my unified field here
to cancel gravity. I think current theory has the densities in
the Sun all wrong, so I don't think we need to explain why the
photosphere is so tenuous. There is no reason the core has to
have all the density, so we can give more density to the rest of
the Sun. Therefore there is no density split to explain. Fusion
doesn't
cancel the gravitational effects of the core upon the
photosphere, so I don't have to explain how
it does.
Concerning 1), I can propose the Sun as a
unified field beast, because I have a unified field. Mainstream
physics doesn't have a unified field, so they can't borrow any of
this from me, in any part, without being grossly inconsistent.
They have told us for 300 years that the celestial field,
including the Solar field, was a gravity field only. So they
cannot start slipping in E/M field assumptions here to suit
themselves. If they want to browbeat anyone who so much as
whispers "ether", fine, but after they have done that
for decades, they cannot prance in later and begin telling us E/M
effects in the Sun affect the gravity field of the Sun. If E/M or
quantum effects cause changes in the gravity field, they have to
show a mechanism and a field math.
[This also applies to
black holes, of course, which are supposed to be collapsed
superstars. The big theorists like Hawking and Penrose propose
quantum effects in black holes almost daily, and quantum effects
are E/M effects. Why does nobody ever ask them how E/M effects
enter the field equations, which are gravitational equations, not
quantum or E/M equations? When someone like me proposes that the
field includes E/M, I am shouted down with a chorus of derision,
told that there is no room in the field equations for any
corrections. When someone like me proposes that Relativity is
wrong by 4%, I am shouted down with a chorus of derision, told
that there is no room in the field equations for any corrections.
They are already correct to within a billionth of a nanometer or
something, I am assured. But then Hawking and Penrose and all the
other big names propose quantum effects in black holes, and no
one bothers to tell them
that there is no room in the field equations for E/M. Quantum
effects are E/M effects,
and if there is no E/M in the celestial field equations, Hawking
and Penrose can't propose quantum effects to fill mathematical
holes!]
I can propose E/M and quantum effects in the Sun
all day, if I like, since I have shown exactly where the charge
field fits into Newton's field equation (and therefore into
Einstein's field equations). When I propose the one field
affecting the other, as when the E/M field affects the gravity
field, I have equations and theory that show how it is done. I
have a coherent math, a coherent field, and a coherent theory.
All current theorists have is wild assertions, based on wishful
thinking and a near-infinite disregard for the intelligence of
their audience. They feel free to propose quantum effects to fill
all the gaps in their models, even though they known darn well
that they don't have a unified field. If they have no room in
their "perfect" field equations for corrections, then
where do they fit in these quantum effects? The readers of these
gentlemen appear to believe that quantum effects are so small
they don't have to be fit into the field equations, but that is
false. Quantum effects that were so small they didn't affect the
field equations would be too small to affect the bodies in the
field. Current theorists want to propose quantum effects that
affect real bodies but that don't affect the math or the field.
We must suppose it is another example of virtual forces, whereby
ghosts in the field can cause real motions.
This reminds
me of a conversation I had with a reader recently. He pointed out
that engineers love my papers, but for physicists they are
"unmentionable." I had to laugh, since I am about the
furthest thing from an engineer imaginable. I am not a practical
person, I don't have a lab, I do very few experiments, and I am
not too fond of machines. I simply like solving problems. I am
definitely a theorist. But this separation of engineers and
physicists by my reader made me pause. Engineers like my papers
because they are mechanical. Physicists dislike them for the same
reason. Odd, don't you think, that physics has divorced itself
from mechanics, when they used to be synonymous. It is somewhat
like the 19th century separation of doctors and surgeons. Doctors
had much more prestige then, because surgeons used their hands.
Surgeons were almost blue-collar! In the same way, anyone who
concerns himself with mechanics is now seen as a lowbrow. A
mechanic is little better than a grease monkey. This is because
math has taken over physics, and the math has separated from the
mechanics. The mathematician keeps his hands clean of physical
problems (see my comments on Pauli in my paper "The
Einstein-Bohr Letters"). He considers himself more pure
and elevated. But like the 19th century doctor, he is in the grip
of an illusion, an illusion fed by careerism and ego. Separating
the math from the mechanics was not a move toward purity, it was
a move toward magic. Once the equations have become divorced from
the motions, anything is possible. That is not purity, it is
mischief. We see this all the time now in the new math of new
physics. Everything is now explained in terms of a virtual field
or some symmetry breaking. But both ideas are more magic than
anything else. They are neither mechanical nor physical.
If
physicists want to be free to propose anything they like, they
should stop calling themselves physicists and quit calling the
field physics. After all, the word "physics" should
have a sour taste for these gentlemen and women who have climbed
out above all physical limitations. For them, the physical is
just that residue of the math left after decoherence, a nasty
by-product like a sloughed off snake's skin. One wing of science
(and pre-science) has always wanted to cast off the physical, and
that wing has long been in control. It would never admit it, but
science actually shares this hatred of the physical with many of
the religious people it debates. A prominent form of Christianity
has always had a distaste for the physical, and all to do with
the body. The same can be said for Islam, Judaism, Zen, Buddhism,
and Hinduism. In the same way and for the very same reasons, new
physicists desire to leave the physical behind them. Religious
people want to climb out into some realm of pure consciousness,
and mathematicians do, too. The religious people flee the filth
associated with the body, and the mathematicians flee the filth
associated with mechanics. Mechanics is the math of real bodies,
and current mathematicians have an instinctive revulsion in the
presence of real bodies, be they human or celestial. They can't
even stand to diagram them or visualize them, telling you that
such visualizations only get in the way of the math.
It
is this sort of illusory or delusional math that allows these
people to propose a lot of contradictory things without noticing
how contradictory they are. When your terms are all just floating
in your head, you can't see the physical contradictions. When
physics is based on computer models, no one is there to spot
contradictions. Computers cannot spot theoretical contradictions.
There is no program that alerts you when you have just grossly
contradicted yourself (although there should be—it would make a
mint and would always be beeping). Only when you see physics as
real physical
bodies, bashing into one another with cruel and filthy forces,
will you see the contradictions. It is not we "engineers"
who should be forced to do math without asking mechanical
questions, it is these faux-physicists who should be forced to
draw pictures, and to diagram them. They should be strapped to
their chairs and forced for months to do nothing but label
kinematic diagrams with variables, and to write simple equations
for those variables. They should be strapped to giant orreries,
where they can see and feel for themselves what forces and
collisions really are. They should be thrown back into the
mudpits of grade school with bags of marbles, where they can be
reminded what the world really is. It isn't a computer model. It
isn't a virtual field of wishes and manufactured symmetries. It
is a hard and fast realspace of mechanics, where the bodies
around you won't put up with fake equations.
Now, let us
return to the problem at hand. Wikipedia gives us a few "present
anomalies" of the Sun, which include the current dimming of
the Sun, the loss of ½ the magnetic field, the loss of 3% of the
Solar Wind, and the fall in sunspot activity. Of course the
Wiki-police don't like these anomalies and are trying to take
them down. They tell us they are "outdated," as if last
year's data can immediately be jettisoned as no longer valid.
They want to take them down because none of these can be
explained by gravity or fusion. The Sun has not changed its size
or mass, the Solar System has not lost or gained any mass, and so
on. The only way to explain all these linked phenomena is with
the charge field. The Sun is currently recycling less charge than
usual because it is receiving
less charge from outside the Solar System. Remember, our entire
system is travelling through the galaxy at high speed (250km/s),
in an outer arm. Well, the galaxy is not homogeneous: it has
areas of higher charge and lower charge. These fluctuations cause
fluctuations in the Sun.
Put simply, our system is not a
closed system. We know it is not receiving great inputs of normal
mass from anywhere, so it must be receiving fluctuations in
charge. But this of course implies that the Sun is not running on
fusion alone. It is running on charge. When the charge in drops,
all the outputs of the Sun drop.
These "present
anomalies" could not be more clear in what they are telling
us. The fluctuations are huge, way too large to be caused by
“quantum effects” or other jerry-rigged explanations. The Sun
is fed from the ambient charge field, which is what the
electrical universe people have been telling us for years. And
since that is so, the current (interpretations of the) field
equations cannot be correct. We simply HAVE to include charge in
the field equations. The only way to include these huge
corrections in our “successful” field equations is to do it
as I have done it. Since I have shown that the charge field
already exists in the current field equations, they don't have to
be completely rewritten. They only have to be re-expanded and
re-interpreted, to show which part of the old field is charge and
which part is mass. Or, to say it another way, which part is
baryonic and which part is photonic.
Although we cannot
explain the current anomalies with fusion alone, we cannot
explain them with charge alone either. The anomalies are proof of
fusion as well. Why? Because if the Sun were based on E/M or
charge alone, these passes through lesser charge would be
catastrophic for us. Let us say the Sun is passing through a
charge field that is much less than normal, as it apparently is.
All the other outputs would have to drop by large amounts as
well. The Sun couldn't lose all that charge and keep most of its
light and heat. The Sun has lost only .02% of its light,
according to the researchers, and 13% of its temperature. But if
the Sun were electrical only, a big drop in charge would cause
the immediate death of us all. We would immediately freeze. If
the heat followed the magnetism, for instance, we would have lost
half our heat.
To have kept its heat, the Sun must be
storing energy. How is it doing that? Well, there are various
answers to that, and the question is far from being decided, but
an easy answer is that the Sun doesn't have to store energy to
make it through these down times. Once fusion has started, it
won't stop unless the temperatures in the Sun drop below a
certain level. So fusion continues, even when charge inputs drop
considerably.
From the numbers above, we can now
calculate how much of the Sun's energy comes from fusion and how
much from charge. If we take the numbers from Wikipedia as
correct, we find that "Its magnetic field is at less than
half strength compared to the minimum of 22 years ago."
Well, that doesn't make any sense. You can't compare one minimum
to another. They must mean it is at half strength compared to
some maximum. But it doesn't matter, since the magnetism won't
tell us anything here anyway. The charge field we are passing
through may be less magnetic than normal, but still have the same
charge density. Magnetism just tells us how the photons are
spinning, not how many of them there are. So we would be better
looking at other numbers. The temperature would appear to be an
important number, but any analysis shows that temperature isn't a
good indication of total energy output or of charge either.
Temperature must be a function of both charge and fusion, so it
won't help us isolate either one. And it won't follow total
energy, since fusion will likely absorb more of the total
temperature as the charge diminishes.
Density is probably
the primary indicator here, since density fluctuation would most
likely be a straight function of charge pressure. Since charge is
95% of the field, density should follow charge to within 5%. Wiki
tells us the density of the Sun has dropped 20% in the last two
decades, so the charge field has dropped about 20% in that time.
Of course those are just rough numbers, to show you the
math. There is no indication that the Sun was at an all time high
20 years ago, and we need to calculate against a strong maximum
to get a good number, of course.
What would be the best
indicator of total energy output? Of the numbers at Wiki, I would
choose the speed of the Solar Wind. The Solar Wind must be driven
by both the output of fusion as well as by the recycled charge,
so it is a fair indicator of the total field. The Wind has
dropped by 3%, we are told, and if that is so, we can can
calculate what percentages of energy output are caused by fusion
and charge. If a 20% drop in charge causes a 3% drop in total
output, then by this equation
(1 – x) + .8x = .97
we
can find the fraction that goes to charge, which is 15%. That
leaves 85% of the energy of the Sun produced by fusion. That
makes sense, because it explains why all this loss of charge
energy doesn't cause the Earth to freeze over like Neptune. The
Solar System would have to pass through a very large pocket of
low charge to affect fusion, since it would take the Sun quite a
while to cool. In this way, fusion is the battery that stores
energy: it is heat that takes time to dissipate. Charge isn't
stored, but heat is. According to the equations we just ran, the
Sun requires only 15% of its total energy to initiate fusion. The
Sun has cooled by 13%, but it would have to cool by about 85% for
fusion to cease. And since fusion creates 85% of the current
energy anyway, the Sun wouldn't stop fusing even if we travelled
through a large patch of zero charge. The charge would have to be
turned off for a long time for the Sun to cool below 15% of its
current energy.
By the way, this also explains charge
reversals, including the magnetic reversal we are currently
experiencing. These pockets of charge are made up of both photons
and anti-photons, in varying amounts. Anti-photons are just
spinning the opposite direction of photons, and they cancel the
spin of photons in a charge field, cancelling the magnetic field.
If the area of charge we are travelling through had equal amounts
of each, the area would be non-magnetic, like Venus. But, like
Venus, it would still have the same amount of charge and the same
amount of electricity. This explains the big variances in the
magnetic field of the Sun, without equal variances in other
variables. We are passing through areas with more or less
anti-photons. But currently we are not only passing through an
area with more anti-photons, as a fraction of the whole. No, we
are passing through an area with more anti-photons than photons.
If we were passing through a photon field before, we are passing
through an anti-photon field now. In other words, the average
spin on the photons has changed, changing not only the strength
of the field lines, but the direction of the field lines. The
poles of the Earth, which are just indicators of these field
lines, must move with the field lines.
To say it a third
way, the E/M field in and around the Earth is caused by the Earth
taking in these photons or anti-photons at the poles and emitting
them more heavily near the equator. As the photons go, the ions
go, pushed along like a stream. But if the intake of photons
suddenly switches to an intake of anti-photons, the spins in and
the spins out interfere. Many spins are cancelled, and the
magnetism drops for a while. On the Wiki page for "geomagnetic
reversal", we find this,
These
events often involve an extended decline in field strength
followed by a rapid recovery after the new orientation has been
established.
Current
theory can't tell you why that is, but I just did. Eventually the
old photons will be used up and the Earth's field will match the
ambient field. The field has gone from photonic to anti-photonic.
Since photons and anti-photons are just upside down relative to
one another, the field must go upside down, too. The Earth does
not flip, only the field flips, and all this means is that the
spins on the photons have reversed. Since anti-photons are not
dark or evil or anything else, this spin and magnetic reversal is
not any sort of catastrophe. Scientists admit that the Earth has
gone through pole reversals many times without extinctions or
inundations or anything else. It is predicted that the speed of
the reversal may entail some big physical changes, but I have
nothing to say about that. I am not a geophysicist. All I know is
that anti-photons, like other anti-matter, are nothing to be
afraid of. We live with them all the time. Anti-photons are all
around you, and always have been. They are not cancerous,
radioactive, or anything else. Anti-matter is just another form
of matter. The pole reversal has already begun, and you have felt
nothing. That is probably what you can expect to continue to
feel.
Conclusion:
Since the celestial field equations have contained charge from
the beginning (since Newton, anyway), we are free to use charge
to explain phenomena. And since the galactic core must be
supplying the Solar System with large amounts of charge, we are
free to use that fact to explain phenomena. Once we admit that
the Solar System is not a closed system, and not a gravity-only
system, most of the old problems evaporate. We then have a
mechanism to solve centuries' worth of intractable questions.
This is just one of them.
The Sun is not only a fusion
reactor. It is both a fusion reactor and a charge synapse.
Although a majority of its energy currently comes from fusion, a
large percentage (about 15%) still comes from the recycling of
charge coming from the galactic core. It also required the charge
input to initiate the fusion sequence billions of years ago. It
is this dual role of the Sun that explains all the “present
anomalies” listed at Wikipedia, and hundreds of others not
listed there.
My charge field has allowed me to solve
many old problems quickly and easily, with clear and simple math,
and I will use the findings of this paper to solve another one.
You can now link to my
new paper on the Milankovitch cycle and the ice age question,
where I show the real cause of long-term cycles.
This
current paper extends an
earlier paper on charge recyling, which uses my charge theory
to calculate the distance of magnetopause of the Earth and Venus
from first postulates.
If this paper
was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar
(or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me
to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't
be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many
noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee;
so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they
will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.
|