Hollow Sun? Probably Yes!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
What a thread..lol just full of egos attempting to prove other egos wrong...




posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChewyBees
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Your conjecture is complete foolishness. If you install a 50w bulb instead of a 100w bulb is the illumination dark instead of just half?. Included, scientists have said multiple times that the surface is hotter but not as bright. The fact is, why are the sun spots black, and not the same or just dimmer?

Now, this statement is just silly, like grade school silly: "We know what the sun is made of we know its size and its mass so we know its NOT HOLLOW may be his head is!"

1) you (or 'we') do not know what the sun us made of, that is complete conjecture and hearsay based on assumption and what others had preciously assumed. We can only measure it's output of energy and observe its visible nature. We know so little of the physical universe, and the internal workings of our own planet it is staggering. In essence we know nothing, and your foolish assertion that anything is solid evidence of anything is ridiculous.

2) we' do not know the mass of the sun. It is all a best guess, Mr. Sulu. People can barely guess the mass of themselves, but you're going to tell me that they know definitively the mass of an object hundreds of millions of miles away? Why, because a scientist with a grant said so? Or because like religion, holy science requires reference to the good book (ie Einstein) in order for truth to be revealed?



Maybe YOU should actually look at how the mass is calculated before talking BS if things like that were not correct then launching of probes and rockets and working out positions of planets would be guess work.

If you prefer to stck your fingers in your ears and close your eyes thats up to you, but with this great thing called the internet you could have looked at how the mass was calcluated and then you would not have made yourself look a



OH and also check on how we know what the sun is made of!
edit on 23-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
It is obvious that this is an ELECTRICAL reality, NOT influenced as we observe it by gravity alone. Check our the Thunderbolts website for details. All of the empirical evidence points to current assumptions of science, which continue to confound them time and again, with " anomalies" being brushed aside and ignored to prop up the old tired garbage that has been spewed in colleges since education became widespread.

The weakest force in nature, gravity, cannot explain what is seen, either in the cosmos or on 9-11. It is not hard to figure out, but mainstream pundits have ego issues that will not allow them to admit being wrong all this time.
Look at planetary scarring and electrical scarring in labs...the same. Look at how plama reacts and how gravity reacts and you see that science stutters and stammers and scoffs at the electric reality, but somehow cannot find the honesty and integrity that is required to admit that electrical theory fills the gaps and fits perfectly, whereas gravity simply falls short on all counts.



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Im inclined to agree the suns hollow. Even though it sounds mad? According to Eric Dollard the suns a transformer? And apparently present theories of the sun being a nuclear furnace and solid all falls apart as stars apparently cannot be seen in deep space? The dark sunspots apparently are holes in the corona allowing you to see inside? Also according to Dollard nuclear fusion ONLY happens when theres a CME? Im inclined to believe him as hes a smart cookie, 1 of the few people alive today that has a clue what tesla was doing? (im new here so bare with me as i attempt to put a link up for the video im referencing....




posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TinMan72
 


Who is this Eric Dollard, never heard of him?

Also, if the Sun were hollow, wouldn't its own gravity collapse it into a ball?



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinMan72
reply to post by Arken
 

as stars apparently cannot be seen in deep space?


Proof of that?



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


No, no proof as such, which is why I said "apparently" and placed a question mark at the end of the sentance. But this mans highly intelligent and spent several years studying the sun for SOHO I believe? As for proof? Well unless your gonna fly into deep space and look for yourself, we only have conventional science and the many inflated egos behind it to go on as fact?
Ive spent many hours listening to Eric and even though most of what he says goes over my head, he deserves to be at the least listened to before you dismiss his theories just because it conflicts with whats generally accepted as "fact"?
PowerPedia:Eric Dollard - PESWiki
peswiki.com...:Eric_Dollard

please forgive me if ive done this link wrong? Its all still new to me here on ATS



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TinMan72
 


Is it then his fundamental stance that everybody in mainstream science has inflated egos and doesn't want to see the "truth"? Or would you agree it would be good for other scientists to disseminate his beliefs/teachings? I don't know if anyone has done that (his name really is very obscure), but I'm sure it can be done. Or perhaps he's in that "completely out there" and "so wrong, it's not worth bothering" territory, like with Hoagland and the Electric Universe proponents.

It's all fine for somebody with a bit of scientific background to put out long-winded and intelligent-sounding theories, but if he has no scientific credibility in what he says and does, perhaps we'd be foolish to believe what he says.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


No, thats my stance?

I understand what your saying though, but he definately has the credentials IMO. He was 1 of these genius kid types and his parents served in the US Navy, something to do with communications, where he later helped design a new comm system for the US Navy. He later worked at RCA where he also began his study of Tesla's work and became 1 of the few, if only, people to successfully re-produce Tesla's tech? Also worked at SOHO observatory for several years studying the sun.
It is a hard thing to swallow, I know? And I could very well be wrong, but I really think the mans genuine and on to something, even if it turns out to be false? See, apparently the idea of present belief in the sun being a huge nuclear reactor is desired by the PTB in order to serve the belief in thermal dynamics and that something has to go bang in order to generate energy? Again I could be very wrong but I really think the guys legit and he does come across as believable even though his claims sound wild??



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TinMan72
 


Here is an image taken by Cassini of Titan




The white speckles in the background are streaks from stars. The camera kept focused on Titan during the 560-second-long exposure time of this image and the stars moved during that period relative to Titan. The image was taken on May 7, 2009.


Taken around 900 million miles from Earth !



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


We know the suns not hollow because we map the waves going through the sun to develop a picture of the interior. Really no different then an ultrasound uses sound to say view a fetus.So if he spent 30 yrs like he said i feel sorry for him alot of wasted energy.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yeah but thats not deep space? Rather its near a planetary object which somehow enables stars to be visible? something to do with gravity?
I really think you should at least give the man a listen as he explains so much better than I can instead of just trying to prove me wrong?
I never claimed this to be fact as such, just my opinion? Of which appears to be conflicting with yours?
Can I ask if you have actually watched the video I posted, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of debate?

besides, dont you think your images you posted would be absolutely lit up with stars considering theres little light distortion 900 million miles away from earth??? Ive seen more stars from my own backyard on a moonlit night??
edit on 31/8/2013 by TinMan72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
The Electrical Universe theory is spot on!



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinMan72
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


besides, dont you think your images you posted would be absolutely lit up with stars considering theres little light distortion 900 million miles away from earth??? Ive seen more stars from my own backyard on a moonlit night??
edit on 31/8/2013 by TinMan72 because: (no reason given)


Yes and the statement above SHINES like a beacon showing you lack of understanding of the image.

Look at the size of Titan on the image I linked to



Now do YOU honestly think the field of view of your eyes is as small as that?


Titan's diameter is 50 percent larger than that of Earth's moon


Here is a picture of the Moon I took with a heavy crop



Exposure 1/400th of a second f8 iso 400, Sony SLT A37 with a 300mm lens

Now do you HONESTLY think if that was a long exposure to show stars all the stars you can see from from your backyard would be visible
edit on 31-8-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-8-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TinMan72
 


If he had credentials then he knows how to present a thesis. He would publish if for peer review not create a U tube video. Look in deep space you can see stars. To believe photons some how act differently here on earth would be silly. We have sent probes out including deep space 1 and voyager guess what they can see stars. As for sunspots being holes there not and if he worked with soho he should know this it is nothing more then plasma thats cooler then the plasma around it. It only looks like a hole because on film it shows up black compared to the intense light of the sun.In fact scientist originally hoped sunspots would allow us to see in to the interior but it didnt.

Here is a cool picture of a sunspot looked at in different frequency.

www.universetoday.com...

Thought id add one more thing here just so you guys know we do see into the interrioir of the sun it isnt just a guess. Ill just say look into helioseismology and neutrinos emissions from the sun.This instantly tells us there is a nuclear reaction occuring in the interior as well. Nuetrinos are a bi product of a nuclear reaction we see it in our reactors.And can use them to tell where the reaction is occurring.
edit on 9/1/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TinMan72
 


I listened to what he had to say and it's the same BS as some members here claim that the only reason you see stars is the reaction of photons with the atmosphere so in the vacuum of space you could not see them or take a picture there is NO mention of gravity, the picture I linked to was taken by Cassini and you can clearly see stars and that picture was taken in the vacuum of space



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





the picture I linked to was taken by Cassini and you can clearly see stars and that picture was taken in the vacuum of space


You still think the instruments on these missions are like normal cameras. They aren't, and if you wer out where Cassin is your eyes would see nothing, and neither would a Sony SLT A37. If the super sensitive Cassini imager needs a 520 second exposure to cpture that image, then needs to be digitally processed, to your eyes it would be totally black out there. Plus most of the images are using UV or IR, and your eyes can not see that. I'm still waiting for NASA to take an image of the Moon, while looking AWAY from earth, with a regular camera. Lets use the same exposure settings and see what shows up. Won't happen. And the Canadarm2 video cameras can not see the Moon either, otherwise they would have shown it to us.
At visible wavelengths, they need some pretty incredible optics that use the Shack-Hartmann science, plus the super-sensitive CCDs, and the proper software to reconstruct the wavefronts. Your eyes can not do that, or regular camera optics. The ARKYD mini-hubble devices are only possible becuase Goddard has licensed some of the Shack-Hartmann technologies that have been classified for nearly 50 years becuse they have been used for things like star tracker cameras on the ICBMs, and military spy satellites. Also required was the advances in micro and nano fabrication technologies to be able to produce the incredibly accurate lenses and gratings that are used.

"Can you see it now?"
techtransfer.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Yes! Now we can! The first space based visible light telescope was Hubble. Lyman Spitzer waited 40 years before he finally got a visible light telescope that he had been asking for. Why? Because Hubble was the first device to use the hardware and software developed by the Military.




I listened to what he had to say and it's the same BS as some members here claim that the only reason you see stars is the reaction of photons with the atmosphere so in the vacuum of space you could not see them or take a picture


There are no 'photons' in space. The EM energy is travelling as spatial soliton wavefronts, and the S-H science is needed to 'decode' them. There is so little energy in these wavefronts at visible wavelengths that only advanced science can make them visible. At UV, EUV and X-ray energies the instruments dont need to be as sensitive, which is why they have had space based telescopes for those energies, like the ASTRO mission from the Shuttle. No visible light telescope though. The proposed ILO-X moon based telescope also uses the S-H science, so it will be able to do astronomy from the Moon, which has not been possible up to now. I dare them to take a regular telescope and camera up there an do any astronomy with them. No atmosphere, no 'lensing', no pictures.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


Please show me a scientific paper telling us there are no electromagnetic radiation between 430–790 THz traveling through space, and explain how this would even be possible to have a whole band missing from the spectrum? Since we know the sun produces the entire electromagnetic spectrum does the portion between 430–790 THz just get lost on its journey? Where does it go?



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





the picture I linked to was taken by Cassini and you can clearly see stars and that picture was taken in the vacuum of space


You still think the instruments on these missions are like normal cameras. They aren't, and if you were out where Cassini is your eyes would see nothing, and neither would a Sony SLT A37. If the super sensitive Cassini imager needs a 520 second exposure to cpture that image, then needs to be digitally processed, to your eyes it would be totally black out there


Super sensitive it's a 1 mp pixel ccd chip using from there own site Cassini the following


Imaging Science Subsystem (ISS) has two separate camera designs. The first is a narrow-angle camera (NAC) design that will obtain high-resolution images of the target of interest. The second is a wide-angle camera (WAC) design that provides a different scale of image resolution and more complete coverage spatially



. The IC chip will use three-phase, front-side-illuminated architecture
OLD tech really OLD tech

Now lets have a look at Modern tech BSI Sensors


A back-illuminated sensor, also known as backside illumination (BSI or BI) sensor, is a type of digital image sensor that uses a novel arrangement of the imaging elements to increase the amount of light captured and thereby improve low-light performance. The technique was used for some time in specialized roles like low-light security cameras and astronomy sensors, but was complex to build and required further refinement to become widely used. Sony was the first to reduce these problems and their costs sufficiently to introduce a 5-megapixel 1.75 µm BI CMOS sensor at general consumer prices in 2009



A back-illuminated sensor contains the same elements, but orients the wiring behind the photocathode layer by flipping the silicon wafer during manufacturing and then thinning its reverse side so that light can strike the photocathode layer without passing through the wiring layer.[6] This change can improve the chance of an input photon being captured from about 60% to over 90%


All the important bits bold and underlined see the reference to ASTRONOMY in the first paragraph.



The Cassini NAC camera is


Narrow Angle Camera [NAC](2 m f/10.5 reflector


ALL digital camera sensors ccd or cmos operate at a BASE iso rating cameras can change the effective iso rating by AMPLIFYING that base signal that's why HIGHER iso's get noisier.

So the reason for the long exposure is the level of sunlight reaching Titan getting reflected by it and being captured through an f10.5 aperture !!! Yet the stars trillions of miles away show NO problem.

SERIOUSLY you don't have a clue!!!!



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
So no one is going to claim it's hollow and that's were all the UFOs live when they are not buzzing Earth.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join