Another look at the solar system

[catmoon]

What is known is, that there are large amounts of gravitation occurring in other galaxies, the source of which is unaccounted for and very difficult to fit in with any conventional known forms of matter.

[dzoki]

What is known is, that there are large amounts of gravitation occurring in other galaxies, the source of which is unaccounted for and very difficult to fit in with any conventional known forms of matter.

Yes and nobody denies that. What seems to be the problem here is that some scientists who created the dark matter hypothesis are very much entrenched and unable to let go of it (afraid of loosing job?), persuading governments to spend billions on their research which has been going on since 70´s without any results at all, while other scientists who have different hypothesis about what causes these large amounts of gravitation are overlooked and ridiculed by this dark matter mob.

[Quiet Heart]

Well...a mismash of science and psuedo-science....but there are some interesting points.
As he says, the earth simply revolving around the sun is to simple.
The sun also rotates around the apparent center of our galaxy so that means the earth actually revolves around the sun in a spiral corkscrew motion....because the sun is not standing still while the earth (and the solar system also) rotates around the sun.
In addition...our galaxy is not standing still either...it is moving also....which adds another direction to the mix,
But that's only as viewed in a 3 dimensional universe.
There is a fourth dimension...and that's time.
The 3 dimentional motion also moves in time, which adds another "direction" to the mix in four dimensional space-time.
So if there was some way to get "outside" that four dimensional space-time structure and somehow "see" the whole movement....I have no idea how you could possibly get "outside", but just suppose we somehow could...the motion would be something extrordinary...and very difficult to explain or illustrate.

[dzoki]

There also areas which are a taboo for scientific research - such as racial differences. For example there were some attempts at research into the IQ measures of the inhabitants of different continents. Before the serious research could have been carried out, the whole matter was hushed up on the ground of being racist, which is utter bollocks. We can obviously state that Maasai are on average taller than Vietnamese, yet it is a taboo to research whether Vietnamese have a higher IQ than Maasai or not. Racism is not saying that Johny is black and Marry is white. Racism is considering one individual more worthy than another based on their race or in wider sense on their bodily characteristics. If it were proven that inhabitants of Africa have lower IQ than inhabitants of say North America, would that make Africans less worthy humans than Americans? Absolutely no! It would be just a fact, just like we can say someone is taller than someone else. We can see that modern day science is prone to all kind of limitations and nonsense. It does not mean that it is worthless, it just means that it is also prone to some deficiencies, just like any other human activity. Ok I am getting way off topic here

[treehuggingoctopus]

There also areas which are a taboo for scientific research - such as racial differences. For example there were some attempts at research into the IQ measures of the inhabitants of different continents. Before the serious research could have been carried out, the whole matter was hushed up on the ground of being racist, which is utter bollocks. We can obviously state that Maasai are on average taller than Vietnamese, yet it is a taboo to research whether Vietnamese have a higher IQ than Maasai or not.

That is not the best example. You can intersubjectively verify the differences in height, which is definitely a tangible quality. IQ, on the other hand, is an entirely abstract (indeed pseudo-scientific) score which measures nothing in particular - but, in popular mentality, it nevertheless exists as a reliable indicator of one's overall wits, intellect, mental acuity, etc. Given the fact how popular racism is (and yes, I am absolutely convinced that the majority of Europeans and Americans are racists, small scale ones but racists nonetheless), I see no reason to endorse, let alone sponsor, any research into the IQ differences.

But agreed, science in the West is deeply and perhaps innately prejudiced and myopic (not to mention its inextricable connections to corporate business). Stevenson's reincarnation research is an obvious example here. As is the recent crusade against all alternative medicine in Europe.

[Lhug-Pa]

"I.Q." & S.A.T. tests etc. only measure a narrow band of the overall intellect. And even if these tests measured a more broad range of the intellect, intelligence and intellect are not the same thing, thus the "I.Q." test does not really measure true intelligence. And in some ways the said tests can be shown to be racist and/or classist.

A fundamental education is required to discover by means of diverse methods the latent capacity of students.

Indubitably, in this day and age, the methods used by obsolete pedagogy to discover the vocation of pupils are cruel, absurd, and merciless.

The vocational questionnaires have been created by merchants who arbitrarily occupy the position of teachers.

In some countries, before entering primary and vocational colleges, pupils are submitted to the most horrible psychological cruelties. They are asked questions on mathematics, civics, biology, etc.

The most cruel aspect amongst these methods are the famous psychological tests, the index of IQ, which are intimately related with mental swiftness.

Thus, according to the type of answer and how these are graded, the student is then bottled up into one of three baccalaureates:

First: Physics-Mathematics.

Second: Biological Sciences  

Third: Social Sciences.

1.    Engineers, architects, astronomers, pilots etc. come from Physics-Mathematics.

2.    Pharmacists, nurses, biologists, physicians, come from Biological Sciences.

3.    Lawyers, writers, doctors of philosophy, managing directors come from Social Sciences.

The program of study in each country is different, and it is clear that the three different baccalaureates do not exist in all countries. In many countries, there exists only one baccalaureate, and the student enters into the university upon completion of it.

In some nations, the vocational ability of students is not tested, thus they enter into any school with the desire of having a profession in order to earn a living, even when this profession does not coincide with their innate predispositions, that is, with their vocational sense.

So, there are countries where the vocational ability of the students is examined, and there are nations where it is not examined. It is an absurdity to not know how to guide students vocationally. It is an absurdity to not test their genuine abilities and innate tendencies.

Vocational questionnaires and all the jargon of questions, psychological tests, IQ indexes, etc., are stupid.  Yes, those methods for vocational examinations are useless, because the mind has its moments of crisis and if the examination is performed in one of those moments, the outcome is failure and disorientation for the student.

Teachers have been able to verify that a student’s mind has, like the sea, its high and low tides, its plus and its minus. As a biorhythm in masculine and feminine glands exists, likewise a biorhythm for the mind also exists.

At specific times, the masculine glands are found in plus and the feminine glands in minus, or vice-versa. Likewise, the mind has also its plus and its minus.

We suggest to those who want to know about the science of biorhythm to study the famous book entitled “Biorhythm” written by the eminent Rosicrucian Gnostic sage, Dr. Arnold Krumm-Heller, Colonel-Physician of the Mexican Army and Professor at the School of Medicine in Berlin.

We emphatically affirm that when facing the difficult situation of a vocational exam, an emotional crisis or a state of psychic nervousness can lead the student to failure during the prevocational exam. - Samael Aun Weor

[Will]

What is known is, that there are large amounts of gravitation occurring in other galaxies, the source of which is unaccounted for and very difficult to fit in with any conventional known forms of matter.

Gravitation's influence may be vastly overrated, as the Plasma Cosmologists assert: http://plasmauniverse.info/plasma_space.html

[Lhug-Pa]

http://plasmauniverse.info/plasma_space.html

Our Sun constantly emits plasma, a superheated state of matter, which moves out in all directions at very high speeds to fill the entire solar system and beyond.

When they say "superheated", they don't mean that you could necessarily feel this heat physically before it filters through the Earth's atmosphere/troposphere/stratosphere, do they? I.e. I thought that if you were to physically go into outer-space, you would freeze to death very quickly without the insulation from a space suit.

This is one of the reasons why some assert that the Sun actually is not a burning ball of hydrogen/helium (another reason being that if the Sun were a burning ball of gas, it wouldn't have enough mass to keep all the other heavy planets in orbit). Some say that planets aren't actually directly heated by the Sun, but that planets are heated by the light (both visible and invisible) emitted from the Sun which is then converted into heat after it is or as it is filtered through the atmosphere/troposphere/stratosphere.

So when Plasma Cosmologists say that plasma emitted from the Sun is "superheated", do they mean to say that the plasma simply has a lot of energy/high-energy-potential for producing/converting-into heat?

Although about the Sun not being a burning ball of hydrogen/helium, and not having enough mass to keep other solid planets in orbit if it were a ball of burning gas, I do realize that mainstream science may have explanations/theories about this, which I wouldn't automatically write-off simply because I don't necessarily agree with them.

I just wonder why they say that planets have to be within a certain distance of the Sun in order for them to sustain life. Why? Because if planets are not directly heated by the Sun, then distance shouldn't matter as much so long as any planet can receive light from the Sun. And I would imagine that even the outer planets still receive a good amount of light.

[catmoon]

To understand the physical phenomenae would require another entire thread. Or ten. But if you want to get a grip on heat and temperature, which scientists regard as entirely different things, you need to Google the kinetic theory of heat and a little thermodynamics.

For instance, what happens to a human body in space entirely depends on the distance to the nearest star. If you are very close, you fry, if you are very far, your body heat would slowly radiate away and in time your temperature would approach 2.7 K. That's cold enough to freeze air into a solid.

[Lhug-Pa]

Thanks for the references Catmoon.

If you are very close, you fry,

Assuming that mainstream science is not incorrect in its assertion that the Sun is actually a burning ball of hydrogen & helium.

I'm not saying that I've concluded that all of the following is correct; nevertheless, it's main point is at least worth considering:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

I've heard other solid-Sun 'theories' that would agree with the above website in part, yet differ in other aspects.

[dharmagoat]

For instance, what happens to a human body in space entirely depends on the distance to the nearest star. If you are very close, you fry, if you are very far, your body heat would slowly radiate away and in time your temperature would approach 2.7 K. That's cold enough to freeze air into a solid.

Darn. Based on this information I have decided to abandon my backyard project of becoming the first naked man to be launched into deep space.

[catmoon]

Thanks for the references Catmoon.

If you are very close, you fry,

Assuming that mainstream science is not incorrect in its assertion that the Sun is actually a burning ball of hydrogen & helium.

I'm not saying that I've concluded that all of the following is correct; nevertheless, it's main point is at least worth considering:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

I've heard other solid-Sun 'theories' that would agree with the above website in part, yet differ in other aspects.

I think you can safely trashbin everything on this site. It violates known, basic principles of science in almost every sentence. For instance, if the sun was made of the stuff he claims it would be enormously more massive than it is and that would radically change the orbits of all the planets.

[Lhug-Pa]

For instance, if the sun was made of the stuff he claims it would be enormously more massive than it is and that would radically change the orbits of all the planets.

Perhaps.

But what if the Sun actually is 'solid' (although not necessarily made out of the same exact stuff as the said website claims) and is precisely the reason why the planets are able to stay in orbit like they do to begin with; as I'd already mentioned in a previous post in this thread....

[catmoon]

For instance, what happens to a human body in space entirely depends on the distance to the nearest star. If you are very close, you fry, if you are very far, your body heat would slowly radiate away and in time your temperature would approach 2.7 K. That's cold enough to freeze air into a solid.

Darn. Based on this information I have decided to abandon my backyard project of becoming the first naked man to be launched into deep space.

Goat. It should "first naked goat". Want me to edit that for you?
BTW space goats are a BIG topic.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=899&q=space+goat&oq=space+goat&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24l7j0i10i24j0i24.1013.3413.0.4246.10.9.0.1.1.0.64.478.9.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.vwk6VLQr7hg#hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=space+goat&oq=space+goat&gs_l=img.12...0.0.0.2838.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.A9Nnp3OCMMQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=889bbde962ae7f33&biw=1280&bih=899

[dharmagoat]

Goat. It should "first naked goat". Want me to edit that for you?

I fantasize about about being human. Would you want to take that away from me?

[catmoon]

Perhaps.

But what if the Sun actually is 'solid' (although not necessarily made out of the same exact stuff as the said website claims) and is precisely the reason why the planets are able to stay in orbit like they do to begin with; as I'd already mentioned in a previous post in this thread....

It's simply not possible. The surface of the sun is at 5500 degrees C, hot enough to melt any solid and hot enough to vaporize practically anything, and it gets hotter, much hotter, towards the center. For instance iron vaporizes - it BOILS to a gas - at 2862 degrees C.

[Skywalker]

Hahaha! The surface of the sun is under the part we can see with our eyes? Then it isn't the surface is it?

That Nasseim haramein dude really rubs me the wrong way. Who does he think he is? He knows nothing about what he is talking about. seriously, he is just a pontificating confused ego-maniac. seriously. I love how he uses the whole "mainstream science is narrow minded so they don't accept me" thing.

Whenever I hear anybody defending him they invariably have aq bad grasp of what science is and how it works. They all tend to put a personality onto science, a grumpy close minded status quo style personality. Scientists have personalities, science doesn't. Not all scientists are alike. Yes there are arrogant materialist scientists. That is not the point.

Imagine if you spent your whole life diligently studying Buddhism, going through all the yanas so that you could have a thorough understanding of Buddhism. Then you decided to focus on one particular buddhist tradition, say Zen or Dzogchen or whatever. Now imagine along comes some hippie who claims Buddhism doesn't understand and is wrong and he has the answer. Now imagine that he makes it clear that all he knows about buddhism is the first noble truth and he argues with that. Instead of making any points to express why his ideas are right, he accuses you of being close minded and he claims to be a victim of your dogmatic closed mind when all you are trying to do is to show him what Buddhism really is. Now imagine that he went off and told every body that he is wiser than the buddha and that Buddhists are a bunch of close minded dogmatic religious nuts who are too attached to their Buddha to recognize the new guy. What if he went around and told people that some open minded Buddhists agree with him and think he is the new Buddha and then you come to find out that this is a lie.

That is exactly what he is like. He never did an experiment. He comes up with pretty hypotheses, likes how they sound, then presents them as if they are truth without testing. He can't do the math necessary to figure anything out scientifically. He is basically a charismatic hippie who read a high school science text book and wants to be famous. He deliberately lies. he says that his theories have been peer-reviewed and accepted by scientists but really that is a lie. I would be able to forgive him somewhat if he didn't deliberately lie to people to make himself sound more credible. After all, I have theories like he does also. I think i know how some aspects of the cosmos work and that mainstream science has no clue. However, I am slightly deluded. But the fact is that he lies and that is a bad display of character and he is after fame and prestige and he has no business being considered a scientist by non-scientists.

[underthetree]

Hahaha! The surface of the sun is under the part we can see with our eyes? Then it isn't the surface is it?

That Nasseim haramein dude really rubs me the wrong way. Who does he think he is? He knows nothing about what he is talking about. seriously, he is just a pontificating confused ego-maniac. seriously. I love how he uses the whole "mainstream science is narrow minded so they don't accept me" thing.

Whenever I hear anybody defending him they invariably have aq bad grasp of what science is and how it works. They all tend to put a personality onto science, a grumpy close minded status quo style personality. Scientists have personalities, science doesn't. Not all scientists are alike. Yes there are arrogant materialist scientists. That is not the point.

Imagine if you spent your whole life diligently studying Buddhism, going through all the yanas so that you could have a thorough understanding of Buddhism. Then you decided to focus on one particular buddhist tradition, say Zen or Dzogchen or whatever. Now imagine along comes some hippie who claims Buddhism doesn't understand and is wrong and he has the answer. Now imagine that he makes it clear that all he knows about buddhism is the first noble truth and he argues with that. Instead of making any points to express why his ideas are right, he accuses you of being close minded and he claims to be a victim of your dogmatic closed mind when all you are trying to do is to show him what Buddhism really is. Now imagine that he went off and told every body that he is wiser than the buddha and that Buddhists are a bunch of close minded dogmatic religious nuts who are too attached to their Buddha to recognize the new guy. What if he went around and told people that some open minded Buddhists agree with him and think he is the new Buddha and then you come to find out that this is a lie.

That is exactly what he is like. He never did an experiment. He comes up with pretty hypotheses, likes how they sound, then presents them as if they are truth without testing. He can't do the math necessary to figure anything out scientifically. He is basically a charismatic hippie who read a high school science text book and wants to be famous. He deliberately lies. he says that his theories have been peer-reviewed and accepted by scientists but really that is a lie. I would be able to forgive him somewhat if he didn't deliberately lie to people to make himself sound more credible. After all, I have theories like he does also. I think i know how some aspects of the cosmos work and that mainstream science has no clue. However, I am slightly deluded. But the fact is that he lies and that is a bad display of character and he is after fame and prestige and he has no business being considered a scientist by non-scientists.

Lovely! Nothing better than a good rant, especially when it makes a good point as well!

[catmoon]

Lovely! Nothing better than a good rant, especially when it makes a good point as well!

Yup nothing more fun to read than a thumping good rant. It saves me the work of writing the same things too.

[Lhug-Pa]

Catmoon, what if the Sun isn't as hot as mainstream science says it is. This is just as much a part of what I've been suggesting as the solid-Sun theory I'd mentioned.

I don't currently have time to do a bunch of my own research on this and present a more in-depth argument, so I'm just throwing it out there for right now.

Skywalker, if Earth looked all-blue from a distance, would that mean that the entire surface of the Earth is actually blue?