From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 01:11:31 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <62@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <Bvp9tI.Myy@encore.com>, bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
>*news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>*What, precisely, is an "electromag star". Is our Sun one of these? Can you
>*give an example of one? 
>
>*I believe you always point to Jupiter (or is it Saturn) as being this star
>*during the antedeluivian times. What caused that star to stop burning?
>*How do electro-magnetic effects attenuate gravity on essentailly 
>*non-magnetic things, like animals? 

 Please note, as you read, that the second part of this question, about
attenuating gravity on non-magnetic things (like, for the most part,
land masses), goes completely unanswered.

>The sun is both an electromag phenomenon and a thermonuclear one.  You learn
>in school that the sun is a thermonuclear engine as if the electromag part
>was of little consequence.  Were that so, then from the center of the sun 
>outwards, it should just get cooler.  That isn't the case;  the sun gets cooler
>from the center out to the surface, and then a great deal hotter (this is my
>understanding) out to the photosphere.  In other words, the sun behaves like
>an electrical phenomenon rather than a thermonuclear one in major ways.

 Well, yeah, sort of. Sunspots are places where the sun's major magnetic
field lines are twisted up to (or beyond) the surface. There is a theory
that solar flare material, swept up by electromagnetic currents, undergoes
some fusion, and this leads to the anomalous temperature increase.
But the process is not fully understood by any means. (At least, this is
what I've gathered in my varied, not-too-technical readings. Subject to
later correction by people who know better what they are talking about.)
 Also, the sun puts out a good deal of radio flux, plus the solar wind,
and things I'm sure I don't know about. I mean, that's why sunspot
activity can mess up radio reception on Earth. (Just to keep things in
perspective, though, the Earth, thanks to us humans, puts out as much
radio flux as a small star...)
 But it's a *long* way from the above stuff to what follows...

>I would recommend you find a copy of "Velikovsky Reconsidered", Warner, 1973
>I believe and check out the article by Ralph Juergens.  The group of scholars
>who gravitated around Velikovsky regarded Juergens as one of the two or
>three geniuses amongst themselves, and he had more to say about the electrical
>nature of galactic space, the interstellar plasma, and of stars, than
>anybody I am aware of.
>
>
>But, for the non rocket scientists out there, which surely includes the entire
>t.o regular crew, the following Holden version of a WAG/conjecture might be
>more meaningful.

 I think "WAG" is closer... I would stake money on it, in fact. How much
you want to bet, Ted?

>Juergens saw stars as focal points of galactic electrical discharges, charged
>particals constantly arriving at them at relativistic speeds.  This would

 Of course, the fact that there is exactly zero evidence for such an
inward flux of charged particles (I mean, the solar wind blows *out* for
crying out loud! If such charged particles *were* arriving, we'd have
an Aurora Borealis that you could grow plants by at night. Hell, we'd
all be *dead* of ionizing radiation by now. Hey, yeah, measured rates
of ozone production in the atmosphere seem to come from solar wind and
such, and nothing else. Also, none of our satellites have been
pounded by such a flux, so we're not protected by our atmosphere. Damn,
I can't think of *anything* even remotely in support of this 'theory.'
Not even loosely-interpreted dinosaurs. Damn, Ted, you've outdone yourself
this time...) counts against this. Or are they aimed only at the sun?
From what direction? How do they miss Earth (and the Voyager spacecraft,
which are outside the solar system by now (and one is well outside the
plane of the solar system, so they can't be coming from that way...))
and other planets?

 Finally, where the f*ck would these 'charged particals' be coming from?
What the heck could possibly be the source, if we can't visibly see it?
Ted, this is *incredible*, and I mean that in all possible senses of the
term. I now know you can't possibly be a program; if anyone could make
an AI this creative, they'd be rich, famous, and as worshiped as you
think Carl Sagan is.
 I'm *really* gonna have to check out this article. I'll bet there isn't
a single number anywhere in it...

>or might allow something like Jupiter or Saturn or something a big larger
>of which Jupiter and/or Saturn might be the remains to exist as a low energy
>star, if not a thermonuclear star such as our present, larger sun.

 Well, we know it sure as hell can't be fusion, as in our sun. Jupiter
would need to be, what, is it ten times more massive? Even adding Saturn
in wouldn't come close. I mean, fusion's *hard* to do; why do you think
thermonuclear research is so expensive?
 Note, everyone, that we can measure the mass of nearby stars by their
orbital variations and gobs of techniques I can't remember now. If someone
found a star with a mass even five times the mass of Jupiter it would
be ****BIG**** news, and gobs o' astrophysics would need to be revised.
If the 'charged particals' theory is right, they should be fairly common,
but not one is seen. But then, I imagine the SAC (Satanic Astrophysics
Conspiracy) (A division of ILLUMINATI, Inc.) has been concealing the
evidence all this time.

>Now, picture a 200' lightning rod glowing in an electrical storm.  Then picture
>the Ace Lightning Rod company's truck driving up in the middle of the storm,
>and them erecting a pre-fabbed 1000' lightning rod only 100' away from the 
>smaller one.  The smaller lightning rod would die out;  it would no longer
>be the focal point of any discharge or the path of least resistence to
>anything.

 You've alluded to this in the past; you apparently think the Tower of
Babel was based on a true event where just such a 'lightining rod' was
built, which sundered Saturn and left the solar system as it is today.
 The only candidate I see around is Sol, our sun... are you saying humans
a few thousand years ago built the sun? Or what?

>Thus it might also be were a large star such as our sun to capture one or
>two smaller stars such as Jupiter or Saturn, or something somewhat larger
>as I have mentioned, Jupiter and Saturn being the remains.

 Or is this your theory? Our former Earthly/Saturnine system drifted too
close to Sol and was disrupted? Or what?

>The smaller star would go out, but the people who witnessed such an event
>would not have known much of electrical theory or the nature of stars;
>they would have written that the old god had grown old, and feeble.

 But, from what I gather, you think humans caused this... clarification,
please, Ted?

>Such is indeed the language you will find in Dr. E.A. Wallace Budge's
>Gods of the Egyptians, Dover version commonly available, in the story of the
>destruction of mankind.

>*
>*Several people have shown that for the tidal effects of orbiting near
>*a star to reduce the "felt effect" to your requirements would:
>*
>*   A) Heat the Earth to unsurvivable temperatures
>*   B) Tear the planet apart
>*
>*and that the subsequent journey to our current orbit would:
>*
>*   A) Cool the Earth to unsurvivable temperatures
>*   B) Rip away our atmosphere
>*
>*Of course this is based on physics. 
>
>Only on their less than perfect understanding of physics.  Nothing in
>their version of physics gives a clue as to how a 200,000 sauropod 
>dinosaur might survive in our world, when it can be clearly and decisively
>shown that a 200,000 version of the strongest man of our age, which would
>be FAR stronger than the 200,000 sauropod, would not be able to lift even
>half his own weight off the ground in our perceived gravity.

 Wow, Ted. That's a heck of a leap. Even *if* dinosaurs would have been
unable to stand way back when (and, so far as I can tell, you are the
only sentient on this newsgroup who is or ever has been convinced of
that) you're proposing massive (nay, complete) revisions of physics,
astrophysics, cosmology, and about twenty other scientific disciplines,
and saying that, for all the understanding they have, they might as well
have been playing hopscotch for the past two hundred years.
 Ted, save time. Just propose a smaller gravitational constant back then,
and be done with it.

>*Now is this part of the group of
>*physics that is elegant and precise and allows us to make microprocessors
>*and Ginzu Knives? Or is this part of the bullshit liar physics made
>*popular to billions and billions of zealots by our buddy Carl Sagan?
>*
>
>There is no such thing as "bullshit-liar physics".  Physics is just a 
>series of tools, as are also hammers and saws, which we use as a means
>of comprehending our environment.
>
>Which is not to say that there are not bullshit liars out there; Sagan's
>bullshit "super-outhouse" theory is about as bad as it gets.  That sort

 Ted, to my knowledge the only evidence you've given for this comes
from Velikovski's book, which (where it is based on measurements at
all) is based on outdated measurements. Perhaps you'd care to back this
one up?

>of thing should not be confused with physics or with any real approach 
>to any other version of science;  what it really amounts to is an attempt
>to advance a super-yuppie career at the expense of truth by postponing
>the day when a gang of stupid geriatric astronomers will finally be known
>for what they actually are/were.

 Does anyone remember that line from "Ruthless People?" You know, during
the money drop, one police officer turns to the other and says... :->

>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE
>


*Most* sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions, in this case,
                            || probably *are* those of the University
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || of Michigan. Thank goodness.
Newsgroups: talk.origins