Regular readers will be familiar with my characterization of empirical science as a monkey see, monkey say operation, but with respect to the sun, it's more of a caveman approach, ugh, see big explosion, ugh, ugh, that's how the sun works.
The big explosion, of course, was the hydrogen bomb, and the ugh, ugh refers to the monkey see the explosion, monkey say, the sun.
I try to limit my discussion of the sun's surface to hydrogen, not because of Newtonian considerations, but simply because, with the sun undergoing fierce combustion on its surface, it's reducing the complex atoms that make it up, the most complex atoms that can form (see columns 18-05, 19-05, and 44-05, and for those who object to the use of combustion when applied to the sun, 08-05) first to the units that make up the nucleus, which measures as the hydrogen atom, and then to the individual electrons that make up the units. The sun unravels matter and emits it as light.
Never let it be said The Real Skeptic ignored anything. The method used to determine the sun is made out of hydrogen is quite simple. Take three parts Newton, and, well, that's it, take three parts Newton. The first two parts, of course, are familiar to readers of these columns. Newton wanted to use the amount of gravity in the Earth and the moon to show that that amount of gravity was equal to the amount of gravity that would be required to pull the moon from its straight-line course through the universe into its present circular orbit. To compute the amount gravity in the Earth and the moon, he had to assume the Earth and the moon were made up of identical particles uniformly distributed. Well, scratch one part of Newton. Next, of course, nothing in space moves in a straight line, so scratch Newton's second point. Third, the proof didn't work, the moon was too big, and it missed by a mile when applied to the planets, so scratch Newton.
Well, not so fast. After all, Newton proved that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter, didn't he? Uh, no, he didn't. Well, that brings in the third part of Newton, the part that simply says, Newton was right, even if all his assumptions were wrong and even if he didn't prove what he set out to prove. The reason Newton was right is, well, our jobs, our food, our very reputations depend on him being right. So we'll just say he's right and then claim that his math can be used to measure something that no one anywhere can prove wrong, what's in the middle of planets and stars. Who's going to notice we cheated, and besides, Newton is incomprehensible anyway, so who's going to challenge our claim that he actually proved his theory? Guess these late 18th Century hacks were right, because Newton rules supreme in the empirical community to this day.
So the way the empirical community computes the mass (the term developed to define how much matter is in a planet) of the sun is the way it determined the mass of Jupiter and came to the conclusion that Jupiter was made out of gas (and the comets that were crashing into Jupiter's gas surface sending up muddy plumes high into the atmosphere were made out of ice). The sun is made out of hydrogen. The hydrogen bomb supposedly fuses hydrogen into helium, releasing the excess energy that results from the fusion as heat and light. See? Then say, the sun is made out of hydrogen, it's fusing the hydrogen atoms into helium, and therefore the sun, predominately hydrogen, is also getting a pretty sizable helium element.
Of course, once empirical science has this down to a "T," it can do all sorts of things, compute the hydrogen, helium ratio, compute the date the sun was formed, and of course, with empirical science's letch for the useless, determine when it will die. Fortunately for us, not in our lifetime, or in the conceivable lifetime of anything, for that matter. Con men don't want to scare their marks.
Both fission and fusion are variations of the field replacement described in column 08-05. While field replacement generally involves immersing matter in flows of electrons, replacing the need for orbiting electrons and therefore allowing those electrons to escape in what is measured as heat, and if enough of them are escaping, light, fission and fusion are manmade field replacement. The most common example of field replacement can be felt pumping air into a car tire. When we pump air into the tire, it is going into a confined space under pressure. The pressure moves the nuclei of the air particles closer together, and as a result, the compression process releases electrons. Why. Because the individual nuclei are field replacing each other. If you don't think the process of compression creates heat, stand behind your refrigerator. The heat that is spewing out is the heat resulting from compressing the coolant. When we go to release the air from the tire, what do we feel when we put our hand in front of the exiting air? We feel coolness. Why? Because as the air decompresses, the nuclei of the atoms that make it up are moving apart, they no longer field replace one another, and as a result, they suck electrons out of the air, or out of our fingers. When the compressed coolant circulates inside a refrigerator, it is expanding. As it expands, the nuclei of the atoms that make it up are moving apart, no longer field replacing one another, and the coolant sucks electrons out of the confined space, keeping everything nice and cool.
Fission is mechanical manmade field replacement. Lenses focus force on unstable matter and are exploded in such a way that it instantly compresses that matter. The compression instantly moves the nuclei of the atoms of unstable matter closer together, and they undergo a massive field replacement that results in an explosion. With fusion, the compression is even greater because miniature atomic explosions do the compressing.
It is theorized that the gravity of the sun, being the result of its mass, which is most of the mass in the solar system, presses down on the center of the giant ball of plasma, causing fusion to occur within the core of the sun. The explosion then travels through all 431 thousand miles of the sun's radius to its surface, where it bursts forth as sunlight, the visible result of an explosion. Because the sun is stable, the fusion process is stable and continuous, and Santa Claus lives at the North Pole to avoid the heat of the explosion.
To review, empirical science is using a theory of gravity that was never proved to claim that gravity creates pressures that compress the hydrogen that makes up the sun, a result of the same unproven theory that produced gravity, so that it produces the same fusion that is manmade on Earth. Technology is created on Earth as a result of a massive trial and error project, the Manhattan Project, that covered a number of states for a number of years and involved thousands of engineers and scientists, empirical science steps in and explains to everyone what no one can ever know for certainty what is happening in the microcosm of the atom to produce the technology, and then informs the universe that it operates the way empirical science thinks the created technology operates. Empirical science doesn't have much problem with this because the technology produces an explosion without any matter in the center connected to the resulting heat and light, its bogus quantum mechanics joke that states that heat and light are the result of electrons bouncing up and down in their orbits. It's perfectly natural for a monkey see, monkey say, ugh, ugh, empirical science.
The real problem of the sun stems from the empirical belief that the universe is operated by laws, and all empirical science has to do is uncover those laws. Once uncovered, the laws become fixed, and any subsequent analysis of reality as more facts become available has to be filtered through those immutable laws. Remember, we are dealing with things for which we will never know with the certainty we can know that a rock is hard or gold is yellow. We are talking about the hidden causes of force in the universe, a subject empirical science simply ignores by claiming gravity is a property and orbiting and rotation historical. We are dealing with things too small to picture accurately, the nature of light, the nature of the matter that is us and our environment, and even manmade things like electricity. We are dealing with things that can't be put on display in a glass case in a museum.
As I have noted, when it came to light, empirical science put the cart before the horse. It determined what light was before it determined how it was produced. It is clearly produced by a process matter is undergoing, but empirical science chose to look at light from a philosophical plateau that carried on a dispute whether light was a wave or a particle that spanned over a century. Focusing on what light was without focusing on the real question, how is light produced, empirical science ignored the connection between light and the matter that produced it. When light was determined to be a wave in the early 19th Century, the empiricists making the determination did not have the foggiest idea how matter was made up, they didn't know about the atom, about the possibility that there might be something about the atom, some process, that might produce light, heck, they didn't even know about electricity.
Thus, from a state of total ignorance, the nature of light was cemented in the empirical mind for all time, and the notion that light was a wave produced a total disconnect from it being produced by matter because waves do not themselves exist, they are merely the disturbance of a medium. When, in the early 20th century, empirical science was confronted with connecting light to matter, it had few tools to do the connecting, but those tools, like the nature of light, had been "uncovered" as the laws that governed the universe. An atom had been formulated along the lines of electricity, where the physical properties of magnets, the positive and negative, had been imported to explain why electricity moved. With an atom with a positive nucleus and orbiting negative electrons (empirical science ignores the source of the force causing them to orbit), empiricist had nowhere to go when connecting light to matter but to the orbiting electrons, creating the metaphysical image of the orbiting electrons jumping up and down in orbit, absorbing and producing light in the process. They didn't know what was causing them to orbit in the first place, so having them jump up and down in orbit was a logical conclusion that has led to the fantasy land currently called quantum science.
So, with no need for the matter producing the light to itself be losing anything, and with Newton's bollixed Theory of Universal Gravitation, empiricists had little trouble coming to the monkey see, monkey say conclusion after the first hydrogen bomb was exploded, that the sun was doing the same thing, undergoing a controlled fusion process.
In the above-cited columns, I've outlined the relationship of matter with respect to the field in which it exists. It's a simple relationship that affects us in our everyday lives. When something is hot, it burns. When something is hotter, it burns a lot more. Most elements have boiling or melting points. If lead is stable on Earth, where the surface temperatures are pretty balmy, rarely over 100ºs F, with a melting point of about 620 F, it wouldn't be able to exist on Venus. What applies in the real world applies to everything. An element such as uranium, which is stable in nature when found with pitchblende, is unstable when isolated. The same field that makes lead stable on Earth makes uranium unstable on Earth. If we took lead out to Pluto, where the field is not as great, it would also be stable. If we took uranium out to Pluto, it would also be stable in isolation simply because the existing field controls the extent to which the matter can exist in it. In no field, the element with the largest nuclei could exist, but on the surface of the sun, no element can exist, not even one with the smallest nucleus, hydrogen. In column 20-05, I describe the cycle of the universe. In the absence of a field, matter forms with the largest nuclei. In the strongest field, matter unravels itself. The moderator of this process is the field itself and the field is the structured electromagnetic frequencies that are emitted in the process (see column 02-05).
At one point, all of the matter in what was to become the future solar system was made up of the atom with the largest nucleus. However, when the matter encountered a field, and field replacement began, the matter became emitters, burning brightly, sorting out their positions with respect to one another with respect to size because size dictated the strength of the field, and the force of their gravitational influence. As time passed, the smaller matter cooled and crusted over while the larger matter took longer to cool off. We can still see Jupiter's fires in its giant red spot. The sun, of course, as the largest, took its position as the center of the solar system, dictating the motion of all other matter.
The sun's surface is made up of the same atom that forms all other matter, the interior of the Earth and the interior of the sun. These atoms are stable because the emissions produced by the field replacement flow to where there is no heat, empty space, filling it with expanding spheres of electromagnetic radiation. On the surface of the sun, the field replacement occurs on a continuous basis, the field the sun produces field replacing the atoms that make up its surface. Because the rate at which the sun is burning is too rapid for all of the particles, the electrons of the unraveled atoms, to leave at the same time, they organize themselves and leave in bunches, the frequencies we measure as emissions. Some of the electrons waiting to be emitted find other activities to engage in. They form whirlpools that are named sunspots and, when their numbers become too great, erupt from the surface en mass in the form of solar flares. This is not as far fetched as it seems because much the same happens on the filament of a light bulb, with churning magnetic fields being present when the bulb is lit (but then, the light bulb isn't converting electricity to light, the electricity is causing the orbiting electrons in the atoms of the filament to keep jumping one way without jumping the other).
Under the empirical view of fusion, the center of the sun is hot, the sun's waves travel through hundreds of thousands of miles of hydrogen/helium plasma and erupt from the surface to produce the sunlight we see. However, if this were the case, the surface of the sun would be hotter than the light in the corona, which extends above the surface and is considered to be the outermost layer of the sun. The fact is, the surface of the sun is estimated to be about 6,000 K while the corona comes in at about a million K. While I'm not 100% on the measuring process, relative measurements are usually accurate and here the differential is incredible, and also impossible if the fusion model of the sun is correct.
To make matters worse for the fusion fantasy, the sunspots have a temperature about 2,000 K lower than the surrounding areas, again an impossibility as sunspots are vortices that allow a view of the sun that is closer to the source of the emissions. The closer fusion viewers get to the center of the fusion, the hotter the temperature would be.
If we view the sun as having a solid surface that is emitting itself in the process of field replacement (I here use it instead of combustion because combustion is generally thought to require oxygen), then we get what we see. First, vortices that revealed the surface would reveal a cooler surface and second, the corona would be much hotter. I don't know what empiricists did during high school chemistry, but the first thing we learned was how a Bunson burner operated, and the first thing we learned about its operation was the relative temperatures of the flame it produced. At the source of the flame, the inner core, it produces a temperature of about 500 C and in the outer cone, it produces temperatures in excess of 1,300 C.
Empiricist, like all great religious authorities, spend their time looking at their belly buttons and counting the number of angels that can sit on the head of a pin, and never, ever look at simple reality. Reality is not that complex once the illogical laws, the irrational timing of discoveries, and the harebrained explanations are sorted out. The sun is what we see, a ball of matter unraveling in the sky, emitting part of itself in a field that expands away from the sun, affecting everything immersed in that field.
Peter Bros is the author of the 9 volume Copernican Series and is President of The Far Museum of Dallas, an actual history museum, which will house its collection of 50,000 rare Eastern Mediterranean manuscripts and artifacts together with actual history displays and tours in a full-sized replica of the Egyptian Temple at Dendera to be built in the Dallas Ft. Worth area. Email:peterbros@therealskeptic.com