The Actual Electric Sun vs. the Solar Nuclear Furnace "theory" of quackademia
YouTube link: Sun Worship done right, by Mira Cook
YouTube link: May the Long Time Sun Shine Upon You, All Love surround You
Stellar Electro-Magnetic Light Bodies
(Walter Russell's: Complete Home Study Course pg. 730)
"In the incandescent Sun is all idea that Earth knows. The idea of the apple of Earth is in the Sun, likewise the wood of the tree and the violet in the meadow. Likewise, the cool Earth is there with it's rivers and mountains. All idea is one idea in the light of the Sun. The light of the Sun is never divided into it's many seeming separate ideas until it is electrically extended from the Sun and those extensions electrically echoed back to it. The Sun is a crucible which melts all ideas into one, then sets them out into space to cool and separate into many units of that one...all moving extensions of the one still light, as manifested in the white Suns and the black light of their surrounding spaces, are but extensions of one Source". (Page 52, The Secret of Light)
YouTube link: The Electric Sun
YouTube link: Simple Proof of an Electric Sun
YouTube link: May the Long Time Shine Upon You all Love surround You
The evidence and proofs that the Sun is not the theoretical egghead "nuke furnace" as claimed by academics
YouTube link: evil ed teller's "nuke furnace" Sun, debunked by a smart Free Thinker
Neutron stars, black holes, accretion disks, red shifts all demolished very simply for their academic lunacy
YouTube link: Planets or Spherical Craft imaged in our Sun's Corona by Soho!
The Sun's Corona is Millions of degrees according to academic scientists. Do you see just how confused these folks are? There reason for believing this absurdity is they think x-rays from the Sun are generated thermally, which they are not. So-called electrons are accelerated through the Sun's so-called EM "field" to create so-called "x-rays". (this is the alternative academic explanation using academic language).
YouTube link: Cylindrical Craft Cruzing Near the Sun
After Viewing the video above I went to SOHO images and found this Cylindrical Craft below the Sun
"Scientists today state that the Sun is a gigantic atomic nuclear furnace radiating a tremendous amount of heat to the satellite planets each second. The temperature at its surface is said to be thousands of degrees (5800 K), and the internal temperature (and Corona) are supposedly in the millions of degrees. However, it is unexplainable how superheated gases can act magnetically. For it is an elementary fact of physics that a substance loses its so-called magnetism when heated! Since astronomers have definitely recorded magnetic effects upon the Sun, we have a direct conflict between the Sun's true nature and the suggested temperature. This conflict only indicates that the Sun is not the superheated mass of gases that scientists think it is, but rather a cool body as Herschel (Viktor Schauberger and Rudolph Steiner) said it was...
Solar Electro-Magnetic Plasma Loops seen as arking Prominences
More Proof the Sun is not a Nuclear Furnace
YouTube link: Our Electro-Magnetic Plasma Sun
Astronomers base their calculations on two assumptions: First, they assume the Sun is a perfect radiating body; second, and most important, they assume that the Sun is radiating heat! This is because they believe that heat on Earth, as well as heat on other planetary bodies, comes directly from the Sun. People feel the heat when they stand in sunlight, so they say the Sun must be a burning mass radiating that heat. That is like saying a radio transmitter radiates sound waves because when we turn on our radios, we hear sound. But we know that such a transmitter radiates radio waves, and that these waves are turned into sound inside the radio!" (Luis E. Prada) Conversion from one form to another is the key and that is what happens here on Earth as the Sun's expanding electric light is converted to heat.
Solar "twists" of academia: Otherwise known as Solar EM Vortices
Solar Electro-Magnetic Vortices,
Adios Solar Nuclear Furnace
So how can there be the massive Solar magnetic fields observed, in these extreme temperatures, since substances lose their magnetism when heated? The tragically failed, nuclear sun theory, also claims that the core of the Sun is 15,600,00o degrees K, the surface is supposedly 5,800 degrees K and the Corona is over 1 millions degrees K and sometimes as hot as 30 million degrees K, if you can stomach that. By what manner does the Sun perform this magic that defies all reason, probability and possibility? Or, could this just be another egghead trick based on the flawed mathematics of bush's beloved, "nukular theory of the atom"? The cause lies in the inability of their model to explain anything, therefore ad hoc assumptions must be inserted into their "knowledge" so that these flaws can be kept in the dark and they can pretend to understand their field of so-called study.
"One aspect concerning our Sun and our conception of it does need to be examined, namely the question of temperature. In our understanding of temperature, we generally consider it to be a measure of heat. For most of our customary purposes this is indeed the case. However, when speaking of the temperature of the Sun, for instance, which is supposed to be about 6000 degrees Celsius at the surface and 20,000,000 degrees C at the center, we may no longer be concerned with thermal temperature, but rather with energetic activity, for according to Isaac Asimov:
Temperature here has to be distinguished from heat. The temperature is a measure of kinetic energy of the atoms and particles in the gas, but since the particles are few, the actual heat content per unit of volume is low.
Moreover, if interstellar space is a near absolute vacuum with thermal temperature of -270.15 Celsius, then how does the Sun's supposed heat ever reach us, since, being able to pass through an extreme vacuum, a denser medium is therefore necessary for the propagation of heat rays or infrared rays?" (pages 77-80, Living Energies, by Callum Coats)
Our Sun's Electric Vortices
"It happens that the proton-proton chain, very important in the sun, begins with a most improbable event: the collision of two protons resulting in the formation of . . . the heavy isotope of hydrogen called deuterium. Usually the formation of a compound nucleus of two protons simply breaks up into two protons again, rather than ejecting a positron and turning into a deuteron, and very many compound nuclei must form to produce appreciable amounts of deuterium. But even at the high (theorized) temperatures of stellar interiors . . . it is extremely hard for two positively charged nuclei to come together to undergo any kind of reaction. . . . One might not expect nuclear reactions to occur at all in stars." (Exploration of the Universe, George Ogden Abell, D. Morrison, S.C. Wolff, 5th edition, 1987, p. 520.) (Advanced Atomic Energy Converters)
Our Sun's Cold Electric Plasma
"In such cases as this, where the general trend of thought in any field is on the wrong track, the reason almost invariably is the uncritical acceptance of some erroneous conclusion or conclusions. As will be brought out in detail in the pages that follow, astronomy has unfortunately been the victim of two particularly far-reaching errors, The latter portion of this volume will examine a wide variety of phenomena in which the true relations have not heretofore been recognized because the general submission to Einstein's dictum that speeds in excess of that of light are impossible has diverted inquiry into unproductive channels (more dark futile attempts, which benefit the moneymen). The theories applicable to the more familiar astronomical objects that will be discussed in the earlier chapters have been led astray by another erroneous conclusion also imported from the physicists, This costly mistake is the conclusion that the energy production process in the stars is the conversion of hydrogen to helium (the nuclear furnace theory) and successively heavier elements.
Stellar Jets are evidence of a Star's Twin Opposing Electrical Vortices
The Consequence of Age or Temperature limits reached by Stars as they oblate in their wave-fields
...Thus far, the thinking about this subject has been dominated by the physicists“ insistence that the most energetic process known to them (nuclear fusion) must necessarily be the process whereby the stars generate their (imagined) energy, regardless of any evidence to the contrary that may exist in other scientific areas.
The Prolating and Oblating conditions of Stellar Electro-magnetic Vortices, Page 213
The Nested Electro-Magnetic Vortices in Spherical Systems: Atoms, Suns and Galaxies. Note the spinning Sacred Geometries which give form to these twin opposing EM Vortex systems
The Electro-Magnetic Vortex Flux Motions diagrammed in our Sun
...The most recent change, from the gravitational contraction hypothesis to the hydrogen conversion hypothesis was preceded by a long and acrimonious dispute with the geologists, whose evidence showed that geological history required a great deal more time than was allowed by the gravitational contraction process. Ultimately the physicists had to concede defeat.
The luminous Crown of the common astronomical egghead
the "1 million to 30 million degree" solar Corona
A Sphere in the Sun's Corona would be vaporized if the Sun was an academic nuke furnace
...Then gravitational contraction was recognized as more potent, and became the physicists orthodoxy, defended furiously against attacks by the geologists and others. Now the hydrogen conversion (nuclear furnace theory) process is the canonical view, resting on exactly the same grounds that crumbled in the two previous instances. In each case the contention was that there is no other tenable alternative. But in both of these earlier cases it turned out that there was such an alternative. (Chapter 1, The Universe of Motion)
"A serious objection is that reactions of this kind are reversible and there is no adequate reason why the reaction between helium and the hydrogen isotope H¹ should proceed preferentially in the direction H -> He. The situation with respect to the H² and H³ isotopes is entirely different. These isotopes are unstable under terrestrial or similar conditions and are therefore subject to reactions which convert them into stable isotopes. Such reactions take place spontaneously but can be speeded up by application of additional kinetic energy and if H² or H³> are present in the stars in substantial quantities a process of conversion to Helium 4 could be an important energy source. Available evidence indicates, however, that most of the hydrogen in the stars is in the Helium 1 state, as would be expected from the probable level of magnetic ionization, and Helium 1 is just as stable as Helium.
At a very high temperature the chances of an atomic break-up and rearrangement are improved but this does not necessarily increase the proportion of helium in the final product; on the contrary, we have seen that a greater kinetic energy results in more fragmentation and it therefore favors the smaller unit rather than the larger. Furthermore, an increase in the amount of space displacement (thermal motion) is not conducive to building up time displacement (mass). The two principal processes which have been postulated as stellar energy sources begin with the reactions H¹ + H¹ -> H² and C12 + H¹ -> N13 respectively. These reactions involve combination of stable isotopes to form unstable isotopes and combination of smaller units to form larger units. In both of these respects the direction of the proposed reactions is in direct opposition to the normal probabilities under the prevailing conditions.
Solar Electro-Magnetic Vortices
Visible proof that the Incandescence of our Sun is manufactured in the Upper Atmosphere of the Sun, not in a nuke furnace at it's core according to academic guesswork. Note the Dark interior atmosphere below the roiling upper atmosphere interacting with "315 Billion volts" of imploding Electrical Pressure, according to Nikola Tesla. This incandescence does not produce the millions of degree temperatures theorized by academics, because of their dysfunctional understanding of x-ray generation being thermal, instead of it's true cause, which is electrical.
"We need go no farther than the first deduction that is made from the assumed existence of the hydrogen conversion process to encounter a glaring example of the way in which this pure assumption is allowed to override the astronomical evidence. In application to the question of stellar ages, this hypothetical process leads to the conclusion that the hot, massive stars of the O and B classes are very young, as their output of energy is so enormous that, on the basis of this hypothesis, their supply of fuel cannot last for more than a relatively short time. It then follows that these stars must have been formed relatively recently, and somewhere near their present locations.
....No theory that calls for the formation of stars within the galaxies is plausible so long as the theorists are unable to explain how stars can be formed in this kind of an environment. One that, in addition, requires the most massive and most energetic of all stars to be very young, astronomically speaking, converts the implausibility into an absurdity.
....On this basis, the globular clusters are the youngest aggregates of matter, and the stars of these clusters are the youngest of all stars. Thus the astronomers have their age sequence upside down.
....The existence of this multitude of commonly recognized contradictions and inconsistencies is a clear indication that there is something radically wrong with the foundations of present-day astronomical theory". (Chapter 1, The Universe of Motion)
It is claimed by astronomers that the largest and brightest stars are the youngest, because they believe stars require a nuclear fuel, therefore when they are young they are biggest, because they are full of fuel, like a full tank of gas in your car. Then by burning their fuel they get smaller, like less gas in your car's tank. They start out as large Blue tanks and end up as smaller Red tanks of fuel. This is the exact opposite of the reality by which they they operate. The largest typical stars are the adult stars and the smallest are the newborns. They evolve overtime into adult stars as they grow, just like everything else in nature, until they reach their age or temperature limit and explode as supernovas, throwing off rings as they expand, which will born new astronomical systems in their wake.
The academic obsession with a "fuel" for stars to "burn" is clearly an artifact of the energy baron's manipulation of academic theory, with the funding, peer selection and tenure processes under their influence or direct control. It profits them greatly for humans to blindly believe that in order to get energy to do our work, we must burn something, which they just happen to own and sell at great cost financially and to our environment as well. Being that their current profits are astronomically higher than any time in recorded history, we see immediately how much they have to lose if mankind frees itself from their lies. Extending the burning concept from their dysfunctional machines to stars insures them that mankind will continue to believe that there is no other way to get our energy in great quantities, than by blowing up or burning their fuels. In the darkness of this false theory mankind will believe that even the stars must burn fuel and therefore, this is the very foundation of energy production in nature. However, this is easily proven to be a lie.
"The basic energy production process in this universe we find, is the conversion of rotational motion (mass) to linear motion (energy) at the age and temperature limits of matter. This one process accounts for the entire range of energy generation, from supplying the modest 'fuel' requirements of the quiet stars, to providing the enormous energy required for the ejection of a quasar. And it requires no special conditions or unusual circumstances to bring it into operation. All matter eventually arrives at one or the other of these limits". (Chapter 18, The Universe of Motion)
The big scary nuclear furnace Sun, raging at tens of millions of degrees is just another grandiose absurdity of academic proportions.
"The idea that stellar power is not generated by any of the commonly accepted reaction chains (nuclear furnace theory) has another consequence, namely that our beliefs about stellar ages will be wrong. ...Stellar ages are inferred from our beliefs that stars derive their power from converting hydrogen into helium. If our beliefs about this process are erroneous, then stellar ages will have to be revised. Generally this will mean that what are currently believed to be old stars are actually young, and that the young stars are actually old. Because of the implications of this, our views on the "evolution" of the universe must also change drastically". (Advanced Atomic Energy Converters)
"It is well to remember for example that the idea of an infinite and basically non-evolving universe had begun to take root long before the observations of uniformity had become available. This was at a time when it was thought that the universe must go on working for ever like some huge powerful perpetual motion machine. Towards the end of the 19th Century, however, this idea had run into difficulties with the empirical second law (theory) of thermodynamics. Thus it has become increasingly clear that it was a natural and inevitable property of all machines we could study in the terrestrial laboratory that their energy eventually became randomized or degraded into heat. Bit by bit, the energy capable of doing productive work wasted away. The ultimate fate of the world seemed therefore to suffer a 'heat death'.
Physicists were forced to accept what is the 'law (theory) of increase of entropy' (ie. the irreversible dissipation of energy) on the largest scale and they became accustomed to the idea of an evolving universe. The ground was thus well prepared for the discovery (theory) of cosmic expansion. It follows then that if the large-scale uniformity referred to above, in space and time, were truly a fundamental fact, we might have to abandon the 'doppler interpretation' of cosmological red-shifts and the entropy problem could still be with us. The suspicion would be reinforced that, contrary to local thermodynamic 'laws', there exists places in the universe where entropy is reduced (neg-entropy) rather than increased, where dissipated heat energy is somehow collected and converted back into organized motion". (The Cosmic Serpent, pgs. 18-19)
As we read through this honest confession of two Scottish astronomers above, it is clear that they see at least partially, the problems with the way astronomy proceeded from its inception. The first mistake was to see a galaxy as a man made machine operating within the confines of the terrestrial environment. Galaxies do not operate like manmade machines, they function according to their twin imploding electrical vortices which gravitate potential energy and radiate kinetic energy. These vortices convert the "potential energy" of "space" into the "kinetic energy" of Suns, which is a cyclical process. The space surrounding the Stars are the Star's inverse conditions which are constantly flowing back to their centers and radiated outward again perpetually, because this is the nature of the twin opposing electro-magnetic vortices, which give all matter form.
The imaginary unidirectional dissipation of energy into nothingness (heat death) is absurd and is typical of the unidirectional thinking of academicians. Galaxies do not operate in an atmosphere which produces friction, they are in space which does not produce friction. The celestial mechanics there are vastly different than the physical mechanics on the surface of our planet, with its gravity and friction, which produce resistance to our man made machines. Because academics were "forced to accept" the absurdity of the provably wrong second (so-called) law of thermodynamics as stated above, they extended these false ideas into more bizarre ideas like an imagined "heat death" and universal annihilation (entropy).
Electric Vortices and Sun Spots
This fallacious belief was further extended to an idea of an "evolving universe" and consequently it had to have a beginning with a "huge wank", otherwise known as the academic big bang theory. Can you see how simple the child like assumptions of academicians are? They start by comparing manmade machines which are totally "unnatural", to the natural Galaxies of creation. Our man made machines are in fact working against nature in our terrestrial atmosphere, due to their unnatural backward designs and the limiting conditions they operate within. Galaxies in great contrast are Nature itself and therefore function naturally. Then academicians extend these false ideas further and further away from reality into their dream worlds of analogies where the comparisons made are not even remotely similar to the objects they pretend to study.
Does a galaxy look like a manmade machine to you? If so, I may never be able to reach you with my dissenting assertions. When they state, "The suspicion would be reinforced that, contrary to local thermodynamic laws, there exists places in the universe where entropy is reduced rather than increased, where dissipated heat energy is somehow collected and converted back into organized motion", they are admitting it, without knowing the answer. There is a cyclical process totally unaccounted for in newton' fallacious 2nd law (theory) of thermodynamics, which is fully accounted for by the twin opposing north and south polar electro-magnetic vortices which recycle radiated kinetic energy from it's "potential form" in nebulous space, back into kinetic energy in the condensed form of incandescent stars, perpetually via implosion.
Galaxies are visibly vortices. Has it never occurred to these academic dummies that vortices suck into themselves (implode) which is a cyclical process as they radiate their wondrous electric light outward? Unfortunately the very obvious escapes their academic intellects, because they are mentally imprisoned by so-called academic laws which are in fact, dysfunctional theories and not laws at all. The fact that they compare the unnatural manmade machines on Earth to a natural Galaxy in space, reveals instantly, how out of touch academics are with reality. Further more, when they say, "there exists places in the universe where entropy is reduced (neg-entropy) rather than increased, where dissipated heat energy is somehow collected and converted back into organized motion. They are treating this anticipated cyclical process as if it is the exception, whereas, this is the fundamental means by which all motions of the universe operate, from the so-called subatomic, to the super galactic. It is not the exception, it is the very foundation of creation in all of its forms.
In the cyclical spiraling nature of eternity there is no need for a single direct line of evolution towards some perfected form from another less perfected form, because the spiral towards evolution is unwound by the spiral of de-evolution. Everything in this Universe is birthed, then it "evolves" to maturity after which it grows old (de-evolves) and dies and is reborn again as something else. Since the Universe was not birthed according to the provably untenable "big bang scenario", it is not evolving. It would actually be de-evolving according to this failed theory based on a "big bang", from a state of organized matter and energy (the observable galaxies and stars) into absolute nothingness (entropy). This ugly academic theory of "universal annihilation", is due to a falsely imagined, "heat death" because of the theories of those scientists who are slaved into the false and discredited, unidirectional thermodynamic "laws" of academic construction.
YouTube link: The Galaxy Song
"Principles outlined in a previous article, Advanced Stellar Propulsion Systems, give us reason to believe that the age of a stellar system will correlate directly with the total mass of that system. A binary star system would be older than a single star. A globular cluster (currently viewed as "very old") would be regarded as much younger than a spiral arm galaxy. The oldest star systems would be the giant spheroid galaxies like the one in M87.
...Mainstream scientists are now beginning to realize that stars may be older than galaxies. (Science News April 15, 1995, Vol. 147, No. 15, p. 230 "Keck finding: Did stars predate galaxies?") They are also perplexed by evidence that the universe appears to be younger than the oldest stars in the universe. Again, these problems originate largely because of misunderstandings about the true mechanism of stellar power (nuclear furnace fallacy), as well as their belief in the "Big Bang" origin of the universe" (Science News 10/8, 10/22, 10/29 (1994) V146, Nos. 15,17,18, pp. 232-234, 265, 278; 9/9/95 V148. No. 11, p. 166) (Advanced Atomic Energy Converters)
"The ionization level in the chromosphere, corresponds to the thermal ionization which would exist at a temperature of 20,000° to 30,000° K and in order to explain the still stronger ionization in the corona on a thermal basis it would be necessary to assume a temperature in the neighborhood of one million degrees. The observed level of ionization is therefore inconsistent with a thermal origin unless a highly abnormal temperature situation exists in this region and no convincing reason why conditions should be abnormal has ever been discovered. We are thus led to the conclusion that the ionization is not thermal and that it is a product of the cosmic radiation which, according to theory, should be causing just the kind of an effect which we observe. In the light of this explanation the location of the maximum ionization in the outer regions of the corona is to be expected, since the matter in this zone is exposed to the maximum cosmic radiation. As this radiation travels inward it is gradually attenuated by contacts with the diffuse material in the intervening space and the degree of ionization of the material atoms is reduced accordingly". (The Structure of the Physical Universe, Chapter XXXVII)
The Electrical Birthing of Stars
"Plasma cosmology easily steps over this line in the sand which the big bang stumbles. Electrical double layers associated with active galaxies and quasars generate copious amounts of x-rays, and they do it 'the easy way', by accelerating electrons through an electric field, just like your dentist does. There are no black holes lurking in his x-ray machine". (The Electric Universe) (Nor, are there any black holes lurking in the real Universe for that matter, eggheads!)
"The conclusions with respect to the origin of the x-rays that are observed in the vicinity of the giant galaxies are also applicable, on a smaller scale, to the production of x-rays in the surroundings of individual stars. These x-rays are believed to originate in the stellar coronas, and it has therefore been concluded that ”temperatures of a million to 10-30 million degrees“ 228 exist in these coronas. Here, again, the existence of such temperatures is excluded by basic thermal principles. Consequently, the x-rays cannot be produced thermally in these locations. But, as in the galactic situation, the x-ray production is easily explained on the basis of leakage of intermediate speed matter from the interiors of the stars, followed by a return to the low speed range in the coronas (which are Scalar attributes).
the light of what is known about the fundamentals of heat and temperature, a
high temperature in a medium as sparse as that of intergalactic space is
impossible. As explained in Volume II, the temperature of a gas is the result of
containment. The pressure is a measure of the containment, while the
temperature is a measure of the energy imparted to the gas that is subject to
pressure. Thus the temperature, T is a function of the pressure, P. For a given
volume, V, of "ideal gas," the two quantities are directly
indicated by the general gas law, PV = RT, where R is the gas constant. If the
pressure is very low, as in the near vacuum of intergalactic or interstellar
space, the temperature is likewise very low. It is measured in
degrees, not in
millions of degrees.
So, we can know say "sayonara" to the luminous crown of the common astronomical egghead, the "1 million to 30 million degree" solar Corona.
"Funny thing about that term "heat" - when relating it to plasmas and things in space, it's not necessarily describing 'high temperature' (though often termed x million degrees) so much as describing 'high energy'. Heat as we generally know it is caused by the movement of particles, that is, the more they move, the 'hotter' the substance they make up becomes. But plasmas in space are (mostly) so diffuse that to think of them as physically 'hot' may be a misdirection of thought, rather they are physically 'energetic', that is their particles are vibrating so hard or moving so fast that they show lots of 'temperature' without the whole medium 'feeling' hot, so to speak".
The age old idea that the heat from the Sun "travels" through the immense cold of space to heat our planet is false, because once again, it is based on appearances. As can be seen above, heat traveling through the near freezing, near vacuum of space is impossible. The condition of the Sun's positive electrical polarity is repeated on the side of the Earth which faces the Sun. The negative radiating vortices of electrical force spiraling from the Sun (anode) reach "the inertial plane of equal pressures between the Earth and the Sun where there is a reversal of the reproduction of an expanding counterpart into the reproduction of a contracting counterpart". (The Universal One, Pg. 30)
These negative unwinding vortex waves become positively imploding vortices as they spiral through the electrical pressure gradients and atmospheric lenses of Earth. The wave-fields are compressed and concentrated toward the Earth's center as they curve inward on their implosive journey through the convex, "lens like" atmospheric and electrical pressure gradients, thereby producing light on the side of the Earth facing the Sun (cathode).
This process produces heat here on our planet as the Actinic Force of the positively imploding currents of electric light react with the negative (grounding) physical matter of our world. A magnifying lens used to start a fire, works upon this principle of bending and compressing wave-fields in this same manner. The night side of Earth is simultaneously discharging these positive Solar vortex currents through the "lens like" atmospheric and electrical pressure gradients via the negative electro-magnetic radiation of heat and light otherwise known as cold and darkness, respectively.
Stellar Temperature Tables according to Flawed Academic Astronomy
Academic Astronomical tripe: "Think about this for a moment. How can scientists know how hot a star is, if they have never visited it? Imagine a fire. When you look at the hottest part of the flame (the part closest to the wood) the fire looks blue. As the fire gets further and further from the wood it gets cooler, and the color changes first to yellow, and then to red. Scientists know that a blue star must be a very hot star, while a yellow star is a medium hot star, and a red star is a cool star". (Stars)
The above statement should be stated, "scientists assume" that the stars colors are indicative of their variations in the "extreme, million degree plus temperature ranges" attributed to them, because they do not "know", they are guessing with their theory. Once again, these flawed "scientific" ideas, are based entirely on "appearances" (sensory based information) and not on "Knowing" (Mind - Self Knowledge). They are not even "reasoning" correctly with their flawed analogy, which demonstrates the exact opposite of their theory. The "nuclear fire" gets hotter, not cooler, high up in the Corona, it's claimed to be a million to 30 million degrees hotter than the surface, according to this cruddy scholastic nonsense.
These academicians are describing Stars as if they were made of burning wood, as it is seen in the atmosphere of our Earth as an analogy. I am pretty sure we'll all agree the Stars are not made of wood anymore than the Moon is made of cheese.
The color classifications attributed to Stars and their imagined "millions of degrees" temperatures are actually varying degrees of electrified conditions of the Stars according to their mixture of gases and metals, their sizes, the variations in the electrical pressure conditions of the wave-fields they center and the the strength of the electro-magnetic Birkeland currents (sympathetic streams) flowing through these wave-fields, as they interact with the other Stellar wave-fields which are spiraling in massive vortices around the Galactic Center.
The temperatures in the millions of degrees associated with this theory have no basis at all in reality, they are a guess based on "black body radiation theory", which has been tagged onto "star temperature theory", much in the same way that the "theoretical electron of mathematical imagining" was tagged onto the mendeleev periodical table, purely out of convenience, as an easy way to "explain something" , which has no actual basis in reality. The electrons created by mankind are not remotely related to the electrons of the periodical table, they are two entirely different creatures. One is real and is used daily by humans, the other is a theoretical myth, which lets physicists pretend like they have a theory.
These imagined temperatures are the result of astronomers clinging to physicists with their "nuclear theory of the atom" and the "nuclear furnace theory" of stellar energy production as a way to explain variations in the magnitudes and appearances of the stellar light they view with their limited sensory based gear (telescopes), when they peer out at the fiery globes and galactic vortices populating our Universe.
Luminosity and Temperature evaluations ignore the Electric Star Hypothesis
This academic guess is based on the appearances of light and they do not even "know" what light is, whether particle or wave, so once again, how are we to trust them? I think we can safely disregard the academic color scheme of the extreme temperatures attributed to Stars, because it is based upon the appearance of light, which is a simulation, not it's cause. The comparison of burning objects here in our atmosphere to the electrical motions of incandescent stars in cold dark space, is of course imbecilic, there is absolutely no relationship between the two. So, here again academicians reveal just how far they are removed from the very reality which they are supposed to be studying for the benefit of mankind.
YouTube link: the mythematics of cartesian co-ordinates at 2:30
The same can be said for the "gravity" of a Star or Galaxy bending light from other Stars or Galaxies, according to einstein's four dimensional, curved space and time fantasy. "Magnetism is known to interact with light, as demonstrated by the Zeeman and Faraday effects. The starlight refraction has no relation to, nor interaction with, the gravitational field of the Sun, or warped space systems" according to einstein's imagination. Refraction of light waves due to a Star or Galaxy's Electro-Magnetic, "lens like", plasma and atmospheric wave-fields is the cause, not the imaginary text book version, hawking einstein's claim that: gravity lines of force, "curve space" around heavenly bodies and drag the imaginary "photon wave trains" with them.
Time as used by mankind is not another dimension according to einstein's crazy notion of four dimensional space and time. Time as used by mankind, records the motions of material objects within the three dimensions of space we are accustomed to measuring the Universe with. It is not a separate dimension.
G.R. : einstein's "goofy religion" of 4 dimensional space time imprisonment
"Concentrated spheres, such as Earth and Sun, are surrounded by layers of light of equal pressures. Clouds float around the Earth in them. The reason they float in curves parallel to the Earth is because of these spherical equipotential planes of pressures which curve as the Earth curves. Curved pressures of light act as lenses to multiply and divide light radially. (Spiraling) Light rays which pass through curved planes concentrate to a point when projected through light lenses of space in the convex direction and decentrate when they pass through the concave direction." (The Secret of Light, Pg. 244)
"To say that in the presence of large bodies space 'becomes' curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act on nothing. I for one refuse to subscribe to such a view". (Nikola Tesla, New York Herald Tribune, 9/11/32)
YouTube link: einstein: The Autism Connection
Since space has no mass according to the "scholars", how can gravity "pull" on it and bend it in accordance with al's super- calafragilistic theory? Mass determines gravity according to academic theory. This bizarre idea came from a guy who could not tie his own shoe laces. Now do you get it? Empty space does not curve, in our measurements of it. The three dimensional Euclidean Space we are accustomed to using in our physical observation and descriptions of the Universe as a reference system, is the direct measure of distance between physical objects, which is measured in straight lines, not curved ones and is described within the x, y and z coordinates of the academically sanctified Cartesian System. It is therefore impossible for space to curve according to the fundamental academic definition of it's measure. Since Space is vacuous according to academic sources, there would be nothing to create curves with, in their silly academic theory.