I totally agree with that thinking. My take is that those magnetic flux tubes in the corona are strings of dark matter/energy, they are pulling a vacuum and cooling the sunspots they go into. They break off during flares and are expelled into the solar wind. They undergo inflation as they reach Earth and encircle it and ionize and decay into our low pressure(vacuum) weather disturbances and also decay us and the Earth triggering seismic events. This is a form of quintessence. Our weather is not triggered by hot and cold, it is triggered by vacuum. These strings/branes really make up our quantum gravity field, warping and decaying space around them. Things are not nice and smooth like Albert thought. Makes for a lot of variety here on Earth but very short lives...
Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Instead of hijacking the previous thread, one detail is now morphed into a > new topic based on this exchange. > > From: John Berry > > DR wrote... I find that the CoE is an effective way to > validate the interactions among them. > > JB Really? ...Do you know how the Neutrino was > 'Discovered', > or should I say Invented? ...There was an apparent breach of the CoE in > nuclear fusion (IIRC) and it was assumed that because they must balance > anyway that the missing energy forms into some hard to detect particle. > > This is a pretty good summary of what science must do to "adjust the books" > on the rare occasions when things do not work out as expected - since the > neutrino was indeed an "invented" species... but it was not invented from > scratch, so to speak - since there were other properties which we needed to > account for, besides "some" of the missing energy in the solar fusion > cycle, > leading to helium. > > We also have conservation of spin, angular momentum, charge, lepton number > etc. and therefore the neutrino filled many roles before it was finally > discovered in the fifties. But the prevalence of solar neutrinos still > after > half a century comes up short of the number that "should be there," even > with next "invention" which is called neutrino oscillation. LENR now > provides the same opportunity to describe a new kind of exothermic reaction > - both on Earth and in the Stars (having a solar model). > > Neutrinos are not massless, as we now know, but seemed to be when first > detected during nuclear experiments on Earth. NOTE also that the value of > neutrino mass itself is NOT DEDUCTED from the standard solar model > calculations and that failure may imply that the problem is more extreme. > IOW - if the neutrino mass were accounted for in the first instance, then > the so-called solar neutrino problem would be more severe than it seems > (even with "oscillation" another kludge). > > OK - I'm mentioning all of this neutrino business as background for the > proposition that the best way to explain one important version of LENR - > the > one involved in the Rossi effect (and probably the Mills effect as well) is > by way of that major physical detail which neutrino detection has made > clear > to us. > > Which is to say that we may not have been stating the problem correctly. > There is another large energy source on the sun besides deuterium fusion ! > Maybe more than one, since Mills has an explanation for a hydrino energy > source in the corona, but there is another one which I'm proposing. > > First - let's be clear that the major detail which the standard > cosmological > model misses is that the net energy release on our Sun, as evidenced by > neutrinos - is at least twice the level that it should be from fusion to > helium - and possibly triple. The solar neutrino problem can be verbalized > in two ways and the second way is NOT that there are missing neutrinos (ALL > neutrinos are accounted for) but that there is another primary source of > energy (perhaps more than one) besides the known nuclear fusion reaction of > deuterium, which ends in helium. > > Mills finds one of those gainful reactions in the solar corona through > excess UV emissions due to hydrogen redundancy. > > The other one in this hypothesis is being called RPF or reversible proton > fusion. In short, the reaction of two protons which forms a diproton, which > is the most prevalent nuclear reaction in the Universe by far, is not net > neutral. > > This RPF reaction provides via QCD a fraction of the net energy of the sun > without any neutrinos and thus balances the books more elegantly than any > other model. > > Moreover, it is also the same energy pathway which turns up in > nickel-hydrogen LENR on Earth. > > Jones > > > >
