Cosmic Ray Powered Stars Vs. The Electric Universe Model Stars

You can download a copy of the essay for free here to help spread the word.

Cosmic Ray Powered Stars Versus The Electric Universe Model Stars

By Chris Freely

Those who have read my core essay on the new science will be familiar with new concepts on the nature of the stellar evolution that have been presented.  These ideas are related to and very similar to the electrical universe model's version of how stars are created but with significant modifications based on the idea that stars are powered by external cosmic ray bombardment of their magnetic field instead of by electrical currents in the galaxy as in the electric universe model.  Another key difference in the two ideas is that I am using Mark McCutcheon's basic idea on the nature of physics, Expansion Theory, which eliminates the concept of charge as we understand it because expanding electrons do not need an imaginary positive and negative center to flow as rivers of current as conceived of in this model.  The third key difference between the electrical universe concept and the cosmic ray powered star model is the concept of hyperdense matter cores whereby the vast majority of stars have very dense cores at their hearts.  This changes the mechanisms of stellar and planetary birth from the electrical universe's mechanism which involves z-pinch effects in plasma as discussed extensively here.

In both models planets and stars are born from other planets and stars usually involving large explosions such as nova and supernova.  In the electrical universe model these explosions are caused by z-pinch effects in galactic electrical currents.  In the cosmic ray powered star paradigm explosions are caused by instability in the hyperdense matter core of the star caused by pressure changes most likely due to melting of the core over time as the amount of energy in the magnetic field increases and/or magnetic and electrical overload caused by the increasing amount of energy of the field over time.  Current conventional astrophysics, of course, believes that stars are powered from nuclear fusion and I deal with many of the problems with this theory in my core essay as well as in my cosmogenesis notes.  Supernovas are caused in conventional astrophysics primarily because of the iron catastrophe in current nuclear fusion models whereby any attempt to fuse iron will result in a failure to generate additional energy and cause the star to go supernova.

The electrical universe model also discounts the existence of black holes believing active galactic nuclei are plasma effects of the galactic plasma currents in the galaxy (once again focusing on z-pinch effects if I remember correctly).  The current cosmic ray model I have created incorporates very large stellar bodies which function as centers of galaxies, just not as infinitely dense singularities described by current astrophysics.  I have termed these objects dark quasars if not active and quasars as active.  Active galactic nuclei represent a midway point between a very active quasar and quiet dark quasar.  In this understanding "black holes" at the center of galaxies are very large stars essentially that are putting out most of their energy in the non-visible upper band of the EM spectrum (microwave on up) and occasionally burst into very powerful states where they release massive amounts of energy like a normal star except in a massive way.

In the cosmic ray powered universe there is no upper limit to how large these dark quasars can get as long as more matter can be incorporated into them through absorbing other objects presumably (though I suggest other less plausible mechanisms of matter gain as well in my core essay).  In this analogy of the cosmos, systems and cores just keep getting bigger up to infinity as we look at larger and larger slices of the cosmos.

Quasars would occasionally explode as very, very large supernovas that divide the quasar in two creating two new galaxies from the new cores.  We would need to figure out a way to tell which galaxies we see out in space are in the process of dividing and which are in the process of colliding in this analysis.  Also, another important assumption is that the primary means that stars and galaxies grow apart in the cosmic ray powered cosmos is radiative pressure from their light and cosmic rays.  Such an idea would suggest that when quasars split up, the process of the galaxies separating out would generally be quiet slow, though the force of the explosion that creates the new core may push it out quiet far.  I haven't done the math required to estimate, but observations of the galaxies with this idea in mind should be able to sort out what is what and how it's happening.

Additional ideas I discussed in my core essay deal with larger themes of Mark McCutcheon's Expansion Theory in light of the cosmic ray powered cosmic model.  One of the issues that I considered was the possibility of different expansion pressure levels in different areas of the cosmos.  This is not something Mark dealt with in his original theory but I believe it follows that depending on how the whole physical system is structured in light of the transdimensional structure of the cosmos in higher dimensions it might be possible to envision such a system where some regions of the cosmos had a different chemical periodic table and much higher densities of possible matter than others because the amount of expansion pressure would be much higher.  I could not satisfy this level of analysis in the time I've had so far, but have introduced it as a concept that should be considered in an expanded cosmology hypothetically.

The issues with this idea resolve a problem I had with the idea that the cosmos had to only have one possible set of periodic tables.  I believe Mark did deal with the idea that the rate of electron expansion could change in Expansion Theory in his original book by stating it may have been different in the past and could be different in the future.   Such change, of course, suggests that different regions of space could hypothetically have different rates of expansion for the electron.  I envisioned this on a very grand scale where the regions would be vast having the same general expansion pressure rate on the order of trillions of major galaxies, and there would be another universal region like this with a different rate nearby.  A detailed study of my essay and Mark's book is required to understand what I am talking about exactly without me going into excruciating details right now.

I also considered the possibility that changes in expansion pressure could occur in smaller settings than the original version I thought of.  We don't technically know enough to say whether or not different chemical systems exist outside of this solar system in the Milky Way.  We don't know enough to say if smaller systems could exist at different expansion rates because we don't know enough about the mechanisms by which expansion is controlled.  It is implausible in general that changes to what would appear to be the physical constants of the universe could be so easily altered in smaller regions of space or around smaller systems like galaxies, stars, or even planets, but we don't know enough about field theory to rule this out entirely.  We need to know more about the relationship between expansion pressure, volume , space, and hypothetical transdimensional fields such as the 4th dimensional etheric I discuss in the core essay.

I am generally skeptical of the possibility of any overly weird outcome in these areas that I have thought about, so generally I believe that the physics and chemistry based on expansion pressure and the periodic table we know are the same in, at least, this galaxy, and probably for some great extent in the extra-galactic space away from this galaxy.  I also believed that variations in expansion pressure would be very gradual and slow over the whole of a large area of space so that instead of having one area that was radically different from another, one galaxy might have one thousandth of one percent difference from the next one let's say.  However this is a function of my scientific conservatism on the matter.  We don't know what's out there and how it works and need alot of time to understand the new model before we can truly say what is possible with it.

Comparing what is known about z-pinch effects and using Mark's model of electron expansion, it would be possible to develop a physical mechanism explanation that shows why z-pinch effects do what they do.  It clearly is something to do with the flow of electrons like that of a river moving mass through pressure.  Once this idea is understood I think it will obvious what is happening from the new perspective.

What Are Things: How Simple Questions Get Lost in the Chaos

Everything has a beginning.  That's what they tell us anyway.  As far as we can tell it's true.  Who could argue with such conclusions?  Well, some for sure, but let's not turn out to be those people if you know what I mean.

And as certain as everything has a beginning there are those who love to question everything they hear about these beginnings.  Why did they happen?  What makes this thing the way it is and why ever did it show up here?  Most people settle on just assuming that everything more or less means nothing so they agree to just shut up and do their jobs.  Wonderful people those, may their sacrifices be long remembered.

As we consider the question of things, I like to point out some very fascinating facts that may concern those of you who are of a more metaphysical bend towards the whole notion of things and what they do and where they go when they aren't around anymore.  Just about everyone under the Sun out here outside of India just assumes they go poof and gone back into the great nothing or perhaps the void from which they came, though few talk about the void as it makes most feel uncomfortable with the fact most people call it "space" or some other such physically pleasing word.  Nothing wrong with voids mind you unless you get stuck there for too long and they suck your soul out of your corpse.

Now that I have tormented away the weak amongst you using my tormented filtering mechanism, we can properly proceed with the meat of the discussion: the matter of the nature of things.  Things exist because the universe apparently creates them which is an odd sort of thing for a universe to do on first realizing that, in fact, things seem to be generated from the universe, which at first glance, also appears to be a thing made of things.  Good God, things making things?  What sort of a whacked out jive is this place we popped into?  Are we just another of those damn things too? Well, that shit doesn't sound right.

Once upon a time in Greece some really square philosophers who were short on hot dates sat around and decided that things had to be more than just things.  In fact one of the biggest ones, Plato, talked about things being a subset of thoughts he called forms.  Interesting little tidbit (sentence fragmented noted you overly obsessed grammar nazis).  Much, much later another big headed philosopher in Germany, one of my favs to pick on in fact, Immanuel Kant, said that there was something called the thing onto itself whereby, radically, the objects in question actually existed!  This was a big step for philosophy and highly controversial as suggesting that reality was real was something of a major advance in radical notions about the universe.  Kant mostly ignored the depth of what he was saying apparently and focused on the less important idea that we couldn't really know what the damn thing was that we were looking at!  Seem crazy yet?  Well it's about to get positively insane next.

Technically, according to certain mystics, who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent and possibly the guilty as well, had the nerve to suggest that one could actually feel the existence of the object!  These loons were positively committed to the idea that things might actually be real and you could prove it by "extending your etheric out" to feel the object, which roughly translated means feel the object with your extended perception in a way like touching it with your thought or with your aura presumably.  Physically this could be like extending the magnetic field around your body to touch the object in question.  Funny thing those mystics could just have touched the object with their hands and saved themselves alot of trouble.  None the less, the philosophers never got the memo, and the scientists by this time had decided that none of it was real in a real sort of way anyway since quantum physics proves that it's all just a stupid probability cloud.  (Though obviously McCutcheon destroyed that idea with his theory as described on his website and on this website here.)

In any case, the things are still here and so are we, so obviously someone's thought experiment in transpersonal existentialist nihilism has gone terribly awry.  Not to mention those damn bills, they haven't dematerialized either.  Clearly someone hasn't gotten the memo.  Perhaps we should complain louder.

So, if things are still here why do I care?  What am I gaming at here?  Well according to the idea that love creates everything in existence through magic, you're going to have a hard time proving that destruction is in any way real to life outside the physical appearance of life we have here in the physical universe.  This radical notion suggests that not only are all objects down to electrons real, but they all have spirit and eternal life simultaneously automatically granted to them as their spiritual heritage for existing in the first place as clearly they must have been summoned into existence for a purpose by a being that already had existed before them.  Yes you read that right.  That idea is called the Natural Theory of Love and Magic.  You'll not find a better one no matter how hard you squeeze your brain I can promise you that.  It's because it's the only theory that satisfies the requirement that the universe is good and serves a higher purpose.

But our universe doesn't appear to be magical right?  Well if it's governed by a law and everything seems to be following a law, what the hell do you think the law is?  If you said things, then obviously you didn't get it.  The law is not a thing but seems to govern them rather thoroughly wouldn't you say?  Try defying gravity next time if you have any doubt about the question.  It doesn't work!  Gravity is magic and gravity is law.  Sure it's governed by the expansion equation that Mark McCutcheon discovered in our new physics paradigm, but why?   Who the heck needs gravity?  Well the answer should be obvious if you think about it since it's here.  Everyone is the answer, Einstein!

Surely alot of details have been left out here, but I'm being dramatic to prove a point.  That point is it is impossible to create a version of the universe that fits all the criteria for a just and true perspective unless it includes the idea that all things are real and that they exist as aspects of themselves to evolve forward in time to birth new realities from their evolution.  And the reason for this is the one stickler of all metaphysical analysis I have seen so far, it is the emergence of desire in consciousness.  Once desire emerges in consciousness then desire must be fulfilled.  It's a divine sort of thing to realize that desire exists to be fulfilled.

This problem is what creates the paradox in reincarnation theory which states that in order for things to evolve, they must grow, but in order for them to grow there has to be new stuff constantly.  Desire is not the source of the stuff, but rather it is the reason that the stuff is summoned into being from the transdimensional into the physical universe (don't try this at home).  And the greatest divine trick of all in this new metaphysical concept is the idea that it is the memory of the past that creates the basis, in some way we don't understand yet, for new matter.  The memory of the past stored in what is called the unconscious, in the higher dimensional record system of the universe is a field in motion through other fields.  Every time fields interact they create new memories and these memories are stored in the transdimensional fields surrounding the lower dimensions and specifically here, the physical.

Alot goes into this idea, but the basic process results in the outcome that no experience is lost because it is stored in the cosmic transdimensional memory system.  If we believe in the basic afterlife narrative of most cultures on the planet, the review process of a person's life goes through this memory system.  Where does all the light go at the end of that experience?  Interesting set of thoughts, no?  With transdimensional experience comes the possibility of mechanisms of creation that are spiritual and, in fact, explainable to some degree with science and normal logic and reason once we understand what matter and experience do and in what proportion these changes occur at in different levels of consciousness field theory.  This requires alot of thought to work through, which I have to a great degree.  I believe this is what Kabbalah ultimately refers to especially the Tree of Life the more we understand it.

Reincarnation, in this idea, does not have an end goal.  It is a continual expansion of the soul until all its desires are fulfilled.  If you realize what this idea means you will be quite astonished at its vast complexity.  It is also a given fact that the desires can only grow over time after periods of rest between fulfillment or unfulfillment as the case may be.  Also this creates the basis for the karmic system as all desire must be honored.  This also means that because desire is endless, eternal life is automatic.

What are things?  They are fields that are born to serve those that have come before.  This is the infinite procession of life in the metaphysical understanding of it.  Beginning in summation a being is born as an object (most probably an electron which is the smallest object in the new physics paradigm of which everything is made) and evolves through a massive series of stages until it becomes a fully sentient soul at which point it has a self reflecting conscience capable of loving unconditionally and making spiritual sacrifices in full consciousness a priorii to a decision tree that is has become aware of.

Does this mean you were a teapot in some prior lifetime?  Perhaps.  What matters now is that the universe you live in needs you to continue to function as a cog within it.  Otherwise you wouldn't be here.  This mental trip into spirit has been provided to you at great personal expense to myself.  I spent a good part of my life looking deeply into the nature of it instead of pursuing normal human interests.  Keep that in mind if you wish to judge me too harshly as a few of you are apt.  It's not easy going into the deep.  It leaves you somewhat scared.  But it's worth telling a worthy soul that things will ultimately be ok in my own way.  Now get back to work fools.