If The Sun Is Radiating Off 4 Billion Tons Of Mass Per Second....

Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

John wrote:
Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres



Nick Tesla agreed.

John wrote:
Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

Make that _millions_ of tons per second, not billions.

The universe is not considered to be infinite in age
by the majority of people who study such things.

Being awash in a sea of energy does not mean that you
can do anything useful with it. For that you need a
potential difference across which you can extract work.
It's like thinking that because you extract hydroelectric
energy from water, building a hydro dam in the middle
of the ocean should yield lots of power...

On Aug 25, 12:54*pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:
John wrote:
Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

Make that _millions_ of tons per second, not billions.

Yes. Millions does sound more reasonable. But I listened to this taped
lecture a few times to confirm it or not, and the guy said billions.
It must have been his mistake.

YouTube has the mini lecture as, The Cancellation of the Force of
Inertia - Zero Point Energy

The universe is not considered to be infinite in age
by the majority of people who study such things.

I said, "Infinite, nearly" which reflects my own feelings about this
topic. I don't follow the folks who say there was a big bang. I
believe, and I don't know if there is anyone who thinks similarly,
that there was something, a primordial soup of infinitesimally tiny
particles that filled the universe, and that soup, came from an
earlier soup, which came from an earlier soup, and the point is,
everything in the universe, eventually "evolved" up from the earliest
soup through the different stages of soups we have, till finally, we
reached the top level, which is what we see today with matter, and
particles, and so on. And on top of that, life evolved as we know it,
and as we can assume it did, in its many shades, elsewhere as well.
You can call it the "Soup Kitchen Theory".

Being awash in a sea of energy does not mean that you
can do anything useful with it. *

When you say, "a sea" that means there is a top surface to it. This
has no bounds, except the bounds of the universe. It fills the
universe, in other words.

For that you need a
potential difference across which you can extract work.

I'm not the theoretician, but Tesla had something he called it, and
Nick Cook calls it, Zero point energy, or something like that.

It's like thinking that because you extract hydroelectric
energy from water, building a hydro dam in the middle
of the ocean should yield lots of power...

I don't know how they see it, but it may be more like solar panels
picking up the rays of energies from the sun. If you could find the
right type of "solar panels" for channeling energies, then you just
might have something there. It's off the subject, a little, but
someone produced an alloy, as I heard it, and patented it, and you
just throw it in a tank of water, and it sits there, separating the
hydrogen from water all day long, and never stops. The hydrogen you
then capture and use for your hydrogen fueled cars and buses. If you
could do something like that, which would perpetually channel out the
energies from the ether, that would be a pretty cool trick.

John Ayres

On Aug 25, 1:48*pm, John wrote:
On Aug 25, 12:54*pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:

John wrote:
Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

Make that _millions_ of tons per second, not billions.

Yes. Millions does sound more reasonable. But I listened to this taped
lecture a few times to confirm it or not, and the guy said billions.
It must have been his mistake.

YouTube has the mini lecture as, The Cancellation of the Force of
Inertia - Zero Point Energy

The universe is not considered to be infinite in age
by the majority of people who study such things.

I said, "Infinite, nearly" which reflects my own feelings about this
topic. I don't follow the folks who say there was a big bang. I
believe, and I don't know if there is anyone who thinks similarly,
that there was something, a primordial soup of infinitesimally tiny
particles that filled the universe, and that soup, came from an
earlier soup, which came from an earlier soup, and the point is,
everything in the universe, eventually "evolved" up from the earliest
soup through the different stages of soups we have, till finally, we
reached the top level, which is what we see today with matter, and
particles, and so on. And on top of that, life evolved as we know it,
and as we can assume it did, in its many shades, elsewhere as well.
You can call it the "Soup Kitchen Theory".

Being awash in a sea of energy does not mean that you
can do anything useful with it. *

When you say, "a sea" that means there is a top surface to it. This
has no bounds, except the bounds of the universe. It fills the
universe, in other words.

For that you need a
potential difference across which you can extract work.

I'm not the theoretician, but Tesla had something he called it, and
Nick Cook calls it, Zero point energy, or something like that.

It's like thinking that because you extract hydroelectric
energy from water, building a hydro dam in the middle
of the ocean should yield lots of power...

I don't know how they see it, but it may be more like solar panels
picking up the rays of energies from the sun. If you could find the
right type of "solar panels" for channeling energies, then you just
might have something there. It's off the subject, a little, but
someone produced an alloy, as I heard it, and patented it, and you
just throw it in a tank of water, and it sits there, separating the
hydrogen from water all day long, and never stops. The hydrogen you
then capture and use for your hydrogen fueled cars and buses. If you
could do something like that, which would perpetually channel out the
energies from the ether, that would be a pretty cool trick.

John Ayres

The all inclusive loss including CME blow-offs is actually much
greater. Something like the first 5 billion years as having lost at
least 3.17 billion tonnes/sec thus far, and our sun is smaller than
average. The average star could be something close to having lost 4
billion tonnes/sec.

~ BG

On Aug 25, 11:51*am, John wrote:
Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

The all inclusive loss including CME blow-offs is actually much
greater than most realize, although our sun is perhaps closer to
having lost 3 billion tonnes/sec.

I calculate something like the first 5 billion years as having lost
3.17 billion tonnes/sec thus far, and our sun is somewhat smaller than
average. The average star could be something closer to having lost 4
billion tonnes/sec, so that's a lot of fresh material floating around,
especially if our galaxy alone has 400 billion stars.

Perhaps some of that stellar mass turned into those 60-atom
buckyballs.

~ BG

On Aug 25, 11:51*am, John wrote:
Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

The all inclusive loss including CME blow-offs is actually much
greater than most realize, although our sun is perhaps closer to
having lost 3 billion tonnes/sec.

I've calculated something like the first 5 billion years as having
lost 3.17 billion tonnes/sec thus far, and our sun is somewhat smaller
than average. The average star could be something closer to having
lost 4 billion tonnes/sec, so that's a lot of fresh material floating
around, especially if our galaxy alone has 400 billion stars.

Unless stars merge of feed off one another, they don't stay the same
or much less get bigger. Usually whatever rogue influx can't keep
pace the the radiated plus CME outflux unless there's a substantial
surrounding molecular cloud still feeding the stellar gravity that's
offering a greater attraction force than whatever the solar wind can
manage to blow away (possibly a star as having a black hole or neutron
core might pull that off).

Perhaps some of that lost stellar mass turned into those 60-atom
buckyballs.

~ BG

On Aug 26, 10:29*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Aug 25, 11:51*am, John wrote:

Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

The all inclusive loss including CME blow-offs is actually much
greater than most realize, although our sun is perhaps closer to
having lost 3 billion tonnes/sec.

I've calculated something like the first 5 billion years as having
lost 3.17 billion tonnes/sec thus far, and our sun is somewhat smaller
than average. *The average star could be something closer to having
lost 4 billion tonnes/sec, so that's a lot of fresh material floating
around, especially if our galaxy alone has 400 billion stars.

Unless stars merge of feed off one another, they don't stay the same
or much less get bigger. *Usually whatever rogue influx can't keep
pace the the radiated plus CME outflux unless there's a substantial
surrounding molecular cloud still feeding the stellar gravity that's
offering a greater attraction force than whatever the solar wind can
manage to blow away (possibly a star as having a black hole or neutron
core might pull that off).

Perhaps some of that lost stellar mass turned into those 60-atom
buckyballs.

*~ BG

If our galaxy has been converting and tossing 1.6e21 kg/sec, imagine
what the universe has to offer, especially from those 1e12 populated
galaxies plus all of the in-between rogue stuff that's by now fairly
substantial.

~ BG

On Aug 26, 1:29*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Aug 25, 11:51*am, John wrote:

Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

The all inclusive loss including CME blow-offs is actually much
greater than most realize, although our sun is perhaps closer to
having lost 3 billion tonnes/sec.

I've calculated something like the first 5 billion years as having
lost 3.17 billion tonnes/sec thus far, and our sun is somewhat smaller
than average. *The average star could be something closer to having
lost 4 billion tonnes/sec, so that's a lot of fresh material floating
around, especially if our galaxy alone has 400 billion stars.

Unless stars merge of feed off one another, they don't stay the same
or much less get bigger. *Usually whatever rogue influx can't keep
pace the the radiated plus CME outflux unless there's a substantial
surrounding molecular cloud still feeding the stellar gravity that's
offering a greater attraction force than whatever the solar wind can
manage to blow away (possibly a star as having a black hole or neutron
core might pull that off).

Perhaps some of that lost stellar mass turned into those 60-atom
buckyballs.

*~ BG

BG What if buckyballs are the missing mass of the universe? What if
they are much more common in "deep space" (between galaxies) ? Get
the picture TreBert

On Aug 28, 6:13*am, bert wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:29*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Aug 25, 11:51*am, John wrote:

Then with all the suns in our universe, and with this universe having
existed for infinity, nearly, by some people's way of thinking, this
universe is a wash in energies of various kinds radiated off from
these suns and past suns. You know, when you think about it, energy
from zero point, as they call it, that is, getting energy from the
ether, seems plausible, after all.

John Ayres

The all inclusive loss including CME blow-offs is actually much
greater than most realize, although our sun is perhaps closer to
having lost 3 billion tonnes/sec.

I've calculated something like the first 5 billion years as having
lost 3.17 billion tonnes/sec thus far, and our sun is somewhat smaller
than average. *The average star could be something closer to having
lost 4 billion tonnes/sec, so that's a lot of fresh material floating
around, especially if our galaxy alone has 400 billion stars.

Unless stars merge of feed off one another, they don't stay the same
or much less get bigger. *Usually whatever rogue influx can't keep
pace the the radiated plus CME outflux unless there's a substantial
surrounding molecular cloud still feeding the stellar gravity that's
offering a greater attraction force than whatever the solar wind can
manage to blow away (possibly a star as having a black hole or neutron
core might pull that off).

Perhaps some of that lost stellar mass turned into those 60-atom
buckyballs.

*~ BG

BG *What if buckyballs are the missing mass of the universe? What if
they are much more common in "deep space" (between galaxies) ? *Get
the picture * TreBert

There has to be a lot of rogue stuff out there, especially if the
average star is dumping or unloading 4e9 tonnes/sec. Our galaxy alone
at 400e9 stars would suggest 1.6e24 kg/sec that's going rogue, and
Andromeda at 1e12 stars becomes worth 4e24 kg/sec of solar soot (so to
speak). By all means some of that ordinary stellar mass could
certainly become buckyballs.

As far as I can interpret, there is no missing mass.

~ BG