Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
jdalton4
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by jdalton4 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:07 pm

A short but persuasive video of his theory is available here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7Ik9f8&t=159s
The man is a truly independent thinker and ignored by mainstream science. His theory of a liquid sun I believe is Larson compatible and supplies a lot of missing theory that could benefit RS2. Conversely I am sure he would be receptive to Larson and could be a valuable future ally.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by bperet » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:24 am

Has some interesting ideas there. You should contact him--I'll be happy to send him a complete set of Larson's books, free of charge, if he wants to take a serious look.

The information I have been able to deduce from RS2 is that the sun is basically a bubble, much like a soap bubble, the unit speed boundary between coordinate time (outside) and coordinate space (inside). And bubbles ARE liquid states--just as Robitaille describes.

And yes, I did say that the region OUTSIDE the sun is coordinate time--that was not an error. The sun and gas giants (mini suns) are reciprocals to the hard planets. Therefore, the structure we find surrounding the Earth-moon system will be the inverse of that surrounding the sun. We have 3D, coordinate space HERE, with coordinate time at the core. The sun (and gas giant planets) have coordinate time surrounding them, with coordinate space at the core. The planets, bubbles of 3D space, can therefore move around the 3D time coordinate system of the sun, because the relation of space to time constitutes motion.

Now think about how a bubble works... pressure from 3D time on the outside is balanced by pressure from 3D space on the inside, and the bubble is at the unit speed boundary--the speed of light. The m-matter on the inside interacts with the c-matter on the outside, causing a matter-antimatter reaction producing radiation--why the bubble is "lit up." If you ignore what you've been programmed to believe, it actually makes a lot more sense this way and explains a LOT about the structure of the solar system. And it is MUCH simpler.

But you might ask, if the sun is in 3D time and we can only observe spatial relationships, then how can we SEE it? Well... we DON'T. What we SEE is the interaction of radiation from the sun against our atmosphere--just like the light bulb of a film projector on the movie screen. If you were to actually get outside the atmosphere, the sun would be invisible--what Eric Dollard has been saying for decades. Now we know why.

I just read a draft of a paper written by Gopi on the sun/moon projection, as in the last eclipse. He has found some fascinating, mathematical relations that demonstrate the sun is just a spherical projection--what we see isn't what is actually there. And he can even explain why the moon appears the same size of the sun. I'll encourage him to get the paper out.
Every dogma has its day...

jdalton4
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by jdalton4 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:39 pm

I thought Larson's theory of solar energy generation was the progressive fission of the heavy elements reaching their thermal destructive limits. Are you saying Larson was wrong about missing the c-matter?

jdalton4
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by jdalton4 » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:49 pm

And what about the Soho satellite? Doesnt it photograph the sun from outer space?

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by bperet » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:06 pm

jdalton4 wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:39 pm
I thought Larson's theory of solar energy generation was the progressive fission of the heavy elements reaching their thermal destructive limits. Are you saying Larson was wrong about missing the c-matter?
From what I understand from the folks that actually knew Larson, he was forced to admit that the cosmic sector HAD to exist, but otherwise avoided it, preferring to stay in the material sector for analysis. Larson basically considered the cosmic sector to be on the other side (half) of the universe, not coexisting out-of-phase with the material. So not wrong, just "incomplete."

Examine Larson's structure of the supernova, where an age-limit detonation occurs at the nickel-iron-cobalt layer of the sun, forcing an outward explosion in space, and an implosion at FTL velocities into time (cosmic explosion in 3D time). Our sun is at least 2nd generation, which means it has BEEN through this process, and basically "popped" over to the cosmic side.

It may well be that newly-forming stars work as Larson described--until they go supernova and start the 2nd generation. At that time, they MUST HAVE a cosmic structure, which we would interpret as the "core" of the sun. The same fission processes probably continue in these 2+ generation stars, but are NOT filling the star, only the "radiative zone" near the surface. It is BECAUSE of this material/cosmic presence that equilibrium conditions can be established for binary, trinary and multiple star systems (same reason moons can orbit planets). Without the anti-gravity motion of cosmic structure, a star would just suck in everything around it, as there is no balancing force.

What Larson says is true, to the degree he did the research. What I relate here is a continuation of Larson's logical development that INCLUDES the cosmic relationships (which is basically what RS2 was set up to do--take Larson's yang, and make it yin-yang).
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by bperet » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:09 pm

jdalton4 wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:49 pm
And what about the Soho satellite? Doesnt it photograph the sun from outer space?
Well, if you believe the SOHO images, the sun is blue...

Image

They are looking at EM radiation, not in the visible spectrum. The EM does not become visible until it is scattered by an atmosphere.
Every dogma has its day...

7serpent
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:28 pm

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by 7serpent » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:15 pm

Please do send the nudge for the paper on why the moon appears the same size as the Sun. I watch them both and at times thought they look exactly the same size. Could distances apart and relative sizes really account for that? is it that simple? I don't think so !

I was thinking about how odd this happens to be during the recent solar eclipse and that it must be an illusion since the odds of having a Sun body some 93 million miles away ... with spinning planets, elliptical orbits, and a moon with its magical geosynchronous orbit, and these things just happen line up and appear to be the exact same diameter. Could this be by chance this way? The lucky earth viewing platform ? What are the odds that they would be the exact same size from earth's perspective ?? stuff explodes in space and implodes in time and all is expanding at unit speed and this still apparently holds true. Add to that these dynamic angles as everything is in motion perfectly such that nothing gets out of place? not even a tiny little bit over 1000's of years ? its just not possible...makes zero sense using current lame stream physics model of the solar system. I would sure like to see an explanation that makes some sense.

User avatar
JoeyV
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by JoeyV » Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:01 am

7serpent wrote:
Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:15 pm

I was thinking about how odd this happens to be during the recent solar eclipse and that it must be an illusion since the odds of having a Sun body some 93 million miles away ... with spinning planets, elliptical orbits, and a moon with its magical geosynchronous orbit, and these things just happen line up and appear to be the exact same diameter. Could this be by chance this way? The lucky earth viewing platform ? What are the odds that they would be the exact same size from earth's perspective ?? stuff explodes in space and implodes in time and all is expanding at unit speed and this still apparently holds true. Add to that these dynamic angles as everything is in motion perfectly such that nothing gets out of place? not even a tiny little bit over 1000's of years ? its just not possible...makes zero sense using current lame stream physics model of the solar system. I would sure like to see an explanation that makes some sense.
You have to consider that nature is harmonic. Orbits are what they are as a result of the composition/size of the bodies in question. To make that a bit clearer, if we were to have a moon which had a larger diameter than ours does, by the nature of harmony, it would naturally have a larger orbit and would likely eclipse the sun just the same as we experience it now.

7serpent
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:28 pm

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by 7serpent » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:43 am

JoeyVwrote:

You have to consider that nature is harmonic. Orbits are what they are as a result of the composition/size of the bodies in question. To make that a bit clearer, if we were to have a moon which had a larger diameter than ours does, by the nature of harmony, it would naturally have a larger orbit and would likely eclipse the sun just the same as we experience it now.
Well, I'm not sure the word harmonic is applicable here. See the definition on wikipedia.for harmonic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic waves and nodes are terms associated more for me with harmonics, I do agree that nature is harmonic, of course.. Seems a better description to use balance of the heavenly objects where gravitational boundaries and mass are more applicable. If I am in the pudding that's expanding in all directions..scalar motion, does the size of objects appear constant over very long and expanding distances? Expansion at the speed of light of this universe of motion is not the same thing as a fly buzzing around in your car not affected by the speed of the car, because i am in the car also...so maybe it does. Is then our Milkway one big Bubble and we are all in that Big Car when observing space? How far does the bubble go, what about the gravitional limit of earth having that boundary, that has no distortion or bending of the light waves like looking at a fish in water, (its not where it appears to be because of refraction). Are we then in a smaller bubble around earth up to the gravitational limit expanding inside of universal bubble?

Nonetheless, i would next ask, so if I was on any other planet that has a moon, are you inferring they will always be separated such that an eclipse occurs they are the perfect same size? I don't see that. I watched the Venus transit what was that almost 2 years ago now? Watching it through my welding hood was an awsum sight to see..will never forget the little tiny spec..Venus going in right across the Sun, in my view window (lens) it might have been a 1/16" diameter. I know another planet is not our moon and can't be related that way, but the likelihood of a moon appearing the same size just does not seem natural to me( Daniel explained that our moon is actually a burned out space ship stuck where it is on impulse power which is why it is able to keep its back side away from us). and maybe adjust itself to give the perfect size as the Sun, but why if so?

Maybe you are seeking the term of equilibrium, that things move back to where they were when bumped out of place, what about when the earth expands as its mass increases/changes... then what of Entropy ? will things keep doing that forever? If no energy is lost, ever, does that maintain a perfect perspective perpetually? I'm not convinced of that, but when I look up it is that way..???

User avatar
JoeyV
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Post by JoeyV » Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:29 pm

7serpent wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:43 am
Well, I'm not sure the word harmonic is applicable here. See the definition on wikipedia.for harmonic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic waves and nodes are terms associated more for me with harmonics, I do agree that nature is harmonic, of course.. Seems a better description to use balance of the heavenly objects where gravitational boundaries and mass are more applicable.
I'm pretty confident in using the term. If you'd like to add equilibrium so that you have harmonic equilibrium as a working term, I think that's well within the realm of what is reasonable.
If I am in the pudding that's expanding in all directions..
To my understanding, and if I'm taking your term correctly to correlate to an idea of coordinate space, this pudding isn't, itself, expanding. In Larson's terms, it is the locations within coordinate space (or coordinate time from C Sector reference frame) that appear to move away from each other. I think you summarily answered your own inquiry with this...
Expansion at the speed of light of this universe of motion is not the same thing as a fly buzzing around in your car not affected by the speed of the car, because i am in the car also...so maybe it does. Is then our Milkway one big Bubble and we are all in that Big Car when observing space?
This seems likely.
How far does the bubble go, what about the gravitional limit of earth having that boundary, that has no distortion or bending of the light waves like looking at a fish in water, (its not where it appears to be because of refraction). Are we then in a smaller bubble around earth up to the gravitational limit expanding inside of universal bubble?
Doing good so far!
Nonetheless, i would next ask, so if I was on any other planet that has a moon, are you inferring they will always be separated such that an eclipse occurs they are the perfect same size? I don't see that. I watched the Venus transit what was that almost 2 years ago now? Watching it through my welding hood was an awsum sight to see..will never forget the little tiny spec..Venus going in right across the Sun, in my view window (lens) it might have been a 1/16" diameter. I know another planet is not our moon and can't be related that way, but the likelihood of a moon appearing the same size just does not seem natural to me( Daniel explained that our moon is actually a burned out space ship stuck where it is on impulse power which is why it is able to keep its back side away from us). and maybe adjust itself to give the perfect size as the Sun, but why if so?
Considering our inner planets, I would say that this would be the case, given that if the universe is harmonic as postulated it would be homogeneous wherever you go. The outer planets and their moons wouldn't yet fit this model since those moons don't have moons themselves to eclipse the would-be star that they're orbiting.
Maybe you are seeking the term of equilibrium, that things move back to where they were when bumped out of place, what about when the earth expands as its mass increases/changes... then what of Entropy ? will things keep doing that forever? If no energy is lost, ever, does that maintain a perfect perspective perpetually? I'm not convinced of that, but when I look up it is that way..???
Such is the nature of a universe in steady-state. Entropy is in effect at all times. Even when in bloom, a flower can likewise be seen moving towards decay/death/transformation. There seems a strong possibility, in my mind at least, that the perspective will tend towards the balanced, harmonic equilibrium that we're discussing. As you've indicated, the thing to keep in mind is the frame of reference in which we are viewing these things.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest