"The Mystery Spot" is a terrestrial analogue of a sunspot. | INFJ Forum

"The Mystery Spot" is a terrestrial analogue of a sunspot.

Rift Zone

Community Member
Jan 19, 2014
723
1,209
1,012
MBTI
INTJ RCOEI
Enneagram
5w6-1-3 sx
The Mystery Spot is a place in the Santa Cruz mountains where strange things happen. Some sources claim it to be a mere illusion. The official Mystery Spot web site claims the spot to be a "gravitational anomaly". It's neither. There are more of these "spots" on Earth. "Confusion Hill" along 101 further north in California is another such place. I saw a map once that had identified about a dozen such places around the world. I'm not certain of the true count.

Let's talk about the sun for a minute. The sun is a big ball of plasma. Plasma is an electrically conducting form of matter. As such, electromagnetism is a major factor in the sun's behavior. Are you familiar with the sunspot cycle? Humanity has known for a long time that sunspots come and go at roughly regular intervals: about 11 years for a complete cycle. We have since come to understand how and why it does that.

The sun does not spin as a contiguous sphere. It's not like a regular ball where spots on the surface stay in roughly the same place, relative to another. On the sun, the equator moves around faster than the higher latitudes do. I think it takes 26 for stuff at the equator to make a complete revolution around the sun. Closer to the poles, a complete revolution approaches 40 days. That differential of spin causes the sun's magnetic field to tie itself into knots. Instead of all the magnetic field lines being orderly, like you might seen in artist's impression of magnetic field, the ones on the sun get twisted up and weird. Those knots/anomalies are what cause sunspots. The more the magnetic field gets tied up, the more sunspots will appear. Before long, it becomes too much for the sun. The sun essentially "short-circuits", flips the orientation of it's magnetic field, and starts the cycle anew. That it is to say when the magnetic field goes too far it will destabilize, collapse, then rebuild. Rebuilding makes a brand new, undisturbed magnetic field. It also flips the magnetic field: the north pole will move to the south, the south magnetic pole will exist in the north, for about 11 years, then they flip back again. This is confirmed science.

...and this is territory modern science hasn't covered yet: Earth does the same thing! We have a differential of movement too (which is necessary to produce a magnetic field in the first place). The core of earth is a chunk of iron that spins faster than the surface does. We are getting into the realm of magnetohydrodynamics, the behavior of plasma. The physics behind it complicated but the concept is easy to grasp. In the Earth, we have a complex interaction involving the core, mantle layers and crust. The surface of earth (the crust) is more or less solid but the layers beneath are dynamic and interact in ways largely influenced by MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD), just like the sun.

Earth flips it's magnetic field too! This is confirmed science. We have an area of geophysics I know as "paleomagnetology". You can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal Paying attention to the sun tells us exactly how this situation arises! We know if you tie magnetic fields up they will cause MHD phenomena called "sunspots". We know when the lines of force get tied up too much, the system will short-circuit, flip the magnetic field, and start the process anew. We know this process happens on Earth. We know that process will yield MHD phenomena known as "sunspots". What we have not done, until now was, to properly identify those "sunspots" here on earth. The Mystery Spot is one of those "sunspots". I like calling them "Alfvén Vortices", after the physicist who taught humanity so much about the behavior of plasmas.

Electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravitation. Gravitation is puny, by comparison, in most environments. If we had a strong electromagnetic influence on the surface of earth, we could expect it to compete with behaviors that would normally be determined by gravitation alone. We would see weird things, and experience uncommon phenomena. This is precisely what we experience when we visit "The Mystery Spot", or "Confusion Hill' (further north in California), or any of the other "vortices". What is going on there is more than illusion, as some sources claim. It is a legitimate phenomenon. The only thing we didn't know, what what type of phenomenon it was. A bit of reasoning demands Earth has "sunspots" too. An honest assessment of The Mystery Spot reveals a legitimate phenomena that behaves independently of gravitation. These things are same. The Mystery Spot and "terrestrial sunspots" are the same phenomena. The mystery has been solved... I think that makes visiting even more fun! For me, the novelty of what you're standing is far more compelling than sheer ignorance.
 
[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION]

It’s again, one of the taboos of science to infer that things like gravity, the speed of light, etc. are constant.
If you go back in the history books, the scientists have had different measurements at different times and in different places.
It’s much easier to stick with one measurement and call it THE speed or THE force of gravity.
Nonsense.
 
It's a portal. There are many many being opened, activated, and coming on line now.....and there will be more. They're part of the Earth energy grid and they cover the globe.

I am fascinated with the relationship between the Sun electromagnetic field and the Earth's field as well as the human electromagnetic field. We would definitely feel the effects if we were in or near one of the activated portals.
 
I visited the Mystery Spot. It was an odd experience.
Yea it was! I liked it a lot. I've been a few times. I actually haven't been back since working out what it was. I think visiting now would be a lot funner for me, more intriguing. Before it was a complete mystery, if I go back now, I would have even more things to look at and consider.

It’s again, one of the taboos of science to infer that things like gravity, the speed of light, etc. are constant.
If you go back in the history books, the scientists have had different measurements at different times and in different places.
It’s much easier to stick with one measurement and call it THE speed or THE force of gravity.
Nonsense.
Everything i know about science tells me stuff like gravity and speed of light are constants. Light travels slower in a medium so things to adjust depending on circumstances. But I don't think the fundamental values ever change.

It's a portal. There are many many being opened, activated, and coming on line now.....and there will be more. They're part of the Earth energy grid and they cover the globe.

I am fascinated with the relationship between the Sun electromagnetic field and the Earth's field as well as the human electromagnetic field. We would definitely feel the effects if we were in or near one of the activated portals.
I think I'm more fascinated by the human field than the others. The others seem easier to grasp. What's going on with humans is far more complicated, mysterious.
 
Everything i know about science tells me stuff like gravity and speed of light are constants. Light travels slower in a medium so things to adjust depending on circumstances. But I don't think the fundamental values ever change.
The second link supersedes the medium.
For your consideration -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_constant.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-may-have-changed-recently.html#.VRVqekvtAjI

[video=youtube;1TerTgDEgUE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1TerTgDEgUE[/video]
 
I checked out the links. I'm not convinced. From the second link: "Light doesn’t always travel at the speed of light. A new experiment reveals that focusing or manipulating the structure of light pulses reduces their speed"

"Focusing or manipulating" means interaction. That interaction will slow it down a bit, even within a vacuum.

One of the other articles makes a reference to the affect being in a very young universe. The universe is eternal. It has always been.

I know a fair amount about Quantum Mechanics, and the nature of light in general -enough to challenge modern translation of QM. Everything I know about it points to light speed being constant. I'm aware of what sets that speed and the factors involved are almost certainly not subject to change either. Their reports are good science! We should press every issue as much as possible, but I'm still not convinced on their take.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I checked out the links. I'm not convinced. From the second link: "Light doesn’t always travel at the speed of light. A new experiment reveals that focusing or manipulating the structure of light pulses reduces their speed"

"Focusing or manipulating" means interaction. That interaction will slow it down a bit, even within a vacuum.

One of the other articles makes a reference to the affect being in a very young universe. The universe is eternal. It has always been.

I know a fair amount about Quantum Mechanics, and the nature of light in general -enough to challenge modern translation of QM. Everything I know about it points to light speed being constant. I'm aware of what sets that speed and the factors involved are almost certainly not subject to change either. Their reports are good science! We should press every issue as much as possible, but I'm still not convinced on their take.

Are you saying that there is nothing that exists in the universe that could manipulate or focus light causing it to travel at a different speed even in a vacuum as reported?
 
Are you saying that there is nothing that exists in the universe that could manipulate or focus light causing it to travel at a different speed even in a vacuum as reported?
Um, say what? You mean like gravity? I think you misunderstood something I said.
 
Um, say what? You mean like gravity? I think you misunderstood something I said.

Well, you said -
"Focusing or manipulating" means interaction. That interaction will slow it down a bit, even within a vacuum.
And then you said -
Everything I know about it points to light speed being constant.

I mean, there are manipulating forces out there in the universe that could change that speed…though minuscule to us, is significant.
I believe what you were saying is that the speed of light is the “speed limit” of light, correct?
I was probably just misunderstanding you then yes Sir.
 
Well, you said -
And then you said -

I mean, there are manipulating forces out there in the universe that could change that speed…though minuscule to us, is significant.
I believe what you were saying is that the speed of light is the “speed limit” of light, correct?
I was probably just misunderstanding you then yes Sir.
Indeed, that is what I was trying to say. Seems we have two different point we are discussing. There's an upper limit on propagation of light. Interaction has a tendency to slow light down a bit.


As far as that upper limit goes (speed light, "c"), I the universe doesn't say anything that would lead me to believe it changes. I am confident it is just as eternal as the universe is.
 
Indeed, that is what I was trying to say. Seems we have two different point we are discussing. There's an upper limit on propagation of light. Interaction has a tendency to slow light down a bit.


As far as that upper limit goes (speed light, "c"), I the universe doesn't say anything that would lead me to believe it changes. I am confident it is just as eternal as the universe is.

That’s okay…I’m open to all possibilities.
Maybe one day we will have more conclusive proof of what exactly is going on….something is going on we don’t know exactly what, hehe.
I like some of your theories…you should check out that video link btw…very interesting theory too.
She talks about black holes being the center of almost everything…including our Sun, ourselves, etc.
I would like to see her math, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
 
Could be a vortex point where two or more leylines intersect
 
That’s okay…I’m open to all possibilities.
Maybe one day we will have more conclusive proof of what exactly is going on….something is going on we don’t know exactly what, hehe.
I like some of your theories…you should check out that video link btw…very interesting theory too.
She talks about black holes being the center of almost everything…including our Sun, ourselves, etc.
I would like to see her math, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
It is interestesting. I don't support her approach, but it is interesting.

Quantum entanglement is a bizarre phenomenon where two particles become linked. Anything you do to one particle instantly affects the other no matter how far apart they are — even if one particle is on the Earth and the other is on the moon.

http://www.thesuntimes.com/article/20150330/BUSINESS/303309983/-1/Sports
Cool link! Now that is an interesting bit of physics. I hope that becomes increasingly confirmed.

Could be a vortex point where two or more leylines intersect
That would be interesting too! To some degree, the "sunspot" phenomenon could migrate, so I wonder how that would figure into it..
 
@Rift Zone

Did you see this??
http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27025&page=128&p=814748&viewfull=1#post814748

Hopefully other teams can replicate the findings…it would chance the dialog of physics!

I did see that. The thing that made Einstien so great was he could see the structure of the universe. He was very good with seeing how the universe was arranged. He then took that understanding and applied mathematics to it. Let's face it, most physicists are not nearly as gifted as he was. Most physicists understand the universe solely through the matematics others have laid down. Not all of that math is correct. Those physicists do not know enough about the nature of the universe to make those kind of distinctions. They operate within the perameters set by their partially faulty mathematics. "Spooky action at a distance" happens. Entaglement is a reality. "wave collapse" is more a matter of not knowing what a particle is. Quantum Mechanics is not wrong, per se, but Einstein was right about that one. I spoke before about the distinction between solid empirical data and our translation of it. We are eventually going to find the correct translation is closer to Einstein's than he's currently given credit for.

That whole Bohr/Einstein debate: Borh was right in that there will always be inherent probabilities (uncertainty), but Einstein was also right in that things are far more comprehensible and we're missing a big part of the picture. Modern science's picture is limited by current mathematics -it is a behavioral model!!! Einstein knew only a structural model of matter/energy would be able to tell us all. He saw a fair amount of that structure. He knew more than modern science does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skarekrow
I did see that. The thing that made Einstien so great was he could see the structure of the universe. He was very good with seeing how the universe was arranged. He then took that understanding and applied mathematics to it. Let's face it, most physicists are not nearly as gifted as he was. Most physicists understand the universe solely through the matematics others have laid down. Not all of that math is correct. Those physicists do not know enough about the nature of the universe to make those kind of distinctions. They operate within the perameters set by their partially faulty mathematics. "Spooky action at a distance" happens. Entaglement is a reality. "wave collapse" is more a matter of not knowing what a particle is. Quantum Mechanics is not wrong, per se, but Einstein was right about that one. I spoke before about the distinction between solid empirical data and our translation of it. We are eventually going to find the correct translation is closer to Einstein's than he's currently given credit for.

That whole Bohr/Einstein debate: Borh was right in that there will always be inherent probabilities (uncertainty), but Einstein was also right in that things are far more comprehensible and we're missing a big part of the picture. Modern science's picture is limited by current mathematics -it is a behavioral model!!! Einstein knew only a structural model of matter/energy would be able to tell us all. He saw a fair amount of that structure. He knew more than modern science does.

Not arguing that Einstein was wrong…just that the wave collapse isn’t because of what a particle is but what it is made into when it collapses.
That’s all.
 
Thought you might enjoy these!
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+2]
The Static Universe

[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Part I: Observational Evidence Favors a Static Universe [/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]David F. Crawford, Ph.D., Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, University of Sydney. Journal of Cosmology, Vol 13. 3875-3946.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Part II: Observational Evidence Favors a Static Universe [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]
[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]David F. Crawford, Ph.D., Journal of Cosmology, Vol 13. 3947-3999.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Part III: Observational Evidence Favors a Static Universe [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]
[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]David F. Crawford, Ph.D., Journal of Cosmology, Vol 13. 4000-4057.[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]