Living Off Of Sunlight? One Man 78yrs Old Is

L

lollipop

Guest
The explanation of the mechanism for its action and success seems off as far as I understand Ray's theories. Their conclusion:

"Enhanced production of melatonin and serotonin - When direct sunlight enters the eyes, it moves through the retinal hypothalamic tract and continues into the brain. The pineal gland is then stimulated to secrete both melatonin and serotonin, two hormones that regulate sleep/wake cycles and positive states of mind, respectively. Melatonin is also a potent antioxidant which slows the ill effects of aging."

What could be at play here?

Sun Gazing – A Scientific Explanation? | Centre Of The Psyclone - Blog
 

Erowin

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2016
Messages
21
Great article. I get so pissed when my dr. harps on sunscreen :)
 

thyrulian

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
114
"Positive states of mind," lol, but yeah, red & orange light enhancing mitochondrial respiration would be the most fundamental not-ridiculous explanation.

Though such an improvement that neglects the obvious wellspring of complementary edible nutrition seems veritably far-fetched.
 
OP
L

lollipop

Guest
Soo true about he sunscreen part @Erowin

And I agree @thyrulian seems a bit far fetched and I wonder about the positive social aspects of dining and sharing food?
 

DrJ

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
721
Alright, @lisaferraro, I'm going to take a stab at it based on what I've been reading. Just be warned it's highly speculative and maybe way out there.

I can't tell if it's the same guy as in your article, but I read about (and then watched a video) of a guy in India claiming to live off sunlight for months and months. Somehow important was that he had to be barefoot all the time.

About the same time, I was reading a couple books about electric universe theory (thanks to this forum) and then not long after that, both of Gerald Pollack's books about structured water in cells and other places. And from those things, I though of a potential - albeit maybe farfetched - explanation. Here goes...

First, from Pollack's work, you learn that when water gets structured on, say a hydrophilic surface like cellular proteins, the charge of the structured water separates with negative charge concentrated near the hydrophilic surface (proteins in cells) and positive charge gets pushed away from the surface. Both Ray and Pollack note that cells seem to try and maintain a net negative charge. This seems to be how they do it.

Anyways, the next thing Pollack found is that light - all sorts of light from infrared to UV - increases the magnitude of this charge separation, some wavelengths better than others. When you have charge separation, you have a potential difference (voltage), when you have a voltage, you have a potential energy that can do work by moving charge across that potential difference. Thus, structured water behaves like a battery that is 'charged' by light, and it has the ability to do more work (greater potential difference / voltage) as it absorbs more light. He verifies this in simple lab setups, and it seems plausible that cells could derive energy in the same way from light because the proteins in cells structure water. So, if his findings hold at a cellular level, we can basically get energy (the ability to do work) to some degree from light, like the sun! Is this enough energy to live off of? Who knows! And what is the mechanism? I could only speculate that instead of glucose/fructose driving the electron transport chain in mitochondria to recycle ADP into ATP, that somehow this light-and-structured-water-derived voltage does.

The next part, is that from observations of the solar system - and important to electric universe theory - the sun emits a stream of positive ions towards earth. From Pollack, he says the earth has a net negative charge, and notes that from a person's head to feet, there is about a 200 volt potential difference. Thus, the positive ions should travel from the sun down to earth (among other places). A single positive hydrogen ion (a proton) would then lose 200eV of energy in dropping from your head to feet on it's path to earth, providing energy to do work if your body can somehow harness it. Of course, if you're wearing an electrical insulator on your feet, like typical shoes, then that flow would not happen. How would your body harness such energy? Again, I have no idea! It's speculative, but it does seem the energy is at least available from a physics perspective.

I guess I should sit down and do the math to see if the energy magnitudes are in order in terms of energy available from light and protons and energy used by the body, but it seems that there are at least a few pathways in which one's body might get energy from the sun. The mechanism by which those pathways would replace sugar as a source of cellular energy is unknown - if it exists at all - so highly speculative. But that's the best I could come up with.

Some more interesting things that Pollack notes about the body and charge that I just want to throw out there: The body seems to try to get ride of positive charge (maybe because the earth is negative?!). Urine is low pH, so getting rid of positive charge. Exhaling gets rid of CO2 and H2O, or carbonic acid which gets rid of positive charge. Sweat has low pH, so is getting rid of positive charge. The sun is getting rid of positive charge. The earth must somehow get rid of positive charge to have net negative charge, but I do not know the mechanism. It seems that there is congruence at many levels in our world/universe of things trying to get rid of positive charge. Pretty fascinating.
 
OP
L

lollipop

Guest
Alright, @lisaferraro, I'm going to take a stab at it based on what I've been reading. Just be warned it's highly speculative and maybe way out there.

I can't tell if it's the same guy as in your article, but I read about (and then watched a video) of a guy in India claiming to live off sunlight for months and months. Somehow important was that he had to be barefoot all the time.

About the same time, I was reading a couple books about electric universe theory (thanks to this forum) and then not long after that, both of Gerald Pollack's books about structured water in cells and other places. And from those things, I though of a potential - albeit maybe farfetched - explanation. Here goes...

First, from Pollack's work, you learn that when water gets structured on, say a hydrophilic surface like cellular proteins, the charge of the structured water separates with negative charge concentrated near the hydrophilic surface (proteins in cells) and positive charge gets pushed away from the surface. Both Ray and Pollack note that cells seem to try and maintain a net negative charge. This seems to be how they do it.

Anyways, the next thing Pollack found is that light - all sorts of light from infrared to UV - increases the magnitude of this charge separation, some wavelengths better than others. When you have charge separation, you have a potential difference (voltage), when you have a voltage, you have a potential energy that can do work by moving charge across that potential difference. Thus, structured water behaves like a battery that is 'charged' by light, and it has the ability to do more work (greater potential difference / voltage) as it absorbs more light. He verifies this in simple lab setups, and it seems plausible that cells could derive energy in the same way from light because the proteins in cells structure water. So, if his findings hold at a cellular level, we can basically get energy (the ability to do work) to some degree from light, like the sun! Is this enough energy to live off of? Who knows! And what is the mechanism? I could only speculate that instead of glucose/fructose driving the electron transport chain in mitochondria to recycle ADP into ATP, that somehow this light-and-structured-water-derived voltage does.

The next part, is that from observations of the solar system - and important to electric universe theory - the sun emits a stream of positive ions towards earth. From Pollack, he says the earth has a net negative charge, and notes that from a person's head to feet, there is about a 200 volt potential difference. Thus, the positive ions should travel from the sun down to earth (among other places). A single positive hydrogen ion (a proton) would then lose 200eV of energy in dropping from your head to feet on it's path to earth, providing energy to do work if your body can somehow harness it. Of course, if you're wearing an electrical insulator on your feet, like typical shoes, then that flow would not happen. How would your body harness such energy? Again, I have no idea! It's speculative, but it does seem the energy is at least available from a physics perspective.

I guess I should sit down and do the math to see if the energy magnitudes are in order in terms of energy available from light and protons and energy used by the body, but it seems that there are at least a few pathways in which one's body might get energy from the sun. The mechanism by which those pathways would replace sugar as a source of cellular energy is unknown - if it exists at all - so highly speculative. But that's the best I could come up with.

Some more interesting things that Pollack notes about the body and charge that I just want to throw out there: The body seems to try to get ride of positive charge (maybe because the earth is negative?!). Urine is low pH, so getting rid of positive charge. Exhaling gets rid of CO2 and H2O, or carbonic acid which gets rid of positive charge. Sweat has low pH, so is getting rid of positive charge. The sun is getting rid of positive charge. The earth must somehow get rid of positive charge to have net negative charge, but I do not know the mechanism. It seems that there is congruence at many levels in our world/universe of things trying to get rid of positive charge. Pretty fascinating.
WoW @DrJ fantastic stab at pulling it all together! I have been studying EU theory for a couple of years and Gerald Pollock as well and darn, reading your thoughts I see it pulling together. And I wonder why I didn't - lol, the EU theory has truly caused my brain to stretch to understand all aspects of it...

THANK YOU.
 

m_arch

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
483
Location
Perth, Australia
Alright, @lisaferraro, I'm going to take a stab at it based on what I've been reading. Just be warned it's highly speculative and maybe way out there.

I can't tell if it's the same guy as in your article, but I read about (and then watched a video) of a guy in India claiming to live off sunlight for months and months. Somehow important was that he had to be barefoot all the time.

About the same time, I was reading a couple books about electric universe theory (thanks to this forum) and then not long after that, both of Gerald Pollack's books about structured water in cells and other places. And from those things, I though of a potential - albeit maybe farfetched - explanation. Here goes...

First, from Pollack's work, you learn that when water gets structured on, say a hydrophilic surface like cellular proteins, the charge of the structured water separates with negative charge concentrated near the hydrophilic surface (proteins in cells) and positive charge gets pushed away from the surface. Both Ray and Pollack note that cells seem to try and maintain a net negative charge. This seems to be how they do it.

Anyways, the next thing Pollack found is that light - all sorts of light from infrared to UV - increases the magnitude of this charge separation, some wavelengths better than others. When you have charge separation, you have a potential difference (voltage), when you have a voltage, you have a potential energy that can do work by moving charge across that potential difference. Thus, structured water behaves like a battery that is 'charged' by light, and it has the ability to do more work (greater potential difference / voltage) as it absorbs more light. He verifies this in simple lab setups, and it seems plausible that cells could derive energy in the same way from light because the proteins in cells structure water. So, if his findings hold at a cellular level, we can basically get energy (the ability to do work) to some degree from light, like the sun! Is this enough energy to live off of? Who knows! And what is the mechanism? I could only speculate that instead of glucose/fructose driving the electron transport chain in mitochondria to recycle ADP into ATP, that somehow this light-and-structured-water-derived voltage does.

The next part, is that from observations of the solar system - and important to electric universe theory - the sun emits a stream of positive ions towards earth. From Pollack, he says the earth has a net negative charge, and notes that from a person's head to feet, there is about a 200 volt potential difference. Thus, the positive ions should travel from the sun down to earth (among other places). A single positive hydrogen ion (a proton) would then lose 200eV of energy in dropping from your head to feet on it's path to earth, providing energy to do work if your body can somehow harness it. Of course, if you're wearing an electrical insulator on your feet, like typical shoes, then that flow would not happen. How would your body harness such energy? Again, I have no idea! It's speculative, but it does seem the energy is at least available from a physics perspective.

I guess I should sit down and do the math to see if the energy magnitudes are in order in terms of energy available from light and protons and energy used by the body, but it seems that there are at least a few pathways in which one's body might get energy from the sun. The mechanism by which those pathways would replace sugar as a source of cellular energy is unknown - if it exists at all - so highly speculative. But that's the best I could come up with.

Some more interesting things that Pollack notes about the body and charge that I just want to throw out there: The body seems to try to get ride of positive charge (maybe because the earth is negative?!). Urine is low pH, so getting rid of positive charge. Exhaling gets rid of CO2 and H2O, or carbonic acid which gets rid of positive charge. Sweat has low pH, so is getting rid of positive charge. The sun is getting rid of positive charge. The earth must somehow get rid of positive charge to have net negative charge, but I do not know the mechanism. It seems that there is congruence at many levels in our world/universe of things trying to get rid of positive charge. Pretty fascinating.
Interesting points. @tyw had a post where he did the maths on sun, but his conclusion was something like if we lived at the equator and got a full days worth of sun, it was still only a couple hundred calories worth in energy. Not sure if he took into account grounding and I'm not sure if there's any literature about taking in more sun energy through the eye. It's interesting though.


People in this thread might be interested in a movie "eat the sun"
 

tyw

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2015
Messages
407
Location
Cairns, Australia
Interesting points. @tyw had a post where he did the maths on sun, but his conclusion was something like if we lived at the equator and got a full days worth of sun, it was still only a couple hundred calories worth in energy. Not sure if he took into account grounding and I'm not sure if there's any literature about taking in more sun energy through the eye. It's interesting though.


People in this thread might be interested in a movie "eat the sun"

Post about the sun was here -- Take It Slow | Page 54 | Jack Kruse Optimal Health Forum

It is not possible to get enough energy via sunlight :bag:, and especially not once you consider all the inefficiencies (more on this after the separator).

----

I do not find it plausible that incident environmental light from the sun, and the subsequent building of EZ water, can be used to drive energetic processes in the body.

For that to work, we need to explain how such light can build EZ water in the places of the body where energy needs to get to (brain, liver, bones, etc ...) without having all the proteins (which all either absorb or diffuse light to large degrees) and other light-interactive compounds interfering with energy metabolism.

Furthermore, there needs to be some method of regulating all of this function against the backdrop of varying light conditions; biology uses large heavy molecules and large protein complexes to deal with this problem -- "large" (compared to photons) molecules (like NADH) can be controlled more easily, large hormones can be used to signal varying bodily conditions, and large enzymes can be used to selectively control the many many processes that are required to run a complex biological organism.

----

Also keep in mind that many of the stories of "end stage meditation" practice involve sealing the practitioner in a cold and dark place -- no sunlight. If we want to believe the stories of such people emerging from these practices, while requiring very little food and water in the interim, then the explanation cannot be derived from incident sunlight.

----

The most plausible mechanism comes from the harnessing of what Miles Mathis calls the "Charge Field", which is basically all the near-infrared photons which are circulating through the universe. What the mainstream calls "Dark Matter", Mathis deems to be just these physical photons which have the smallest mass possible for an object with mass (some may prefer to refer to this as a "neutrino", but without all this particle-wave nonsense).

Discoveries of past scientists like Tesla, of the so-called "Zero Point Energy Field" which "supports the fabric of space-time" (as Steven Greer would say :bored:), and the potential to tap into that energy, may serve as a potential explanation. I do not believe in such magic math, but will entertain the possibility that there is "untapped energy" within the environment. For me however, this energy must be physical, and able to be physically measured.

This is where Mathis provides some plausible explanation. If he is to be believed, all "Dark Matter" / "(measurable) cosmic background radiation" is simply moving photons, and then it may be possible to tap into this field of photons, which is supposedly 95% of all matter in the Universe. Mathis' speculations can be found here (based on an LED that seems to be able to give off more energy than is required to be put into it, indicative of some ability to make use of external ambient energy) -- http://milesmathis.com/led.pdf

Then if the QiGong practitioners of old are to be believed, one can train the body to be able to receive this field of energy -- http://www.qigongmedicine.com/

Sidenote: regardless of whether you believe in Medical QiGong, if you are interested in Chinese Medicine, the books in the last link are IMO the best books on Chinese Medicine at present ;).​

How to do this is described in traditional practices, and would be consistent with the stories of people being able to receive energy from the environment despite being in dark conditions; the charge field of photons is always flowing through the earth, and all matter on this planet.

Whether or not this is true remains as speculation. For it to be true, there must be a way of "spinning up" enough of these ambient near-infrared charge field photons to reach the energetic levels which are usable by the molecules we use for metabolism, and to actually be able to use them in enough volume to sustain life (eg: the NADH/NAD+ couple would absorb/release light somewhere in the blue frequency range).

How such a mechanism would work is unknown :ghost:

....
 

DrJ

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
721
Not to be an ****, but your calculation went wrong somewhere. Generally it is assumed for solar panel design that there is about 1000W/m^2 power flux available at the earth's surface. Of course that varies some depending on location and weather, but you'll see there is plenty of room for that. For one hour of exposure, we have 1000W=1000J/s so 1000J/s*3600s/hr*1hr= 3.6MJ, so then 3.6MJ/m^2 or 860kcal/m^2 in one hour! Even with conversion inefficiencies, it seems there might be plenty of energy available for a sedentary person getting by on say 1500kcal/day with a full day's worth of sunlight. And you don't just get exposure from direct sunlight, you get reflected light and also infrared light from objects above 0Kelvin (so everything on earth), and importantly Pollack finds experimentally that near infrared around 3000nm is best at increasing the potential energy of structured water (and also happens to penetrate through human tissue pretty well). In any case, it is all speculative, but energy-availability-wise it seems to be in the realm of possibility.

Also, this stuff about 'Charge Field' being 'dark matter' is garbage. Dark matter is a fudge factor introduced to big bang cosmology to try and explain why the movements of cosmic bodies weren't agreeing with their silly model that assumes spherical symmetry of mass distribution with a black hole (which is probably also nonsense) at the center that they then tried to apply to the entire universe. They needed more mass somewhere to explain the motions, so they invented dark matter. Dark matter almost certainly does not exist if you read Arp's work. Also, there's no way to show it exists, so it is something of a wet dream for late-career, tenured or tenure-track scientists to sit there and write grants to study dark matter since nothing can prove them right or wrong, but they'll get funded because dark matter and dark energy are fashionable, if not total nonsense.
 

lexis

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
430
"if we are the objects with mass “m” and we expose ourselves to a very powerful and high intensity electromagnetic field, and then we will gradually be transformed from matter into energy. In the form of energy, if we obtain a superior level of consciousness then we will be able to direct the flow of energy and we will not be restricted by the limited dimensions of space-time. Therefore in this condition we can surpass the boundary of time to return back into the past or to travel in the future. In addition to the fact that we are an energy source that possesses conscious wisdom, we have the capability to transform ourselves back to the physical form"

A Critical Analysis of Chromotherapy and Its Scientific Evolution
 
OP
L

lollipop

Guest
Very interesting discussion - thank you everyone for contributing - love, love this sort of dialogue and these fields of interest!
 

BigPapaChakra

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
63
Not to be an ****, but your calculation went wrong somewhere. Generally it is assumed for solar panel design that there is about 1000W/m^2 power flux available at the earth's surface. Of course that varies some depending on location and weather, but you'll see there is plenty of room for that. For one hour of exposure, we have 1000W=1000J/s so 1000J/s*3600s/hr*1hr= 3.6MJ, so then 3.6MJ/m^2 or 860kcal/m^2 in one hour! Even with conversion inefficiencies, it seems there might be plenty of energy available for a sedentary person getting by on say 1500kcal/day with a full day's worth of sunlight. And you don't just get exposure from direct sunlight, you get reflected light and also infrared light from objects above 0Kelvin (so everything on earth), and importantly Pollack finds experimentally that near infrared around 3000nm is best at increasing the potential energy of structured water (and also happens to penetrate through human tissue pretty well). In any case, it is all speculative, but energy-availability-wise it seems to be in the realm of possibility.

Also, this stuff about 'Charge Field' being 'dark matter' is garbage. Dark matter is a fudge factor introduced to big bang cosmology to try and explain why the movements of cosmic bodies weren't agreeing with their silly model that assumes spherical symmetry of mass distribution with a black hole (which is probably also nonsense) at the center that they then tried to apply to the entire universe. They needed more mass somewhere to explain the motions, so they invented dark matter. Dark matter almost certainly does not exist if you read Arp's work. Also, there's no way to show it exists, so it is something of a wet dream for late-career, tenured or tenure-track scientists to sit there and write grants to study dark matter since nothing can prove them right or wrong, but they'll get funded because dark matter and dark energy are fashionable, if not total nonsense.

Not sure, but did you go further into tyw's post? he edits his calculation and states, "It's more like 1.77172 * 6 * 3600 = 38,269 kJ worth of energy. This is indeed a lot of energy, albeit that it is an unrealistic expectation.

Let's try something more realistic. I manage to expose half my body surface area (lying down on my back means that half my body is not exposed) for 2 hours of sunlight a day. I assume 12 hours of daylight, which is roughly correct for Cairns.

That's 1.77172 * 0.5 * (6/12*2) * 3600 = 3,189 kJ, or around 760 kcal, which is about 1/4 of my daily caloric needs.

Note that this assumes me lying down, with full exposure to the sun, for 2 hours a day, on a regular basis. A truly realistic estimate for free-living conditions is probably a quarter of this (30 mins of full body sun exposure, and even less if I'm just walking around in the sun), or around 800 kJ / 190 kcal a day." and then goes on to continue about skin issues, the utilization of the incident light energy, etc.

One glaring issue, though, is that, people forget that all the literature showing benefits from light (primarily LLLT literature) firmly establish a biphasic dose response curve with too little energy (in regards to lllt E (J/cm2) = Power (watts/cm2) x Time (seconds)) leads to no benefits, just right dosing = benefits, and too much leads to diminished benefits, no benefit, or potentially negative responses. So, it doesn't matter how many calories it is hypothetically conceivable to 'ingest' from sunlight; long before you even hit the 760 kcal mark, the benefits will likely be topped off, and, potentially start diminishing or leading to acute negative effects such as fatigue, malaise, tissue heating, etc.

Additionally, DrJ, we need to accurately use the above equation to determine the amount of energy received by a certain area of the body. If we are trying to irradiate our entire body to gain "nourishment" from the sun, that would lead to drastically different amounts of time exposures at different times of day, season, area, etc. to get sufficient energy. To give an example, I believe my body is roughly 1.86m2 in terms of total surface area. That is a lot different than say, a 60cm2 area of skin being targeted for wound or rash healing. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if you created an LED array specifically for an area of the body, it may give out, hypothetically 2 watts in total power (depending upon various factors); if that particular area of the body was the hypothetical 60cm2 I mentioned before, that'd be 2 W / 60 cm2 = 0.033 W/cm2. Now, if we were using the same LEDs with the same number of LEDs but tried to cover the entire surface area of the body, you'd already begin to imagine how much less w/cm2 there would be. If you stayed in the LED array for the same period of time, the total energy (J/cm2) would be drastically less. So, for the same amount of energy to be harnessed (J/cm2) we'd need to drastically increase our exposure time to sunlight, which can, obviously, lead to some of the negative aspects TYW speaks about depending upon skin pigmentation, PUFA status, etc. There is also quite a bit of evidence, as put forth by Chris Masterjohn, PhD, and some others, that vitamin D synthesis and the benefits of UV light follow a biphasic dose response curve as well. So, after vitamin D begins being synthesized from UV irradiation, less and less will be made as exposure is continued, until it actually starts depleting some of the synthesized vit D.

There are some differences here, as I'm looking at energy received not in terms of kJ and determining the amount of 'calories' ingested/gained from light. I'm thinking more in terms of LLLT whereby the photons excite electrons in the chromophores of mitochondria, and thus cause a bunch of cool things to happen such as impacting transcription of genes. We also need to be wary that, like 2-4% of red/infrared light photons will penetrate the skull and reach the brain. So that drastically decreases the total amount of energy reaching a tissue we may be attempting to target. So, in terms of sunbathing, how much J/cm2 will each tissue, such as the brain, heart, eyes, lungs, etc. be receiving? My guess is likely very, very little. This means that the skin is probably getting the bulk of the dose of light, and of course, some of what the skin receives will be absorbed by water. My question is how much light energy can the skin handle as compared to more energy intensive tissues such as the brain, and additionally, what would the benefits be to tons of skin irradiation?

*Note: I'm using J/cm2 and such as those are typically the values/units used in LLLT studies. Additionally, please check my simple arithmetic because I'm experiencing a temporary bout of massive brain fog from some exposure to less than ideal substances today and yesterday, lol.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom