It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

How Does the Sun Work?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
The old name-calling routine!

It speaks loud and clear to expose a lack of reason.




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

You literally called anyone who didn't buy into your nonsense as only doing because they have an ego, entrenched in their beliefs and "clinging to their textbooks", with all the implications that entails. You are a hypocrite who can only spam junk science YouTube videos and make ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you.

Edit:

Ok, let's put your beliefs to the test.

1) What quantifiable predictions does EU make?

2) How can it be falsified?
edit on 14-9-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.

I've seen physicist Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project called a "liar" here.

Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Hope springs eternal.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.


It's also a problem for fools.

I noticed you didn't answer my questions.
edit on 14-9-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The sun's temperature gradient belies the nuclear furnace model, but supports the electric sun model.

Why on earth would you think that sunspots are "windows" into the Sun's interior? They are simply cooler patches on the Sun's surface, caused by concentrations of magnetic field flux inhibiting convection.

Thus, the whole foundation for the "electric sun" falls apart.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.

Not really. The only things I see being ridiculed are those that are very much deserving of ridicule. Such as this.


I've seen physicist Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project called a "liar" here.

Ever think there may be a reason for that?


Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Sure. As soon as they present verifiable, falsifiable ideas that aren't easily dismissed with a grade school level understanding of basic science.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ParasuvO

NASA landed on the Sun and took measurements.

They done it at night so it wouldn't get too hot.

Unexpected laugh. And I needed it



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Sure - when these non-mainstream sources have empirically tested evidence that can be verified by other scientific bodies around the world.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

What is required for that is enough courage and determination from people to go up against mainstream vested interests in the status quo.

That's what the problem is.

Many open-minded researchers in science and technology are scared to death of the ridicule they are going to have to deal with.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

They only get "ridiculed" when they put forth a rediculous theory without any evidence.

What we have here with the EU is a hypothesis. That needs no evidence, just ideas. Once there IS evidence it is then a theory.

But, as per normal with the EU thing, there's no evidence, only a lack of understanding or, even worse, an understanding of how things work, but they just want to push their merchandise.

Once there is evidence, they won't be ridiculed. Until then, the EU stuff is pure fantasy. HAHA!



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Being open-minded isn't about being willfully ignorant of current "mainstream" knowledge and lapping up blatant nonsense. That's having one's mind firmly shut.

You keep crowing about how these quacks are sidelined because the "mainstream" isn't "open-minded" when the reality is that they're peddling abject nonsense to people who are ignorant and gullible enough to buy into it. No conspiracy theories needed.

I ask you again:

1) What quantifiable predictions does EU make?

2) How can it be falsified?
edit on 17-9-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
What is required for that is enough courage and determination from people to go up against mainstream vested interests in the status quo.

Science doesn't stop people from questioning it. In fact, it welcomes it - that's the only way it progresses.


Many open-minded researchers in science and technology are scared to death of the ridicule they are going to have to deal with.

Really? Who? Name 5.


That's what the problem is.

No. The problem is people who argue against science with nothing but assumption and opinion.

Why do you think courts of law operate on the basis of *evidence* and not 'your opinion' ? If people like you were in charge, then you could accuse anyone of anything with no evidence - only how you feel or what you think.

Nope. You're completely wrong in this case and I'm glad you sit at the back of the classroom doodling in your notebook and wondering why the other kids get higher grades then you.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Ridicule is a problem on the ATS Science and Technology forum.

I've seen physicist Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project called a "liar" here.

Perhaps at some point in the future, non-mainstream sources of information will be taken seriously.

Hope springs eternal.


Change the record mate. It's getting boring hearing the same thing from you every time someone asks you for proof or anything similar.

Do you remember in maths class at school, the teacher would tell you to "show your working" for any question in a test? Same thing here...these guys you believe need to show their working (maths, predictions and experimental results) to be taken seriously. Yet they don't. I wonder why...



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
I agree but the mainstream thought is that matter rules all, despite matter being mostly empty space and completely a side-effect of the electrical activity of the atom.

The space within the atom is not really empty, though, correct?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: cooperton
I agree but the mainstream thought is that matter rules all, despite matter being mostly empty space and completely a side-effect of the electrical activity of the atom.

The space within the atom is not really empty, though, correct?


No, its empty. Unless you count the particles coming into existence and then disappearing.
edit on 26-9-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014
And what causes those particles to appear?



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014
And what causes those particles to appear?


The double-slit experiment insists that it is Conscious Observation that cause waveforms to collapse into particles:



If particles are subordinate to consciousness, then it seems impossible that particles/matter reacting randomly could have generated consciousness. Similarly, a material explanation for the sun does not do it justice.
edit on 26-9-2016 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

en.wikipedia.org...


And before you say anything, the theory has some solid foundations, namely quantum tunnelling. Transistors work on quantum tunneling. If our understanding of quantum mechanics was wrong, you would not have the computer you are typing on right now since computers are made of billions of transistors.

To be honest with you, I'm not a physicist, though am deeply interested in this kind of thing. Other members will definitely have much better answers for you regarding QM than i could ever give you
edit on 26-9-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014
And what causes those particles to appear?


The double-slit experiment insists that it is Conscious Observation that cause waveforms to collapse into particles:



If particles are subordinate to consciousness, then it seems impossible that particles/matter reacting randomly could have generated consciousness. Similarly, a material explanation for the sun does not do it justice.


The double slit experiment has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness.



posted on Sep, 26 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

It seems to me that whether or not light is a particle or a wave, and the double-slit experiment, is a different topic from the topic of what is called "the vacuum," which supposedly is "empty space," yet still has these pesky particles that pop in and out of existence, coined "virtual particles."

It seems to me that instead of naming the things "virtual particles" and continuing to describe space as empty, science should admit that space is not empty, and should start focusing on it as a frontier for exploration.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join