How the sun really works, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times


reply posted on 7-11-2007 @ 04:39 AM by squiz
Originally posted by totalvigilance
Maybe the nuclear model is wrong but I'm not buying the electrical model.

A lengthy refutation can be found here:
www.tim-thompson.com...


Here's a reply to Tim Thompson, This has been around for a couple of years I think, still waiting for his response.
Tim Thompson - A Rebuttal

As for the nuclear model making many predictions, well not really. But their have been many detailed observations and measurements that have been made. It's is only a matter of perspective, All of the data is still valid and is not in question. It all lends support to the electric model if you change your point of view.

I think the most convincing evidence for me is Kristian Birkeland Terella experiments. Many of the solar phenomena are replicated in his experiments including the corona, plasma torus, sunspots, and the so called magnetic reconnection which is better described as a filamental pinch in plasma physics.





More at the link, This was published in 1908, Mr Birkeland first proposed that the aurora was an electrical effect, the scientific community scoffed at him, It took some 70 odd years and many many verifications before it was finally accepted.
www.catastrophism.com...

I've been researching this for about six months on and off, before I knew very little about the sun. I'm a little bit wiser now, some of the data is way out of my league, but common sense supports the electric model and it's backed up by some hundred year old experiments.

The OP is spot on, the influx of charged ions into the solar system is giving the sun some extra kick. The particles are flowing in because of the way the magnetic feilds are currently aligned. This can explain IMO, the increase in noctilucent clouds, the warming of the other planets and moons including Earth, the intense auroral activity of Jupiter and Saturn and may even offer an explanation to the sudden flare up of comet Holmes (although that may be a reach, only my thoughts).

The Universe is electric folks, I bet Tesla would agree.


reply posted on 7-11-2007 @ 05:23 AM by squiz
Originally posted by purplemonkey
where does the energy come from exactly?


The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. This possibility that the Sun may be exernally powered by its galactic environment is the most speculative idea in the ES hypothesis and isalways attacked by critics while they ignore all the other explanatory properties of the ES model. In the Plasma Universe model, these cosmic sized, low-density currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to ask whether these currents remain to power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the sizes of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by that amperage. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower current density and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly.


what is at the center of the sun?


That's a difficult question to answer with any certainty, but this isn't where the nuclear reaction is taking place.

The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL.


The evidence is in the fact that the highest temperatures produced on Earth are produced by the Z pinch effect. It's also used for fusion experiments.
zpinch.sandia.gov...
www.sandia.gov...

why do sun spots occur according to there model?


In a plasma, both the dimensions and the voltages of the anode tufts depend on the current density at that location (near the anode). The tufts appear and/or disappear, as needed, to maintain a certain required relationship between +ion and electron numbers in the total current. This property of anode tuft plasmas was discovered, quantified, and reported by Irving Langmuir over fifty years ago.
In the Electric Sun model, as with any plasma discharge, tufting disappears wherever the flux of incoming electrons impinging onto a given area of the Sun's surface is not sufficiently strong to require the shielding produced by the plasma double layer. At any such location, the anode tufting collapses and we can see down to the actual anode surface of the Sun. Since there is no arc discharge occurring in these locations, they appear darker than the surrounding area and are termed "sunspots". Of course, if a tremendous amount of energy were being produced in the Sun's interior, the spot should be brighter and hotter than the surrounding photosphere. The fact that sunspots are dark and cool strongly supports the contention that very little, if anything, is going on in the Sun's interior. The center of the spot is called its umbra.


www.electric-cosmos.org...



reply posted on 7-11-2007 @ 06:25 AM by squiz
Originally posted by Copernicus
And this is why I dont trust science. They seem more interested in maintaining the status quo and their own reputation than in new theories that explains things better.
Wonder how many years we are behind in technology and knowledge because of this behavior.

I hear ya Copernicus.
The fact is much of the universe can be explained without the craziness of the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes etc..
And it can be explained with other more verifiable sciences eg Plasma physics and electrical engineering.
The universe is 99.999% plasma, shouldn't plasma physics have more of a say into the workings of the universe?

Although founded on some old experiments and theories from Kristian Birkeland, Haanes Alfven, Ralph Juergons, Velikovsky and others, the Plasma cosmology paradigm is relatively new, but it has already made more successful predictions than the current gravity only based theories of the past hundred years.

It offers a very real opening for a unified theory of everything. Matter is in essence electricity, light and the colour spectrum is because of electricity, biology is now being viewed from an electrical perspective, we only perceive the universe by way of electrical signals to the brain. Your muscles contract and your heart beats because of it. There is suggestive evidence that gravity is a product of electricity. Even volcanism and weather patterns including tornadoes are now being connected to electricity. The evidence for electricity in space is vast and growing.


reply posted on 7-11-2007 @ 06:46 AM by Copernicus
reply to post by Essan



I knew you would disagree with me as usual, Essan...

If you read my post, I said that scientists are holding other scientists back. The peer review process you speak of sounds very good in theory, but in practice, I think that even if a new theory describes things better than the old one, there is a large interest in keeping the old theory. Simply because you have a lot of people who knows it and agrees with it.

There is always resistance to new knowledge. Trust me, I work as a programmer and it can take a decade before the mainstream go over to a new programming language even when its superior to the old ones. Simply because people know the old one and there is a whole industry working with it.

I know there are differences, but you have to realize there is a invested interest in keeping the status quo within any branch. Its not as simple as you make it out to be... just peer review it and if it fits, it replaces the new theory. It doesnt work that way. Hence it takes 70 years for something to get accepted even though the science was good even when it was introduced 70 years ago.


[edit on 7-11-2007 by Copernicus]


reply posted on 7-11-2007 @ 07:11 AM by squiz
Originally posted by Essan
The ultimate aim of most scientists it to come up with a widely accepted new theory.
However, the peer review process means that only those new theories which really have a chance of being right get widespread promotion.
Those who believe that scientists are only interested in maintaining the status quo might like to ask themselves what killed the dinosaurs Now there's an example of a constant stream of paradigm shifting .....


Hi Essan, for the most part I'd agree with the above, the dinosaur theory is a good example. However cosmology doesn't seem to abide by the same rules that other sciences adhere too.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.


An open letter to the scientific community

It appears that many scientists agree, judging from the support the article has received.

I think a similar argument could be made for evolution IMO. And no I'm not a creationist.

I also agree with your last post, however some of these theories have been around so long they are taken as fact. eg big bang and black holes are a perfect example, there are dozens more though including the nuclear sun.

I think controversial theories invigorate science, others think they hinder it.



[edit on 7-11-2007 by squiz]


reply posted on 7-11-2007 @ 11:05 AM by Chowzor
reply to post by ZeuZZ




There is no such thing as an undebunkable theory. In fact undebunkable isn't even a word.



reply posted on 7-11-2007 @ 06:06 PM by purplemonkey
reply to post by squiz



thank you for clearing up those questions....

i wonder if this effect can be related to global warming

and i wonder if humans can harness the same power.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^