How the sun really works

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
So where do the heavy elements come from in this theory, and how does it explain the many different types of star deaths (supernovas, black holes, neutron stars, etc...)?

Here's some links that may help answer those questions.
www.electric-cosmos.org...
www.thunderbolts.info...
www.holoscience.com...
Neutron Stars refute their own existence
Black holes tear logic apart
www.geocities.com...

The last link has links to many of the original papers from Schwarzschild, Hilbert, Droste etc.. A little honest historical research should show how silly the black hole theory really is. All the black hole effects are recreated on Earth with dense plasma focus or plasma gun.

reply to post by ZeuZZ

This is an undebunkable theory, as there is a lot of scientific literature to back this up. See the description of the video in youtube for links to the science behind it.

There was TONS of "scientific literature" to verify that the world was flat ... just because there are books and articles written that say the same thing, does not mean they are right.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by thatblissguy]

Originally posted by evanmontegarde
So where do the heavy elements come from in this theory, and how does it explain the many different types of star deaths (supernovas, black holes, neutron stars, etc...)?

I believe that your questions are answered at the end of this synopsis of the electric model of the sun i wrote on another forum online recently (quoted below). It was a forum for mainstream astronomers, so after a few posts they started getting angry and locked the thread without adequately answering any of the questions is asked them.

I will be happy to continue the debate here. the other thread i started looked promising but no-one rubutted any of the electric universe stuff there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the earlier Tim-Thompson site that someone linked to, that claims to debunk this theory, is the only one on the internet i can find against plasma cosmology (apart from his other ad-hominem rantings on 'bautforums' and 'badastronomy' forums). Read Don Scotts rebuttal to it, he ABSOLUTELY tears his arguments apart. www.electric-cosmos.org... I can highly reccomend his book 'the electric sky', read the reviews on amazon, they're all positive (apart from one easily offended astrophysicist, with no scientific reasoning used), and it has been read by a lot of top scientists. look at the endorsements, members.cox.net...


www.physicsforums.com...

The standard model of the sun states that the sun generates all its energy from the core, and that via photons and convection this radiates outwards before leaving the surface of the sun. Of course no-one has been able to see into the sun, but lacking any other reasonable model about how the sun functions, astronomers have generally accepted this one as being true.

The standard solar model sneaks in a subtle assumption, that the ‘surface’ of the sun is the top of the convection zone and is the final stage of the mechanism that makes the sun shine. But this is not true. The top is only the photosphere, next we go to the chromosphere which is hotter and 2000-3000 km in length. The standard model does not predict its existence. Above the chromosphere is an extended glowing plasma structure we know as the corona, and beyond the corona an invisible plasmasphere extends many times the distance of the planet Pluto made up of charged ions in the ‘solar wind’. (The phrase solar wind is a misnomer; a flow of ions constitutes an electrical current, not a wind. We do not speak of an electric ‘wind’ flowing in our wires at home)

In the ES sun hypothesis, the power of the sun does not lie deep within it. Juergens was the first to propose this idea that the sun sits as the focus of not only the planets but also a large plasmasphere. Due to its size the sun has a large electric capacitance; this capacitance receives charge from cosmic (birkeland) currents that exist in our arm of the galaxy. The sun thus exhibits a relatively high voltage. Jurgens calculated that the suns voltage multiplied by the total value of current coming towards it, is sufficient to produce the suns observed power output, and concluded the sun is powered by its galactic environment and not from within itself.

The current standard model explanation of the sun is falsified by the fact that any source of radiant energy is supposed to obey the inverse square law, so the corona should not be hotter than the surface of the sun. However the ES model predicts the temperature minimum.

(cont)



[edit on 8-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

(cont)

It does this by showing that charged particles are not much affected by external electrostatic forces when they are within the photosphere, only diffusion motion and Brownian motion occurs. Temperature is simply the measurement of the general kinetic energy of particles, so the 5800K temperatures there seems to fit. This means that the ions have their maximum potential energy when they are in this photospheric plasma; however their mechanical energy is relatively low. At a certain point when a +ve ion randomly moves out of the photosphere and into the electric field (voltage gradient) it will result in it being accelerated outwards. The particles are basically transferring the high electrical potential energy they had in the sun into kinetic energy by gaining an extremely high outwards radial velocity. In this region between the photosphere and lower chromosphere the ions become very organised (parallel) and they are much more diffuse, thus their temperature, which is a measurement of their random motion, drops to a minimum.
When these rapidly travelling particles travel through the chromosphere they move beyond the outwardly directed e-field force that has been accelerating them, (ie, they have reached the bottom of the hill and are now moving much faster than they were at the top). Because of their kinetic energy any collisions at this point involve a lot of energy, and create high amplitude random motions, therefore ‘re-thermalizing’ these ions to a much higher temperature as they react with each other after gaining their original burst of energy.

The Z-pinch effect of current filaments is arc mode plasmas is very strong, and the effect of these forces on the suns surface would be strong enough to fuse atoms. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place is likely taking place in the double layer above the top of the photosphere, not deep within its core. The products of this fusion process are the ‘metals’ that give rise to the absorption line in the solar spectrum and the other particles that we can detect.

Thats how the metals are produced, via Z-pinch fusion, which is very strong. At my old Uni, in our physcis department, we had a small prototype of the Z-pinch fusion generator which was from sandia, and we spent a week looking into how it functioned, it was very interesting, although far too modern technology for the current syllabus i was doing.

The sad thing for mainstream astronomers is that the sustained hydrogen nuclear fusion process hypothesised in the sun has NEVER been sustained on earth. It may not even be possible.



[edit on 8-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

-

and how does it explain the many different types of star deaths (supernovas, black holes, neutron stars, etc?

Supernova would be caused by stars that enter areas of the galaxy where there are many more ions to fuel it than it can take. The ions are produced from the solar wind of the billions and billions of surrounding stars. As the amount of ions flowing into the stars increase, so does the stars size, until it reaches a point where the energy input exceeds the output, and explodes. This theory also explains why our sun changes in size, still unexplained by the conventional nuclear core model. Where else do you think the vast amount of particles emitted from stars go?



Black holes are an interesting subject. Has anyone ever seen a black hole? No. Has anyone ever proved black holes? No. All we really know is exactly what we observe in space that have lead us to think that black holes are there in the first place, mainly gamma ray outbursts and strong attractive forces. It is far more likely that charge interactions between ionized space plasma is what causes galaxies, not 'super massive black holes', that, I hasten to add, have never been seen.

Quote from; www.plasma-universe.com...
Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation.

The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids. adsabs.harvard.edu... and adsabs.harvard.edu...

In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament. The simulation began with two spherical clouds of plasma trapped in parallel magnetic filaments. The clouds spin around each other until a spiral shape emerges. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulation appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes, and posited a morphological sequence that corresponded to Halton Arp's ideas that galaxies formed out of quasars ejected from AGN. Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves. adsabs.harvard.edu...




And Neutron stars you mention are also an interesting subject. Mainly because Neutron stars as they are currently explained by mainstream theories are impossible . I have often wondered to myself how astronomers can ignore basic laws of chemistry when they postulate neutron stars. One of the most basic well known rules of nuclear chemistry is the "band of stability". This is the observation that when we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional amount of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. The Neutronium that they say Neutron stars are mainly constituted of nearly instantly annihilate with themselves, within a fraction of a second.

We know from laboratory experiments that any lone neutron decays into a proton within less than fourteen minutes; atom like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously. There is no such thing as Neutronium. Therefore there can be no such entity as a neutron star. It is a fiction that flies in the face of everything we know about elements and their atomic nuclei.

more likely explanation; www.plasma-universe.com... (pulsar = neutron star)



[edit on 8-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

[edit on 8-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Plasma galaxy formation simulation on a supercomputer. Without the need of any 'super massive black holes' or undetectable dark matter, or dark energy, just birkeland currents with a voltage and amperage, and some plasma physics. As the universe is 99.999% plasma, this makes perfect sense to apply this to galaxy formation.




www.plasma-universe.com...

the results of Peratts simulation looks very convincing. So if the galaxies are held together by electric currents, is is highly likely that they pass throungh stars, which are acting as a focus for the particles. A lot of peratts papers and work has been peer reviewed and approved, here are a few,

adsabs.harvard.edu...
adsabs.harvard.edu...
adsabs.harvard.edu...
adsabs.harvard.edu...


When you look at the corona you do notice that it is made up of filamentary like structures, just like electric birkeland currents. And also the Corono is millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the sun, if the energy the sun was using was being attrated remotely, this is exactly where you would expect it to be expressed, just above the surface. The standard model has no explanation for the coronal heating problem.




A birkeland current;


[/im]


It looks like pretty good evidence for remote electric currents being in contact with the sun from other parts of the galaxy, and possibly fuelling it. Which has big implications for global warming and galactic size changes effecting the suns output and possibly earth in some way.



[edit on 8-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by thatblissguy
There was TONS of "scientific literature" to verify that the world was flat ... just because there are books and articles written that say the same thing, does not mean they are right.

Umm, Don't you mean TONS of "religious dogma"?. It's actually a bit of a misnomer to think that all past cultures believed the Earth was flat, many ancient cultures new the Earth was round up to and beyond 6000 years ago.
The flat Earth concept is solely a 16th century (or around about) product of religion.

This is more than just articles and books, It's based on the verifiable sciences of plasma physics and electrical engineering, as has already been mentioned.
As ZueZZ has stated, mainstream cosmology tends to ignore the findings of other sciences that are well documented and backed by experimentation.

Welcome to ATS ZueZZ, and thanks for the links, It's good to see more people considering what EU theory has to offer. I think we'll be hearing much more about it in years to come, the sooner mainstream science and the public catch up the better. It has implications for understanding our place in the universe and how it is powered, our lost history and potential for creative and non destructive technology is far reaching.

Originally posted by squiz

Welcome to ATS ZueZZ, and thanks for the links, It's good to see more people considering what EU theory has to offer. I think we'll be hearing much more about it in years to come, the sooner mainstream science and the public catch up the better. It has implications for understanding our place in the universe and how it is powered, our lost history and potential for creative and non destructive technology is far reaching.

thanx for the welcome

I am often amazed that every time i have tried to debate this on mainstream physics forums with some pretty damn intelligent academics on there, they consistantly fail to come up with any satisfatory reason as to why plasma cosmology and the EU theory are not correct. So i have concluded that it must be right! as soon as i quote them the peer reviewed papers on that site, they delete the thread instantly! i'm using their own system aginst them, as they cant argue with peer reviewed stuff, and theres plenty on EU about on the net

The main reason i am interested in this is to see if this is what is causing global warming and also (somewhat more pessimistically) see if due to changes in the galaxy something is going to happen to the sun and the date 2012. I dont think that being that precise about the date is at all likely, but there do seem to be many people, and completely separate cultures all over the world that have come up with this approximate date. I was reading Jim Marss' post on this, and he says; "I do understand that at the end of 2012, the Earth will come into a straight alignment with the center of our Milky Way galaxy. Even odder is that scientists have claimed to have received regular radio-type signals emanating from the center of the galaxy. No one knows what this portends, but many people believe that this situation is foretelling that our 3D material plane may experience increased vibrations in the universal energy grid." www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have also read an article that says that plasma formations that occur in the upper atmosphere could have been recorded in vaious ancient rock art; which would idicate an electrical phenomenen in the upper atmosphere, and local solar system. Maybe they were seeing formations in the sky caused by changes in the galaxy which effects the suns output? www.theglobalintelligencer.com...

I was gonna post a link to this page on Jims thread, so see what he makes of it, but i think i need an invite or something Anyway, thats the more specualtive side of it, its the science that i really like as it has a lot of academic support, even if mainstream astronomers choose to completely ignore them.


[edit on 8-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

No one can come up with a single reason to debunk this theory then? so I can only presume that is a correct model of the sun, and that the majority of current astronomy is wrong.

please can someone show me reasons as to why this electrical model is not correct, i would very much like to hear them.

[edit on 15-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Astronomers defend the standard model by claiming that all processes they describe have been performed in the laboratory and are well known. But nothing could be further from the truth. Mankind has been doggedly struggling for over half a century to create a sustained nuclear fusion reaction in the laboratory, we have not come close to doing it, it may not even be a possible. The only experiment that releases tremendous amounts of energy is the atomic bomb, and that reaction is almost instantaneous. Recently discovered inherent instabilities in the plasma generated by the process may make it impossible to control the reaction and make it occur continually. Just to assume that such a sustained process is happening at the suns core is a stretch.

However the the Z-pinch fusion effect of current filaments in arc mode plasmas has been tested and is very strong, and the effect of these forces on the suns surface would be strong enough to fuse atoms. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place is likely taking place in the double layer above the top of the photosphere and through out the rest of the sun, not deep within its core. applying this to the sun makes perfect sense as the sun is constituted of 100% plasma.

Sandia National Laboratories Z-machine has produced huge amounts of energy, certainly sufficient for the sun to fuel itself from, using only plasma physics and magnetic fields.

www.plasma-universe.com...





It is far more likely that this is the process that fuels the sun, meaning the sun is attracting its energy from an extenal circuit of ions. The sun is probably not powered from its core as we have all been led to beleive. I highly suspect that this is what is causing global warming, as there are a lot of odd things happening in the solar system at the moment.

"Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists"

www.space.com...

"New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change"

www.space.com...

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"

news.nationalgeographic.com...

"Global Warming Detected on Triton"

www.scienceagogo.com...

"Telegraph; The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame"

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

"Study says sun getting hotter"

www.lubbockonline.com...

"Solar System Warming?"

strata-sphere.com...




I'd say thats pretty good evidence of large solar variability, that the current nuclear fusion model can not adequately account for because it should burn at a fairly constant rate. It is far more likely that the sun is moving into a part of the galaxy where there are more particles in the solar wind from the surrounding stars to fuel it, and that is what is causing the increase in solar activity. The sun is not powered internally. The corona, above all other factors, sufficiently proves that is the case.




[edit on 15-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

I updated some of the details on the Electric Sun Model on www.plasma-universe.com... which gives some really good evidence for a remotely powered sun.

They have a few good pictures of birkeland current structures in the corona, and filaments that look just like electrical currents, travelling into and out of the sun in the solar wind.




The flare appears twisted just like the birkeland currents you sometimes see in common plasma balls, like these;





The novelty plasma ball demonstrates many of the properties of plasma that can be seen in the Sun, in nebulae, and in galaxies. Since the sun is 99.999% plasma, applying these recent experiments to the sun is a logical step.



Blaise Frazier's beautiful photo of the spherical electrode in the centre of a plasma ball shows a blue filamentary streamer as it wavers during the 8-second exposure. Thousands of volts of electricity ionize the gas in the globe, ripping electrons from molecules and atoms. As electrons recombine with the ions, the gas gives off light. The colors depend on the kind of gas filling the globe.




This plasma ball illustrates some of the fundamental characteristics of plasma. Sometimes called a plasma cable, or plasma rope, the filament is the result of electrons and ions flowing through the plasma (i.e., an electric current). The current generates a magnetic field that surrounds the filament like hoops around a beer barrel. The magnetic field pinches the current and keeps it collimated (or wire-like).


Also, as has been shown well earlier by other people on this thread, the work of Kristian Birkeland successfully showed the equatorial plasma torus seen on the sun using an electrical high voltage mechanism. Birkeland was nominated for the Nobel Prize no less than seven times; even though the implictaions of his work on how the sun really functions is continually ignored by mainstream astronomy today.
His experiment;



Looks like a pretty good fit to me. A lot of birkelands work can be seen on havard uni's website;

-adsabs.harvard.edu...
-adsabs.harvard.edu...
-adsabs.harvard.edu...
-adsabs.harvard.edu...



Instead of astonomers being excited about the prospect of testing structures in space in the laboratory, they have been overwhelmingly negative of these findings. Probably because it brings into question a lot of their original assumptions about gravity, and the fuel source of the sun, which they can not back up with any good reasons.

Currently there is no explanation as to why gravity can cause these structures, or why the corona is even there in the first place. They are all obviously an electrical phenomenon. The sun is likely not powered from its core, but externally from the galaxy.




[edit on 16-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

This clip does very well to illustrate the difference between mainstream cosmology and plasma cosmology. Read the description of the video in youtube for some of the science papers behind plasma cosmology.










The world's leading professional association for the advancement of technology, the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc) has shown recent interest in electrically powered stars. This is quite amazing, as it is a peer reviewed paper, coming from one of the most respected science bodies in the world. August 2007;
ieeexplore.ieee.org.../iel5/27/4287017/04287093.pdf&arnumber=4287093

(i dont think that link works, for whatever reason, to see the paper search for the paper in google under the title; "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars")



They state;

"If the bipolar Z-pinch pattern is introduced to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae, a new electrical theory of stars is required."

There is a revolution coming in astronomy, they are quickly beggining to realize that plasma cosmology is a better interpretation than their current gravity based theories.

The conspiracy comes in becasue NASA must know this is how space works, but, for whatever reason, they dont want the public to know. I suspect its just fear of looking stupid. If nasa had to admit that the whole basis of modern astronomy is completely wrong, they would never hear the end of it.


There is a lot of science to back this model of the sun up; www.plasma-universe.com...-11


[edit on 18-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

I think the real key point of this however is that in a few hundred years, someone will come up with a NEW amazing theory that blows Plasma away as well, and so on, the truth is we honestly don't know.

We talk the talk and don't walk the walk.


We claim to know what holds the universe together etc... but have hardly left our own planet.

Nice work ZeuZZ! Ive read the arguments in bad astronomy forums and the conclusion I came with is that main stream has no reason to stick with its ideas, none. Its not doing them any favors and it's holding back science & technology in such a way that it is stupid. We cant send 'men' on the moon because it is impossible to get any work done without getting zapped or covered in micro fine magnetically charged dust. We call wireless transfer of electricity WiTricity, as if its a new form of magic! This site give a nice explanation on what electricity is, or isnt.

My fave sun is HD 12545

to the OP.
So you're saying just because no one has 'seen' a black hole then it must not exist? When someone asks you a legit question about something the theory you subscribe to can't explain you proceed to flat out deny it's existence? How do you expect anyone to take your 'truth' seriously with statements like that?

Just because you don't understand how gravity works and it's relationship with electromagnetism doesn't mean any theories based on it are false. And also just because something can't be done/duplicated here on earth doesn't mean it can not exist in space. IE your neutron star 'explanation'.

It can be hard to wrap your mind around the EXTREMES tat occur in space this however does not mean they are nonexistant.

There is a reason why the current theory is the one held standard, that's because a lot of brilliant minds have worked on this for many many decades. Now you're saying we should throw all that away because you feel offended that someone is keeping your theories from becoming the new mainstream for which we should base all other science upon?

I wish our TPTB would already come out and tell us they have the mathematical formula to gravity so that we can put all this nonsense to rest.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck........you know the rest.

So you're saying just because no one has 'seen' a black hole then it must not exist? When someone asks you a legit question about something the theory you subscribe to can't explain you proceed to flat out deny it's existence? How do you expect anyone to take your 'truth' seriously with statements like that?

You can only be confident of what you directly observe, not what you speculate is causing these effects. Currently black holes are no more than speculation. The current explanation for black holes is more like magic than science. This all stems from matematicians using einsteins equations to conjure up things on paper that have no relation to what we actually observe in space.


The only data you have is periodic high energy gamma ray outbursts, which were discovered after astronomers had come to the definitve conclusion that nothing emminates from black holes. Instead of re-evaluating the original model, they just come up with the Ad-Hoc explanation that this is actually how black holes work, changing the entire concept of how black holes work overnight.

Ion clocks that are put in a basic 'relaxion oscillator' arrangement build up charge and cause periodic discharge between bodies. The bursts from black holes are nearly identical to that for trapped-ion clocks.

Just because you don't understand how gravity works and it's relationship with electromagnetism doesn't mean any theories based on it are false. And also just because something can't be done/duplicated here on earth doesn't mean it can not exist in space. IE your neutron star 'explanation'.

I could give you further more specific reasons if you require, but reading your post, most of the points seem to be Ad Hominem, and not raising genuine scientific issues. I have a Phd in physics, so my knowledge of electromagnetism and gravity is probably sufficient to answer your questions.

Could you be a bit more specific in your questions? i am not entirely sure what you doubt about this theory.





Why do mainstream astronomers not consider this, if it is such a good theory? That is a legitimate question to ask. The answer is quite simple.

Magnetism was known to exist in the middle ages. They knew, even back then, that a piece of iron could act on another - at a distance.

But, the early astronomers (like their modern brethern) were simply unaware of electrical phenomena. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) had already mathematically explained the shape of the orbits of the planets when Isaac Newton published his treatise on gravity in 1687. Once that occurred, nothing more was needed to explain and predict the planetary motions that could be observed in those days. Everything was solved.

This, of course, was all long before Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) flew his kite in a thunder storm or James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed his equations relating magnetic and electric fields. But, electric fields were difficult to measure. And astronomers didn't know they needed to know about them. So, they never got included in the "accepted" model of how the solar system or the cosmos works.

That is why, to this day, most astrophysicists have never taken courses in electromagnetic field theory or experimental plasma discharges. They attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called 'magneto-hydrodynamics'. They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix 'magneto' implies 'electro'. And that, in turn, explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about stellar winds, vortex trails, and bow shocks instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers.


-Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy, and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory

www.electric-cosmos.org...








[edit on 18-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

-------------------------------------
Replaced quote with 'ex' tags for eternal material and added link

Please read Posting work written by others

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 21/11/07 by masqua]

does the EU also the planets and moons

Originally posted by Dae
Nice work ZeuZZ! Ive read the arguments in bad astronomy forums and the conclusion I came with is that main stream has no reason to stick with its ideas, none. Its not doing them any favors and it's holding back science & technology in such a way that it is stupid. We cant send 'men' on the moon because it is impossible to get any work done without getting zapped or covered in micro fine magnetically charged dust. We call wireless transfer of electricity WiTricity, as if its a new form of magic! This site give a nice explanation on what electricity is, or isnt.

My fave sun is HD 12545

That is a very interesting star, and it is good evidence of electrical activity on stars.



Quote from www.electric-cosmos.org...

A case in point – NASA recently discovered a star, half of whose surface was "covered by a sunspot". A more informative way to say this would have been that "Half of this star's surface is covered by photospheric arcing." The present controversy about what the difference is between a giant gas planet and a brown dwarf is baseless. They are members of a continuum – it is simply a matter of what the level of current density is at their surfaces. NASA's discovery supplies the missing link between the giant gas planets and the fully tufted stars. In fact, the term "proto-star" may be more descriptive than "giant gas planet".

That black section is a huge sunspot, i didn't realise that! Thanks for sharing

Thats pretty damn hard to expalin with 'tangled magnetic fields' or 'magnetic depression' as most astronomers do.

Yet again the Plasma Universe offers a better explanation.


quote from www.holoscience.com...;

The explanation of sunspots has been contrived to fit the idea of an internally powered star. Common sense suggests that any break in the photosphere should allow the hotter and brighter material beneath to show through. Sunspots should be brilliant blue-white rather than cooler and darker. Once again astrophysicists have invoked magical magnetic fields to "solve" the problem. However, HD 12545 strains the magnetic theory of starspots past breaking point. Where does all of the throttled heat flow go? If it is diverted around this colossal starspot, the edges should be much brighter than the rest of the star.

The electric star model expects this kind of transition between a star like our Sun and a red giant like HD 12545. Bright anode tufting is a feature of mercury arc rectifiers when the current load is high. Anode tufts tend to clump together while retaining their identity. Our Sun is a relatively small stellar anode so the photosphere is densely packed with bright granulations or anode "tufts". A red giant is a large anode so that "tufting" is not required to carry the current load. As a result, the red anode (chromospheric) glow predominates. A red star with a binary partner may also have an asymmetric anode glow due to a distortion in the current supply created by the partner. Starspots will be cooler because the power that drives the stellar electric discharge is being diverted. Starspots can be any size on an electric star.

---------------------------------------
Replaced quotes with 'ex' tags for external material.

please read Posting work written by others

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 21/11/07 by masqua]

I think the fusion theory has been busted many times over

Please provide evidence to back this up.

Well, there is another theory which was the leading theory before the fusion theory called the "gravitational collapse theory" it seems to explain more than the fusion theory

I've got news for you. Nuclear fusion reactions in a star's core are a result of gravitational collapse. The radiation pressure generated by those fusion reactions prevents any further collapse until the nuclear fuel is exhausted.