 |
reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 01:46 PM by buddhasystem
|
Originally posted by davesmith_au
Funny...
Buddhasystem seems to have gone really quiet since someone threw a bit of math and a few peer-reviewed papers which seem to SUPPORT ES theory at
him...
And I've not seen him respond to any of the papers mentioned...
Lost for sarcasm?
Cheers, Dave Smith.

David, so far I haven't seen math above high school calculus "thrown" at me, and I'm perfectly capable of reading that. I also read the paper
posted and just commented above... It's just another case in which a scientific fact is ripped out of context and tortuously stuck into the silly
"framework" of EU.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 05:13 PM by poet1b
|
Buddha
Do you know anything about signal generation and transmission. Electrons and ions do travel together, in the same direction at the same time. How do
you think different frequencies travel through space, across airwaves, and over conducting lines at the same time? Your argument on this point has no
relevance. What do you think causes feedback? This is a basic reality of electricity. You will have to find a different argument.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 05:17 PM by buddhasystem
|
Originally posted by poet1b
Buddha
Do you know anything about signal generation and transmission. 
Yes.
 Electrons and ions do travel together, in the same direction at the same time. 
Well yes, but that's incompatible with the "electric Sun" theory which stipulates that there is a chaged layer outside of the Sun which accelerates
the positive charges! And must therefore decelerate the negative one. Exactly my point!
 How do you think different frequencies travel through space, across airwaves, and over conducting lines at the same time? 
What the heck does it have to do with protons and electrons flying in space???
 Your argument on this point has no relevance. 
Oh yes it does.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-2-2008 @ 05:35 PM by poet1b
|
[color=White]Buddha - Well yes, but that's incompatible with the "electric Sun" theory which stipulates that there is a charged layer outside of
the Sun which accelerates the positive charges! And must therefore decelerate the negative one. Exactly my point![/color]
I will have to learn how to use the text tools here. Hope this works.
Why must a charged positive layer outside the sun prevent the discharge of electrons? If the charge of the outside layer is not at a constant
voltage, like the positive terminal on a battery, then it would push and pull electrons and ions. Most likely such a huge plasma charge would
fluctuate at more than one frequency, and act as a multiphase generator. As the outside positive charge varies, it will attract and repel electrons
and ions at different frequencies. The overall effect could create a solar current or current, but it would be an alternating current whose overall
push is outward. In addition, the poles of the sun would create magnetic fields which would create electrical flow around the poles. It is mind
boggling to think of the electrical dynamics that would be at play. In essence, this creates a far more complex and more realistic version of the Sun
than the current fusion concept.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 06:26 PM by TeslaandLyne
|
There are some interesting ideas in:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Hannes Alfven, a Norwegian astrophysicist and cosmographer, whose earlier “academic burial” by the Relativists was somewhat reversed in 1970 by a
Nobel Prize awarded to him for his development of magneto-hydrodynamics and his concept of frozen lines of magnetic force, a theory later repudiated
in part by Alfven himself. Alfven had in a way replaced the word “ether” with “plasma”, and strongly disagreed with the Relativist’s misuse
of mathematical theory, which he said ‘must always be the servant of physical understanding and close observation, rather than its master’.
He claimed giant currents through space, from the sun through the planets, along magnetic lines of force, actually transfer angular momentum to the
planets. This discovery, together with his work on cosmic MHD events, places Alfven’s work very close to Tesla’s Dynamic Theory of Gravity.
Apparently some of the free energy from 'dark matter', or ether or plasma
is to capture of the momentum.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2008 @ 09:13 PM by squiz
|
A very interesting article from the Thunderbolts site highlights some of the recent discussion concerning back streaming electrons.
 Spicules Complete the Circuit
Colossal Birkeland currents conduct the Sun’s energy out into space but also pull electrons back into its poles.
On August 25, 1997, NASA launched the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft carrying several high-resolution sensors and monitors designed to
sample low-energy solar emissions, as well as high-energy particles arriving from intra-galactic space. From its location at LaGrange point L1 ACE has
been analyzing the solar wind for the last ten years (almost a complete solar cycle), providing real-time “space weather” reports about
geomagnetic storms.
Onboard the ACE satellite is the Solar Wind Electron Proton Alpha Monitor (SWEPAM) which is designed for direct scrutiny of coronal mass ejections
(CME), interplanetary shockwaves and the detailed solar wind structure. Using advanced three-dimensional interpretive instrumentation, SWEPAM will
coordinate its observations with the Ulysses probe, currently in polar orbit about the Sun at approximately 673,191,000 kilometers distance. One of
the more unusual discoveries by the ACE/SWEPAM mission is an electron depletion in the solar wind due to “backstreaming electrons” flowing into
the Sun from the surrounding space. These electrons are not in sync with the newest theories of the Sun’s activity, since the conveyance of
electric charge is not considered apropos by astrophysicists. Consequently, they are left with a mystery when electrical activity presents itself in
ways that they do not expect.
In the conventional view the Sun is accelerating electrons out and away from its surface through a process akin to amplified sound waves. Referred to
as “p-modes”, they supposedly cause the energetic pulsations in the solar photosphere as they bounce around the Sun’s interior. When they travel
upward through wave-guides called magnetic flux tubes they push the “hot gas” outward in giant structures called spicules. The spicules rise
thousands of kilometers above the photosphere and carry the hot gasses (plasma) with them.
According to Bart De Pontieu and his colleagues at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Lab, the flux tubes are acoustic chambers focusing the
“p-modes” and intensifying their sound energy. Some researchers have described this process in ways that allow them to see the Sun as a giant
bell, ringing with vibratory energy. In such a theoretical model, how could sonic forces then influence a reflective process that draws negative
electric charge back into the Sun? Thus the “mystery” surrounding the electron flow returning to the Sun from space.
In 1979, Ralph Juergens wrote, The Photosphere: Is it the Top or Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun? In that seminal work, he first proposed
that solar spicules are actually the way that the Sun re-supplies its electrical potential and maintains its photospheric double layer. In the image
at the top of the page, an unmistakable twist can be seen in the largest spicule, identifying it as a Birkeland filament. In past Thunderbolts Picture
of the Day articles, we have noted that these towering filaments are responsible for the transmission of electrical energy throughout the Sun, the
solar system and the galactic environment.
As Professor Don Scott, electrical engineer and author of The Electric Sky recently wrote in a private communication:
“In order to maintain the double layer above the photosphere that causes almost all the observed properties of the Sun, a certain ratio of the
number of outgoing positive ions to the number of incoming electrons must exist. Quoting from Ralph Juergens: ‘In a much cited classical review
paper of 1929, Irving Langmuir demonstrated that a double sheath (DL) is stable only when the current densities of the positive-ion and electron flows
across [through] it are properly related. The ratio of the electron current into the tuft to the positive-ion current out of the tuft must equal the
square root of the ion mass divided by the electron mass, which is to say: (electron current / ion current)^2 = ion mass / electron mass = 1836. Thus
electron current / ion current = 43.’
“So there needs to be a lot more (43 times as many) electrons coming down through the DL as there are positive ions moving outward. Where do they
come from?
“In that same year (1979) Earl Milton composed a paper titled, The Not So Stable Sun in which he wrote:
“‘In order to maintain a stable sheath between the photosphere and the corona a great many electrons must flow downward through the sheath for
each ion which passes upward. The solar gas shows an increasing percentage of ionized-to-neutral atoms with altitude. Some of the rising neutral atoms
become ionized by collision. Some fall back to the solar surface. The rising ions ascend into the corona where they become the solar wind. The
descending gas flows back to the Sun between the granules - in these channels the electrical field is such that ions straying out from the sides of
the photospheric tufts flow sunward, and hence the electrons flow outward. The presence of these channels is critical to the maintenance of the solar
discharge…. Here we have an explanation for the spicules, huge fountains that spit electrons high into the corona.’
“In my (Don's) opinion this also explains what causes sunspots. Wherever the #p/#e ratio is not maintained, the DL collapses - the photospheric
tufts disappear. So we get a spot in that location.”
By Stephen Smith
source
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-2-2008 @ 12:34 AM by TeslaandLyne
|
Maybe they don't explain things that well like flux densities.
Positive ions take up more space than electrons.
How could all the areas of flow be covered.
All factors covered, it looks like an incomplete report.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-3-2008 @ 11:15 AM by TeslaandLyne
|
Hi all, back with new cosmos info.
The deepest incite is between Tesla's gaseous ether and Hertz's solid ether.
Energizing the gaseous ether leads to the UFO as a canned Faraday cage
emerging free of momentum.
That means by ether means it flies.
The Earth is still controlled by the ether.
If Tesla's Towers became popular there might have been the possibility of the
Earth being shrouded in ions and loosing the controlling ether momentum and
thus enabling the Earth to move freely in the universe.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-3-2008 @ 12:57 PM by MysticTraveller
|
Just A thought, they say people are like suns.
What if our auras are like the corona and the surface of the sun. The outside energy coming in is like 2000 000 k and our and our “surface” is
6000 k
Massive amounts of energy filtered in through our aura and surface (Physical) energy output much less. Yet we are integral to our environment, people
like planets move around us and we around them…
Also maybe we can tap that energy. The force anyone? The mysterious Prana perhaps?
We are our energy fields and our energy fields interact. When people enter our personal space, in this moment our energy fields are essentially
“touching”.
Right now we are touching the sun. My mind is completely blown and my heart feels lighter.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-3-2008 @ 01:14 PM by rizla
|
Check out the discussions on badastronomy. They destroy this subject. If someone can go on there and argue it effectively, then I'll start
considering it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-3-2008 @ 04:34 PM by StellarX
|

Originally posted by rizla
Check out the discussions on badastronomy. They destroy this subject. If someone can go on there and argue it effectively, then I'll start
considering it. 
After the way Phil Plait ( i don't care to spell his name correctly) PERSONALLY closed the thread in which Michael Mozina attempted to defend his
views on the sun having a physical surface i give little credence to what happens on that site. If anything phil really is a bad astronomer ( as they
are supposed to be scientist who should in theory employ the scientific method) who runs a very bad astronomy site. If you want to see a truly
interesting discussion of astronomy and physics in general feel free to head over to the Metaresearch forum where you can engage in discussion with a
open minded astronomer with credentials that makes Phill's look positively pedestrian.
Stellar
[edit on 6-3-2008 by StellarX]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-3-2008 @ 06:04 PM by bigfatfurrytexan
|
Originally posted by StellarX
After the way Phil Plait ( i don't care to spell his name correctly) PERSONALLY closed the thread in which Michael Mozina attempted to defend his
views on the sun having a physical surface i give little credence to what happens on that site. If anything phil really is a bad astronomer ( as they
are supposed to be scientist who should in theory employ the scientific method) who runs a very bad astronomy site. If you want to see a truly
interesting discussion of astronomy and physics in general feel free to head over to the Metaresearch forum where you can engage in discussion with a
open minded astronomer with credentials that makes Phill's look positively pedestrian.
Stellar
[edit on 6-3-2008 by StellarX] 
I usually don't quote a post, choosing to reply to it instead. But this post was so good, i had to quote it just to see it written on this page
again.
Bad Astronomy has developed a reputation for stifling communication, as StellarX refers to above. Honestly, I have heard the same about ATS, but
haven't seen it to too much of a degree (outside of that incident recently).
They seem to want to maintain the status quo at the cost of honest discourse. I believe that many times an invitation for debate has been extended by
ATSers. I don't think i have seen much in response.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 15-4-2008 @ 04:54 PM by lo111
|
you should check out (the new black hole ) on this forum, it may help you with the flow of electricity in space. the black hole is driven on
thermal,static,nuclear ,energy and more, if these two theory's are correct they work and coincide with each other
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-4-2008 @ 06:05 AM by squiz
|
Here's an interesting piece from Berkley.
WAVING GOODBYE TO THE STANDARD MODEL
Yes slowly but surely they are coming around.
I like this part the best.
 The Nugget authors recently proposed a replacement model, inspired by earlier works that had been largely ignored, plus new solar observations and
the realization that theories of the aurora borealis involved similar ideas.
Hmmm... I wonder who could they be referring to? (cough) Birkeland.
Similar ideas to the aurora? sounds like electricity to me.
And this...
 The old thick-target model served its purpose well for three decades and, we believe, reached the end of its utility with the RHESSI and TRACE
observations of the past solar maximum.
Thanks to MGmirkin for finding this one.
As for the Bad Astronomy debate, many have already tried and results in a swift banning. I've chatted with many of them. The most outspoken on the
subject there is Tim Thompson who has been corrected quite well by Don Scott. (already featured in this thread). Also you can find a debate between
Wall Thornhill and Tim Thompson there regarding lighting on Venus, Tim has since been proven wrong and Wall hits the nail on the head with another
successful prediction. I think he has made more successful predictions based on EU theory in the last few years than most astronomers combined.
Still the preprogrammed scientists incapable of original thought still cling to their dusty textbooks, regardless of the observational facts that have
been presented here.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 30-4-2008 @ 04:25 PM by TeslaandLyne
|
en.wikipedia.org...
R. H. Stuewer noting that "... he remained an embittered outsider, winning little respect from other scientists even after he received the Nobel
Prize..."[4] and was often forced to publish his papers in obscure journals. Alfvén recalled:
When I describe the [plasma phenomena] according to this formulism most referees do not understand what I say and turn down my papers. With the
referee system which rules US science today, this means that my papers are rarely accepted by the leading US journals.[5]

Alven's plasma was too much like Tesla's gaseous ether.
He had to be suppressed.
We can't have people energizing the air and flying around in it can we now.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |