New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories., page 12

This topic is in the Space Exploration discussion forum. (rss)

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories. << 9 10 11 12 13 14 >>

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.
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.
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.
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.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
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]
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.
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
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.
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.
copyright & usage

reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 07:08 PM by TeslaandLyne
The Big Bang Never Happened by ERIC LERNER holds the unorthodox electrical universe opinion. So if gravity is an electric ether quality, then gravity is electric and to have anti gravity you need electricity. The national security secret of what gravity is is now more open than Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity that the Illuminati are sitting one hoping no one comes a lookn'. Which must also divulge the free energy in the atmosphere. My High School teacher said something about gases and Helium and Hydrogen and isotope behavior and zapped us with a Tesla conical coil. Did he say it could fly, oh my.
copyright & usage
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
reply posted on 5-9-2008 @ 07:40 PM by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by squiz That is very interesting. Berkeley happens to also have a Dr. Robert Baker. Dr. Baker works for the DoD, finding scientists to funnel into DARPA (I presume, as he has admitted to me that he works to find scientists for the ARL). He also is working on an American/Chinese joint operation to create High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generators and Detectors: High-Frequency Gravitational Wave (HFGW) Generation by Means of X-Ray Lasers And Detection By Coupling Linearized GW to EM Fields I would expect that if anything close to "disclosure" of gravity research happens, it will happen via UCal Berkely or Ala - Birmingham. It is also interesting to note that Dr. Bakers company, Gravwave is working closely with him on this project, and that it has Buzz Aldrin on its' board. Also note Mr. Aldrins recent comments about the next people on the moon speaking Chinese. [edit on 5-9-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 27-9-2008 @ 01:50 AM by Anonymous ATS
I was just wondering if all this energy is going to the north pole could that mabie explane why HARP is there?
copyright & usage

reply posted on 29-9-2008 @ 08:38 PM by squiz
reply to post by ngchunter Humorous, actually not much point arguing with you until you do a bit more study instead of watching discovery universe specials and copying the arguments of others without understanding the complexity of the thing your arguing about. It's a waste of my time. Yes your argument is practically a complete copy and paste of the same stuff all over the net on this issue, nothing new there. At least Tim Thompson goes about his argument scientifically for the most part, I respect that and your attempts fall far below that level of critique when you can't get the basics right and are oblivious to the new observations and some old ones it seems. One for the road, again proves your assumption wrong and much of your last post concerning the origin of the particles. This is not verification of a source of power just showing the error in many of your assumptions. And a suggestion of symmetry. An electron strahl is a thin beam of electrons eg electric current. [1] Observed electron distribution functions of the solar wind permanently exhibit three different components: a thermal core and a suprathermal halo, which are always present at all pitch angles, and a sharply magnetic field aligned strahl which is usually antisunward moving. Whereas Coulomb collisions can explain the relative isotropy of the core population, the origin of the halo population, and more specifically the origin of its sunward directed part, remains unknown. In this study we present the radial evolution of the electron velocity distribution functions in the fast solar wind between 0.3 and 1.5 AU. For this purpose we combine data measured separately by the Helios, Wind, and Ulysses spacecraft. We compute average distributions over distance and normalize them to 1 AU to remove the effects of the solar wind expansion. Then we model separately the core, halo, and strahl components to compute their relative number density or fraction of the total electron density. We observe that, while the core fractional density remains roughly constant with radial distance, the halo and strahl fractional densities vary in an opposite way. The relative number of halo electrons is increasing, while the relative number of strahl electrons is decreasing with distance.Therefore we provide, for the first time, strong evidences for a scenario that is commonly assumed: the heliospheric electron halo population consists partly of electrons that have been scattered out of the strahl. cat.inist.fr... Ever heard of the electron halo? www.srl.caltech.edu... Nope can't tell you the specifics, we don't know the specifics, no one does. To pretend otherwise with comments like "realtime data says otherwise" is the height of arrogance and ignorance and showing some signs of denial I think, are we still sticking to "Negatively charged electrons move away from the sun at all times"? And of course with the argument you have mimicked you also mimic the assumptions based on the wrong model! A common mistake made by critics of the electric model is to assume that the radial electric field of the Sun should be not only measurable but also strong enough to accelerate electrons toward the Sun at “relativistic” speeds (up to 300,000 kilometers per second). By this argument, we should find electrons not only zipping past our instruments but also creating dramatic displays in Earth’s night sky. But as noted above, in the plasma glow-discharge model the interplanetary electric field will be extremely weak. No instrument placed in space could measure the radial voltage differential across a few tens of meters, any more than it could measure the solar wind acceleration over a few tens of meters. But we can observe the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers, confirming that the electric field of the Sun, though imperceptible in terms of volts per meter, is sufficient to sustain a powerful drift current across interplanetary space. Given the massive volume of this space, the implied current is quite sufficient to power the Sun. www.thunderbolts.info... [edit on 29-9-2008 by squiz]
copyright & usage

reply posted on 30-9-2008 @ 08:57 AM by ngchunter
Originally posted by squiz reply to post by ngchunter Humorous, actually not much point arguing with you until you do a bit more study instead of watching discovery universe specials and copying the arguments of others without understanding the complexity of the thing your arguing about. It's a waste of my time. Yet you feel compelled to play thread necromancy and try to argue it with me anyway? I demand a retraction of your accusation. I wrote this argument myself. If I sound like others who have ripped this theory apart it's because we're all speaking the same truth on why your theory fails. I did not educate myself on the sun from "discovery universe specials" I did it by reading these neat things called books. I wrote my counter argument and backed it up with realtime space weather data, I did not plagerize anyone else. Yes your argument is practically a complete copy and paste of the same stuff all over the net on this issue, nothing new there. I could say the same for you, but unlike you I don't assume that the other person is copying someone else just because I've heard the same faulty line of reasoning before. At least Tim Thompson goes about his argument scientifically for the most part, I respect that and your attempts fall far below that level of critique when you can't get the basics right and are oblivious to the new observations and some old ones it seems. This from a person who didn't even bother to notice that their own sources said the phenomenon either stopped short of the sun or was caused by the sun itself. Meanwhile you can't even show me a significant amount of electrons reaching the sun at all times and powering it, yet that is your assumption. This is not verification of a source of power just showing the error in many of your assumptions. Translation: I can't prove my theory at all so let me try to poke holes in yours. [1] Observed electron distribution functions of the solar wind permanently exhibit three different components: a thermal core and a suprathermal halo, which are always present at all pitch angles, and a sharply magnetic field aligned strahl which is usually antisunward moving. Whereas Coulomb collisions can explain the relative isotropy of the core population, the origin of the halo population, and more specifically the origin of its sunward directed part, remains unknown. Could be from interstellar space or it could be from jupiter, who knows, what is important to note is that this is out in the halo and strahl and decreases in density as it approaches the sun. In this study we present the radial evolution of the electron velocity distribution functions in the fast solar wind between 0.3 and 1.5 AU. For this purpose we combine data measured separately by the Helios, Wind, and Ulysses spacecraft. We compute average distributions over distance and normalize them to 1 AU to remove the effects of the solar wind expansion. Then we model separately the core, halo, and strahl components to compute their relative number density or fraction of the total electron density. We observe that, while the core fractional density remains roughly constant with radial distance, the halo and strahl fractional densities vary in an opposite way. The relative number of halo electrons is increasing, while the relative number of strahl electrons is decreasing with distance.Therefore we provide, for the first time, strong evidences for a scenario that is commonly assumed: the heliospheric electron halo population consists partly of electrons that have been scattered out of the strahl. Great, so the electrons that make it out of the strahl and into the halo become less and less dense as radius to the sun decreases. By the time you're looking at the core you're seeing electrons that come nearly entirely from the sun. If there's one thing this study proves it's that nothing from outside could be electrically powering the sun. Your own source disproved your theory. [edit on 30-9-2008 by ngchunter] [edit on 30-9-2008 by ngchunter]
copyright & usage