New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

My apologies, I'll be more respectful. but the argument is the same and is based on the same false model of simple electrostatics, I'm afraid the text books won't help you either unless they are well versed in plasma physics.
As for your real time data, the solar wind is not uniform, the wind is slower along the equatorial plane and highly variable and the probes are incapable of detecting the slow drift electrons.



No. no, that was to show that not everything is moving away with the solar wind as you stated. however enormous blobs of plasma have been observed falling back in to sun.
www.spaceweather.com...



I don't have to poke holes in the standard theory they already know they there.
Once again this was to prove electrons do flow into the sun, the mechanisms for these particles is from scattering of the strahl, and from the unfortunately named bowshock off planetary magnetospheres and possible the heliosphere those are the proposed mechanisms. And suggest closed circuits inline with the theory.
This however is not the electrons inferred to power the sun, but it is the ambient slow drift electrons within the immense volume of the heliosphere, the model to look at is the plasma glow discharge model.



Hence the problem of detecting diffuse slow drift electrons, I know you are going to say that is convenient, and yes this part of the electric model is the most speculative. But all observations of the sun tend to support it and some very old predictions confirmed. On one hand we have a model that works with observation and as far as I know only one loose thread, on the other hand is a model that is littered with problems and ad hoc assumptions that cannot explain the fundamentals such as solar wind and coronal heating.





I don't see how it disproves the theory, what it shows is a continuous flow of current. And that electrons do flow into the sun and fits perfectly within the theory and inline with the plasma glow discharge model, in fact it's the only theory that satisfies the mystery of the solar wind and coronal heating.
It's perfectly logical sense and instantly solves both the solar wind acceleration and coronal heating.
Think of it this way, if the sun is internally powered the heat should be greatest at the core and radiate away, except what we find is the complete inverse with the heat being the most intense at the corona and cooler at the surface, a host of assumptions have attempted to explain this.
Instantly solved if the sun is a positive anode being fed by externally.

So I concede that the source has not been verified and I was mistaken to infer that the backstreaming electrons from my first link where the power source.
But it is possible under the glow discharge model and within the realms of conventional physics. Kristian Birkelands terella experiments scream loudly in support of the theory as do the observations of recent and the confirmed flux ropes carrying current to the Earth.

If you go back a couple of pages you'll see this argument covered. You'll also see that even the mainstream are beginning to question and include more electrical terms in their conclusions.
Here's one that considers Hannes Alfvens unipolar-inductor model or "electric star".
www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk...

If the wind is slower in some regions and the sun is polar, why doesn't the sun attract electrons out of the solar wind, thereby reducing their ratio to protons in the wind? Additionally, it should accelerate protons away from itself to be faster than the electrons that do escape. Why don't we see this? We don't even need to be able to see "slow drift" electrons to see that slightly faster electrons aren't being affected by anything. Additionally, just what makes you think that slower electrons stand a chance going upstream in the solar wind for millions upon millions of miles?

So you admit you were nitpicking with exceptions to the rule that don't even support electric universe theory? Nice.

Nice prominence animation by the way. I see gas rising up even as it falls back down. This is a common hedgerow prominence and it originated from the sun to begin with.

www.nso.edu...

Not a hedgerow, but another prominence that has a similar "flowing into sun" appearance when animated, yet clearly originated from the sun:
www.david-tyler.com...

Nice try, next time don't try to pass off common phenomenon as evidence your theory holds an ounce of water.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by ngchunter]

Holy magnetic dynamo! I'm gonna hafta go back n read this whole thread.
Pretty compelling stuff and certainly something to think about and consider.
That thunderbolts video did a pretty good job of explaining the idea in a way I think I have a general idea of what they are talking about.

Seems to answer so many questions and creates so many more at the same time(for me at least).
At this point, I am imagining the sun as a huge ball of superconducting material orbited by other spherical constructs of conductive elements.
The sun's surface acts as a commutator passing current along magnetic lines to the planets and other large conductive objects.
A giant dynamo radiating power from the core generating all kinds of interesting energy fields.

Anyways, I was wondering if anyone had seen these videos by "Semiconductor". I found them particularly interesting. Especially Brilliant Noise:


Magnetic Movie



Brilliant Noise

well electron halo shows depletion due to that very point as seen by Ulysses. The general electron density increases towards the Sun I believe.
www.srl.caltech.edu...
The solar wind is quasi neutral but constitutes a small net charge.



Fellow pc'ers can correct me on this but, the solar plasma like any other will organize itself into filaments, the transmission lines. The streams of protons accelerated in the electric field would drag local electrons along for the ride, neutralize some that could then go either way, but their direction would be a result of their charge, This is the quasi neutral state that has been observed.
It makes for a weak but immense electric field. This weak field is responsible for the drift. As Dr Scott says electrons measured in a current carrying copper wire is in the cm/hr.
Zuezz explains this better a few pages back I believe.
We know all the electrons are not being accelerated away because the sun maintains a electron halo, solar scientists presume from backscattered back streaming electrons this makes sense as it completes circuits with the other interplanetary bodies. The article describes the usual two types of suprathermal electrons that of the strahl and that of the halo. so despite what your trying to say, which I think I understand, electrons do travel against the solar wind. Have a good read of that link above, also see the "waving good buy" article for another example of electron beam entering the sun.
From what I understand of the plasma glow discharge model this is accurate and from all the other observations the slow drift is highly likely and may be responsible for the depletion. If you look at just the data in the above link, and not the basic flaw of magnetic field lines without mentioning the electric currents that MUST be creating them.
It appears to me this may be a part of the missing piece but more data is needed. This is not the official view I think, but my own.





There you go, they believe these electrons are coming from as far out as the sun's virtual cathode, the heliosphere. Rather than scattering off the strahl more locally. Traveling back along field lines from other stronger magnetic forces somewhere else other than the observer!
Well I was a little wrong after all.

Once again one of the fundamental flaws in modern astronomy is so simple, one that Hannes Alfven warned about. There are no frozen in magnetic fields, electricity and only electricity creates magnetic fields.

It mentions,


I think the problem is thinking of the solar wind as an actual wind, there is no wind in space, and the astronomers use mechanical bow shock mechanism to attempt to explain a much more complex plasma process. Completely ignoring Langmuir and Alfven.



I admit I was nitpicking, In retrospect it would make me just as guilty as the arrogance displayed by the astronomical community. So I do regret that.
But the observations DO support the theory despite the interpretation.
I'm fallible but the theory is extremely solid. If I make mistakes it's due to my comprehension of the theory.



I do see my fuel prices rising even though crude oil falls.
Yes origin the sun, not gas, plasma under the influence of magnetic fields, only electricity can create magnetic fields, no exceptions to the rule.



First off it's not my theory, it began around a hundred years ago in essence , and second for the last time! That link had nothing to do with the electron thing just simply to highlight the solar wind is not blasting everything away like it's name would imply, it's not wind. Sheesh.

The theory is in full support of the observations, and to a certain degree has been tested in the lab over a hundred years ago by a scientist, he was considered a crank also, only to be vindicated over 70 years later by confirming his auroral theory based on the same basic premise. Obviously he didn't get to see his vindication.
Then you might look at Robert E.R. Bruce, member of Royal Astronomical Society, the Institute of Physics, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and was a member of the Electrical Research Association.
And that of Ralph Juergens who followed his ideas.
And Hannes Alfven can't be left out.

Birkeland simulated the solar plasma torus, corona, flares, sunspots and more, I seriously doubt that is a coincidence. It's so obvious it's painful.






www.plasma-universe.com...:On_Possible_Electric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

Cathode rays through plasma on a magnetized globe.
Even managed to replicate some comets as well. The same rules apply, finally something cohesive that can explain what we see instead over overly complex mathematics and obscure and invented forces. We already have most of the physics right now to better understand space. We took a horrible wrong turn at the beginning of the 20th century and ignored scientist like Birkeland and Tesla. Both have there ideas claimed by others and haven't received the credit they deserve.

I'm really not an A,hole all the time, I just get ticked off when valid ideas are ridiculed on the basis of extremely shaky scientific dogma.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by squiz]

reply to post by 4N6310

---

Wow, those videos were awesome. Thanks very much.
Electricity at work to explain the solar process's? anyone else see the irony in that one?

Wrong. The electron density approaching the strahl increases as radius increases - the opposite should be true according to your theory. It increases with decreasing radius closer to the sun because *shocking* as you expand a set number of electrons out into a larger and larger radius, the shell formed by those electrons will be exponentially less dense as a direct function of the radius of the "shell" it forms, just as sunlight itself decreases with distance exponentially.

Then those same protons would also drag any "slow drift electrons" as well. In fact, since "slow drift electrons" would have virtually no intertia, they'd be far more susceptible to being redirected by the protons' positive charge.

Too bad copper wire isn't a valid analogy since copper wire doesn't have protons and electrons being accelerated in the opposite direction at moderate to very high energies.

No they don't, in fact they flat out state that the gas clouds were stopped short of the sun and that the backscattering occured AFTER outbursts from the sun. That's not interpretation, that's simple fact.


Completely irrelevant to this discussion. You posted a video of a hedgerow prominence and tried to pass it off as evidence of an electrically powered sun.

The motion of electrons creates the magnetic field, but it need not be a measureable electric current. What's the "electricity" of a bar magnet? Since the sun is plasma, electrons flow freely in the superheated plasma, hence magnetism. That does not mean they must be connected in an interstellar circuit, it just means the fusion in the core heats the sun to be a plasma.

With regards to the comets, why didn't stardust come back empty handed? Why did they bring back dust particles as predicted? Because your theory is wrong, that's why.
With regards to the images, there's one thing they have the sun clearly does not have, a spiraling halo around the equator. Why? Because the sun isn't part of an electric circuit.

It was quite clear to me that you thought it did. You said nothing to the contrary at the time. I personally will not waste my time further in deconstructing your evidence only to have you claim it wasn't related to the theory to begin with.

reply to post by ngchunter

---

I don't think you have any basis to presume what the theory should demonstrate, you've clearly shown that. I'm hesitant to make any such claims because I know my level of understanding is basic and conceptual. I've already posted links and comments regarding the correct model to look at.
But you just don't get it, First you deny that electrons flow against the solar wind, then proclaim to deconstruct a theory based on that level of knowledge. You know how silly that looks?
You say they can't flow in for millions of miles against the solar wind like it is an actual wind and yet they do.

Then you carry on with the next false assumption. The strahl is a beam, a filament, these are the complex arrangements of plasma and electric discharge. Complex to us, but fairly well understood and not by the astrophysists. The magnetic field generated by the strahl would squeeze the particles together and sweep up other particles in a process called marklund convection. This is precisely what plasma cosmology says.
So nope sorry no contradictions there.
The opposite should not be true, the positive potential is greater closer to the sun. What are you talking about? Where was I wrong? I would like to learn. Equating light dispersion is to the electron field is a mistake, much like the wind analogy. Electrons in an electric field will be dominated by those forces of charge and magnetism, The wind is quasi neutral with a small positive net charge.
Not the simplistic electrostatic model but that of a plasma model since that is what we are dealing with.

This is for anyone interested, since you don't get it. The site you ignored because of the image at the top Can't believe your own eyes either?
Why don't you pick these arguments apart instead of my simplistic explanations. Then you may have something to crow about.
www.electric-cosmos.org...



You'd have to take that up with the professor, I assume the analogy is referring to Birkeland currents forming virtual transmission lines.

Your points about magnetism are equally flawed, a permanent magnet is a result of the electric currents at the atomic level. Particles are nothing but bundles of charges. The currents you refer to in plasma are electricity! can't you read that back to yourself and not see that! Only a minuscule fraction of ionization is need for electric currents to flow.

Electricity is the flow of both protons, electrons and charge. It's a common misunderstanding that it is just electrons. Space is full of flowing charged particles or electricity. This fact has had zero impact on the gravitational models.

There's zero proof of nuclear reactions at the core, it's an assumption. In fact there are several problems already covered on this thread. Also there is zero proof for the dynamo core model.

I'm not sure what your point with the stardust is, Particles as predicted? excuse me.
There were predictions not from the mainstream though.
www.thunderbolts.info...
It's totally at odds with standard comet theory, fits perfectly with the electric view. The mysterious high temp elements are the result of electric discharge.

All of your comments are based on an ignorance of plasma, the very problem facing astronomy they have no concept of it in reality and yet the visible universe is 99.999% plasma. No wonder they are so far off the mark with dark this and dark that, multi dimensions bla, bla and hypothetical built on hypothetical, none of which has been observed. Is this the religion you follow?

You've falsified nothing and shown no counter hypothesis, all of these things regarding the solar wind are at odds with standard theory, THEY CAN"T EXPLAIN THE WIND. That's the bottom line.
Yet you think you can. You think you can deconstruct arguments in a field of things barely understanding either the standard theory or the electric!

All the arguments have already been addressed, not by me but the proponents of the theory. You either deny the explanations, and deny known aspects of physics or you don't understand them.

You also deny the masses of other evidence that's staring you squarely in the face, and pick on the only speculative part of the hypothesis. While accepting all the problems of the standard model.
We all now this is chest bashing for the sake of it. It's blinding you.





You were saying....

[edit on 3-10-2008 by squiz]

You commenting on my reference to the wrong article.



Lighten up.Plasma under the influence of magnetic fields created by electricity. Please explain what is wrong with that sentence?



answered above.

Remember while you are thinking of your response, your brainwaves are under the influence from the resonance of the plasma double layer above and the geomagnetic fields below. Your senses and thoughts are transmitted via electrical signals in your brain, your muscles operate by electric impulses including your heart. Your dna has a magnetic field as do your blood cells. The cells of your body are analogous to plasma double layers seen in space, forming protective boundary's.The very matter you are made of is nothing more than packages of charge.
It is an Electric Universe.

[edit on 3-10-2008 by squiz]

So, I know this might sound far fetched and everything, but after seeing the bit about those glass plasma balls that you touch and they make those purple plasma braids, it reminded me of a tornado for some reason.
I think I am remembering something from a fictional movie about tornadoes, but I'm not sure if they are using real example or if it was the fake part. Anyways, the idea is that there are electrical properties to the vortex to the extent that if you had a sunroof and a twister crossed over your car, you might look up and see the inside of the vortex aglow with static electricity or something like that.
Today, I just saw the first video I know of where the tornado went right over the camera. Something I thought was a little strange was right when the vortex crossed over their vehicle at 1:02 when the guy first says "...just went over us..." for the first time...on the word "went", the camera glitches. Maybe caused by something of an electrical nature...maybe more to do with the pressure differential...I dunno.
Regardless, this is a pretty cool clip:
Footage from 'inside tornado'

Electric plasma current flows in the Sun at the Equator and
goes out the poles.

The Big Bang Never Happened By Eric J. Lerner

The Google book.
See page 189 for Sun.. at various spots see plasma form galaxy spiral forms.

reply to post by 4N6310

---

Very nice, and you are correct. There is a electrical connection to Tornadoes.
www.thunderbolts.info...
www.thunderbolts.info...
www.peter-thomson.co.uk...
www.holoscience.com...

Lots more at the thunderbolts site. How about solar tornadoes?
www.thunderbolts.info...

Recently a correlation between hurricanes and sunspot cycles has been observed.
www.huliq.com...

More proof of the Sun, Earth electrical connection.

I'm always impressed when someone makes common sense deductive reasoning. Well done

[edit on 4-10-2008 by squiz]

reply to post by TeslaandLyne

---

Thanks, been meaning to get that book. You've prompted me to hunt it down.
Lerner's website, definitely worth a look.
www.bigbangneverhappened.org...

Got it on ebay for $8 including shipping.
I think from a vendor. not even sure it was a bid item.

I runs through each theory and the models they went through.
An electric generator at the galaxy center with billions of amps
coming in and jets going out on top .. perhaps no black hole
needed.

Hawkins tiny worm holes was to explain Tesla's tiny gaseous ether
though not stated as such and never a space travel mechanism
as a relative gladly went into as needed in Einstein's warped space.
He interrupted me as I said worm hole with his information and
had to set him straight. Gravity is practically nonexistent in the
vastness of space and electricity is far more powerful over charged
bodies.


ED: Here is a good web page:
www.spaceandmotion.com...

Google never happened lerner ... see the error page counter page.





[edit on 10/4/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

Lerner's book is an excellent introduction to plasma cosmology.

Squiz, I am completely amazed you have not yet read it! I used to give away copies of it to interested people, don't have any now or I would send you one.

Well, thanks very much for the kind gesture. That's a rare thing, and I believe you would too.
I just ordered my copy. Cheers

alright squiz:

after talking about comets with ya i decided to subscribe to your thread.. sorry it has taken so long to reply but i must say Great Topic.. i'm an electrically charged dude myself.. can see it and breathe it.. it makes so much sence..

ancient shamen and indian tales spoke of 12 tubes that left the sun and extended outwards in a spiral fashion.. shamen claimed it possible to follow these tubes and travel the solar system and no doubt beyond; but that is another story..

one poster mentioned that we may have orbited saturn at one stage which is not beyond reason since saturn gives of a proton wind which makes it a mini sun perhaps the birth place of all life giving planets in our solar system. the ages involved must be immence and near impossible to record.. but it is curious saturn was revered so much in methology..

yet another poster wondered how you could interface with this energy.. well as i understand it, it wouldn't be so hard.. i've heard of a system where you could have a grid of Tesla Towers.. These would be main interface.. from there it could be transfered to the existing grid and into homes where it is stored in large capacitors about the size of your home water heater and ready to use.. does not seem to me to be unfesable..



another in my opinion apt question to ask is why have nasa not been allowed to acknowledge the role of electricity in space.. nasa in my opinion is driven by outside agenda.. there are also too many fingers in cookie pies to expensive to allow anything such as free energy and even when it came to the crunch and they had to open and allow the flow of free energy have no doubts they would find a way to charge you for it..

all best to ya squiz..
enjoyed the banter on this thread..
am only on page 3 but already lookin forward to the rest

daz_

Is this a good demonstration of the pinch effect on earth?

YouTube Link

You can read about it here: www.physorg.com...

Some high voltage experiments in the Tesla Flying Machine
Yahoo Group applied high voltage to a candle flame and
the carbon atoms started to construct a tree.

The high voltage water bridge is caused by water becoming more
conductive.

Imagine when the air starts to conduct electricity as in the
Tesla experiments.

X-rays make anything conductive.

reply to post by Snap

---

No not z-pinch, but extremely interesting none the less.

Z-pinch is the confinement of plasma via Lorentz force, the electric currents in the plasma create magnetic fields that in turn squeezes and condenses the plasma.

There are several Z-pinch machines, the most commonly known is the Z-machine at Sandia National Laboratories.

www.sandia.gov...

Achieving temperatures in excess of 2 billion degrees kelvin!!
Hotter than the interior of stars they say.

Examples of naturally occurring Z-pinch can be found in the filaments of lightning, the Aurora and solar flares.




[edit on 26-5-2009 by squiz]