New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

reply to post by daz__


Hey Daz, thanks for joining in.

The mythology stuff is fascinating.
As you probably already know, Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos has shown that many plasma configurations in the lab match precisely the symbols and shapes in many petroglyphs found all over world. They have also been triangulated from the various locations of the petroglyphs in an attempt to verify where in the sky these plasma formations occurred.
The conclusion is that the ancient tribes of Earth were witness to spectacular plasma formations in the ionosphere or near Earth. Undoubtedly this would've impacted mythology.

As for the NASA question, you might be surprised to know that Don Scott recently gave a presentation of electric universe theories at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Apparently it was well received by most.
But yes there's always one.

NASA Pseudo-skeptic Receives Rebuttal from Electric Universe Theorist

In a universe made mostly of electrified plasma, NASA are not qualified. We need plasma physicists and researchers familiar with the concepts of electrical engineering.

reply to post by 4N6310


What do you think, would an anti gravity beam breakup a tornado.

Or similar ions at opposing ends of the funnel.
There is up and down flow that might cancel the twister.

Thus an ion beam on the ground and one above the clouds.
A movable satellite with a beam antenna, X-rays make anything
conductible, will seed the cloud tops of the twister.

The X-ray cannon left over from Star Wars might be used.

The ground seeding would be from fast fliers low to the ground
instead of making crop circles they can make themselves
useful.

reply to post by squiz


I think this is an excellent thread, I wish I saw it earlier

But I think too many are jumping the gun

The presenter in the video did a good job in explaining things but when he spoke about if you ask an astrophysicist about sunspots they will talk about the dynamo effect, the magnetic field and other such things that you can't see, like a genie does it is laughable.

The universe is full of things we can't see, like gravity and the behaviorism of the magnetosphere and other such things.

That made me dislike a few other things in the video as well.

And the entire argument that the sun is not independant but is being powered by the universe... okay well how come I can't see that power? lol

If he argued that hey we can't see the dynamo effect or the magnetic field to justiffy sunspots then I can say the same thing about the universe powering the sun.

Also, if the universe is powering the sun then doens't that argue against the entire topic of stellar evolution?
If the sun is dependant on the universe and not a standalone entity, then why does it go through phases of stellar evolution and why do stars blow up eventually? Does the universe one day decide to overdose massive stars so they become red giants? Why would the universe one day want the sun to become a white dwarf eventually? Does the universe not want lifeforms in the vicinity after a few billion years?

I agree with many things the guy was saying, many things connect, it makes alot of sense. But I think he took his theory too far.

If the universe powered the sun than it would be safe to say that it powers everything. Which would mean that everything is purposeful.
But.. what's the purpose of a blazar for example?
Why do stars go supernovae unless they are independant?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Supernovae are not an example of independant stars, really. You can have circuits blow in your house that don't blow elsewhere.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Glad you've enjoyed the thread, likewise I've enjoyed your posts.

Your comparison between the unseen forces and unproven forces inside the sun and the galactic source is fair. As has been stated even from the good professor himself, is that the external power source is the most speculative part of the theory.

Rather than try to explain in my laymans understanding here's what the Professor says about that point.

Whether or not Juergens was completely correct in his assertion that the Sun is totally or partially powered by external electrical excitation is really not the most important aspect of the Electric Star (ES) hypothesis.

This question is one of the most controversial and speculative aspects of plasma cosmology. So it is an easy one to pick on.

What is important is that most of the phenomena we observe on and above the photospheric surface of the Sun (a partially ionized plasma) are explainable in terms of well-known properties of plasma. This is true no matter how the Sun gets its power.

I would say while it may be speculative, in my opinion the lines of logic point in that direction. Of course you have to be aware of the evidence that already exists.

Also, if the universe is powering the sun then doens't that argue against the entire topic of stellar evolution?

It sure does.

If the sun is dependant on the universe and not a standalone entity, then why does it go through phases of stellar evolution and why do stars blow up eventually? Does the universe one day decide to overdose massive stars so they become red giants? Why would the universe one day want the sun to become a white dwarf eventually? Does the universe not want lifeforms in the vicinity after a few billion years?

Good questions, once again Mr Scott can explain.
Here's a link to what he has to say about stellar evolution. It's literally turned on it's head.
www.electric-cosmos.org...

My guess is a blazar would the be the focus point (pinch) of the larger scale currents that form the galaxy. It's brightness would also be the result of external currents on a larger scale. Better to be looking at the area of galaxy formation.

Also the big hairy guy makes a good analogy in regards to supernova.

Anyway thanks for your post all of your questions are very fair and you do have a valid point, but I wouldn't call the accusation laughable but reasonable in the case regarding sunspots, as was implied. Why are they black when we looking closer to the supposed source? this is where the common sense fails and gives way to invention.
On the other hand there are lines of reason based on evidence that point in a direction.

Lot's of questions, but there are lots of answers too, please don't jump the gun.








[edit on 27-5-2009 by squiz]

reply to post by squiz


Interesting
I always thought that quasars eventually become galaxies
and maybe ummm as an analogy the universe is god and black holes are mothers and hawking radiation is milk and blazars are multivitamins or gerber.

which yes I know kind of goes back to the sun being fed
yes true

Thanks for the link
I shall read it thouroughly

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

If the universe powered the sun than it would be safe to say that it powers everything. Which would mean that everything is purposeful.

This is really interesting to me. I love EU theory, totally rocks my boat. But I find that physicists/scientists when first coming across EU find themselves at that same conclusion and "feel" that is a know-it-all theory or a god-theory.

Why does "If the universe powers the sun (therefore powering everything) = everything is purposeful" ?

But.. what's the purpose of a blazar for example?
Why do stars go supernovae unless they are independant?

This bit reminds me of those cute questions like, "Why do we have famine and disease or even death, what's the meaning of life?" Not having a go here, just thought I'd tell you that it made me grin reading it.

Loving your contributions to this thread ModernAcademia

This old thread is suddenly relevant again:

ATS: Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun