New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Thill
reply to post by they see ALL

But thats exacly that it is .. Scientist will not agree to any theory that will cause them to loose their jobs/funding and be ridiculed as somebody that was completly wrong all the time ...

Most science jobs are loose. They have to publish or perish.

If they don't keep up with the times, then they're not tight and should seek employment elsewhere.

Good insight.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:44 AM

Originally posted by cloakndagger
Thanks for this post. I can actually say I've learned something today.

Yes, me too!!

thanks for the primer too...

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:23 AM
Wow, I just saw this video. Amazing!

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:56 AM
reply to post by 11one11

Hi 11one11, your absolutely correct in you assumption about Jupiter and Io, It's all part of the circuitry of the solar system, the current is stepped down from the enormous galactic spiral arm currents to the sun then to the planets and moons.
That's impressive you came to that conclusion yourself.

The Thunderbolts picture of the day section is a treasure trove of alternative interpretations, several dealing with Io. Here's a link to the subject index.

As for the Crop Circle, I wouldn't be confident in interpreting that particular one with any accuracy, however I have found the genuine circles are in the language of resonance, sacred geometry (which is also related to resonance) and fractal geometry, the language of the universe itself. They're are many cosmological representations as well. The underlying message is to do with harmonics. This can definitely be related to EU theory. The last couple of posts in that thread sum up what I believe the general message is. I know what many members here think about crop circles, so I'd rather not go there in this thread, but I do have some new information I'll be adding to that thread soon, So please Join in.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:23 AM
Well thanks very much for the replies people, there are obviously more EU enthusiasts here at ATS than I thought. I’m a self confessed addict myself.
The implications are enormous and profound not only for technology and cosmology, but also on a human level. It shows how closely connected to the cosmos we really are, brainwave frequencies reflect the resonance of the ionosphere and studies show that biological mechanisms respond to these same frequencies known as Schumann resonance. All life dances to the beat of the ionosphere.
Cellular structure is synonymous with things like double layers, conductors and capacitors etc… Without electricity your muscles would not contract, your heart would not beat, all your senses translate the external world into electrical signals for your brain to interpret, you would not even think without it. We ourselves are bio-electric machines.

Bio-Plasma physics anyone?

It also offers an insight into our forgotten past through a scientific perspective on mythology. Anthony Perrat’s studies and comparison to ancient petroglyphs and plasma formations are astonishing to say the least.
This was brought up in ZueZZ’s thread, check it out, lots of pictures and links.

The question as to why NASA has not acknowledged the role of electricity in space is a difficult one, a question with many answers I would say. I recommend taking a look at “Universe – Cosmology Quest” for an insight into this unfortunate situation, It’s a two hour documentary the first half deals with the origins and history of the gravity only theories and the heart of this problem, the second half takes a look into plasma cosmology. An absolute must see if you’re a space nerd.

Cosmology Quest

By the way, NASA also ignored and refused to acknowledge Wall Thornhill’s many accurate predictions made regarding the deep impact mission. While all the results startled the NASA team, these were expected from the electrical theorists.

I thought I’d throw in some more evidence recently verified; It’s been a great month for EU theory!
Saturn Ringed by Electric Doughnut

Astronomers have confirmed the existence of a lopsided "doughnut" of electrified plasma surrounding Saturn.
The giant ring current, as the doughnut is called, was confirmed following analysis of recent Cassini spacecraft data. But the new information adds a twist to the electric phenomenon, which extends more than 746,000 miles (1.2 million kilometers) into space: It rotates.

I know what your thinking, Mmmm… Electric doughnuts….drool.
Sorry, had to be said.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by squiz]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:34 AM
Hi all, I'm new to ATS but have been surfing for quite a while. Great Thread and I am hooked on this theory. One question for those more educated to answer: How would this theory affect lightning? Seems that scientists are not absolutely sure how lightning is formed except with static charges? Could this theory explain a charged atmosphere?

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by captainplanet

ignore my post---------my sense of humor is strange?------------i really think that alot more energy is being transmitted to earth from the sun than a mere 19 1/2 billion watts worth of the plasma electric field we think we has to be more than would take care of the present earth with its animals /oceans/weather systems and 7 billion people-----how to accurately do that math instead of for only 28 million cold eskimos ?somebody wake up einstein to help us please

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 10:27 AM
This whole theory just makes my head spin. Im not sure I understand it all..but if what im hearing, this means that for years scientists have been wrong about certain aspects of the theory of gravity. It punches a hole in the idea that space is "empty" and just basically turns all we know of physics in general upon its head. Somehow this energy is streaming into the earth and could somehow be harnessed. What I really dont understand tho is abuot the sun being electric..I mean its being powered by nuclear forces right? Fusion at the Nth degree? or is this idea too being shot to death? Im terrible with math and dont understand the "Hard" mathematical side of things..but I do understand the basic concepts and ideas...could anyone lay it (EU theory) out a lil cleaner for me? or am I just too dumb to get it?

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 02:10 PM
waow. this thread has to be one of the best on this site! I want to do physics as a career and i'm so glad i read this, it's going to make physics class a bit more interesting

anyway, I have a question... if this theory proves to be true and we learn more, will it affect our ability to reach and surpass the speed of light?? or does this theory make it even more of an impossiblity?


posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I frankly find a few posts in this thread slightly paranoid.

It's only paranoia if they are not after you! Maybe it's time to stop and turn around?

I don't know what "they" you are talking about, but I feel your pain.

This must be why the work of Birkeland has been ignored when not attacked and or dismissed?

Birkeland was a visionary scientist for sure, and ahead of its time, which happens, you know. He's not alone among the scientists whose ideas could be truly proven only with advent of more advanced instruments (cf. atomic theory of matter). I really don't see your point. Birkeland did not have spacecraft to actually map out the magnetic field in space. So as brilliant as his theory was, it was finally proven only recently.

Is it your contention that NASA has not over the years indulged in absolutely massive volumes of controversy over their manipulation of data?

How is it relevant to the topic of the discussion and the exuberant reaction of some of this forum's guests? It's a very, very neat piece of physics but I find it hardly an earth-shattering discovery (compare to the discovery of nuclear fission in the 30s).

Does this new find have anything to do with the way the energy is generated inside the Sun? Hardly.

You bet it does but that will take a few more decades

You don't know that, so I dismiss that as empty talk.

at the current rate of establishment non achievement.

Oh, you are so damn cavalier about science and its achievements, my friend. I urge you to meditate on how inefficient science is next time you post your condescending messages on this forum (courtesy science that brought this tech to you), when you buy a BlueRay DVD or a high tech condom or use GPS to get to pharmacy in time before it closes for the night. Sheesh.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by buddhasystem]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:33 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Does this new find have anything to do with the way the energy is generated inside the Sun? Hardly.

You bet it does but that will take a few more decades

You don't know that, so I dismiss that as empty talk.

well here is something the standard model cant explain.

- The outer corona of the sun is millions of degrees hotter than its surface. According to the standard model the heat should radiate uniformely away from the core, and obey the inverse square law for radiation. It does not.

- The suns output sometimes stops COMPLETELY, sometimes for days. That is very hard to explain by a continuosly fusioning sun. (

- Heavy elements (metals). According to the standard model the sun is made of its fuel (hydrogen) and its byproduct (helium). The current fusion model does not account for where the large amount of heavy elements emanating from the sun comes from.

- Solar neutrino deficiency. Measurements of neutrino's have never accurately fitted models.

And ofcourse the supposed inner Nuclear core of the sun (witch can't be proven )...

The sunspots wich are black in center are explained in the standard model as magnetic variations in the surface, but fails to explain how thoose magnetic fields comes to life...

So i guess you agree in your own words, that the above unknown factors can be dismissed and taken out of the standard model?
After all you said: "You don't know that, so I dismiss that as empty talk"

[edit on 18-12-2007 by Bluess]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 03:51 PM
I might be saying something stupid but if the sun's output stopped completely for days don't you think that would be noticed? Like no light for a few days would hardly go unnoticed

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by DarkSide
I might be saying something stupid but if the sun's output stopped completely for days don't you think that would be noticed? Like no light for a few days would hardly go unnoticed

Thats why you where provided a link to NASA

Dec. 13, 1999: From May 10-12, 1999, the solar wind that blows constantly from the Sun virtually disappeared -- the most drastic and longest-lasting decrease ever observed.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by Bluess]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:37 PM
I don't know if this fits in here, but I'll leave that up to you folk to decide. I'm not that well versed in this Electric Universe theory...

Hinode Reveals New Insights About The Origin Of Solar Wind

Data from the Hinode satellite shows that magnetic waves play a critical role in driving the solar wind into space. The solar wind is a stream of electrically charged gas that is propelled away from the sun in all directions at speeds of almost 1 million miles per hour. Better understanding of the solar wind may lead to more accurate prediction of damaging radiation waves before they reach satellites.

How the solar wind is formed and powered has been the subject of debate for decades. Powerful magnetic Alfvén waves in the electrically charged gas near the sun have always been a leading candidate as a force in the formation of solar wind since Alfvén waves in principle can transfer energy from the sun's surface up through its atmosphere, or corona, into the solar wind.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:39 PM
Plasma Cosmology will only continue to be verified as more and more data is looked at from the proper paradigm.

Excellent thread Squiz.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:16 PM
Amazing stuff -- I had heard of the electric Universe theory before but never really read into it. Started to get me thinking... There are are stars which are so big, that they could ingulf an entire galaxy -- right? And since there is no heat eminating from the inside, and assuming it could be hollow, imagine the actual visual aspect of the sun being a 'protective barrier', and inside a galaxy where there are planets and civilizations thriving.

Fun to think.

[edit on 18/12/07 by Navieko]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Donoso
I find it hilarious that you act like scientists find themselves to be experts when it's the media and paranoia prone folks that label them such as to try and prove an ad hoc point.

Which does not explain where science establishments or their power to suppress certain areas of discover or research comes from. Why have you chosen to believe that scientist do not consider themselves to be well versed in their various fields and why do you think they will not defend the convention they were taught in university. In fact why don't you seem to be aware of the fact that they do?

Science is all about change.

Science may be but the various government and private funded science establishments are most certainly not.

* Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
* Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
* Baird, John L. (television camera)
* Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
* Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
* Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
* Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
* Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
* Galvani (bioelectricity)
* Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
* Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
* Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
* Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
* Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
* Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
* Goethe (Land color theory)
* Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
* Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
* Lister, J (sterilizing)
* Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
* Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
* Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
* McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
* Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
* Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
* Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
* Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
* Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
* Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
* Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
* Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
* Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
* Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
* J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
* Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
* Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
* Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
* Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
* Zweig, George (quark theory)

* Ball lightning (lacking a theory, it was long dismissed as retinal afterimages)
* Catastrophism (ridicule of rapid Earth changes, asteroid mass extinctions)
* Child abuse (before 1950, doctors were mystified by "spontaneous" childhood bruising)
* Cooperation or altruism between animals (versus Evolution's required competition)
* Instantaneous meteor noises (evidence rejected because sound should be delayed by distance)
* Mind-body connection (psychoneuroimmunology, doctors ridiculed any emotional basis for disease)
* Perceptrons (later vindicated as Neural Networks)
* Permanent magnet levitation ("Levitron" shouldn't have worked)

And that's a very short list of some of the major discoveries/breakthroughs that were held up due to the machinations of science organizations or individuals.

It's a never ending study of how exactly the universe works.

If it's so never ending why do so many scientist spend the majority of their lives defending theories that are in the vast majority of instances just plain wrong?

You don't think Stephen Hawking's "ego" was hurt after he proclaimed he had been all wrong about black holes?

So how often do we hear them admit they are in fact wrong and when is he going to admit to all the other mistakes he has made or supported?

What about how Einstein was dead certain that Quantum Mechanics was doomed to fail?

It HAS failed. Even Einstein got something right without having to steal the idea!.

hink Newtonian laws of gravity are obsolete because of general relativity? Newtonian laws of gravity are pretty damn accurate in certain scales. However, they simply didn't work after a certain point.

And they do not work at certain scales because they are not really accurate or useful. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and if we manage theories that corresponds to only certain subsets of data we should employ it as practically possible while moving on to advance or replace it.

How about the very recent and widespread acceptance of the multiverse? The general idea existed back with Sci-Fi parallel universes. Past ideas and knowledge get expanded on and refined over the ages.

So now we have evidence for multi verses? Right.... Are we discussing science here or not?

It's ludicrous to believe that with enough empirical data to form a test that can be verified by anyone in the Scientific community they'll say:

"Nope! Even though there's ample proof to support your hypothesis, we're going to sit this one out!"

And yet the foundation of modern electrodynamics is horribly flawed and based on acceptance of dipoles as perpetual motion machines. This obviously does not stop the science establishment from branding those who talk about vacuum energy extraction 'perpetual motion nuts' as most of them are either to ignorant to understand the inherent contradiction they have accepted or simply do not care to consider anything that might undermine their standing.

You've got to be kidding! People would be jumping on the bandwagon left and right, the amount of funding one could obtain at that point would be well enough for an extraordinary amount of investigation.

And vested interest just do not exist and combustion engines are the best solution for cars and the like! It's just fascinating what sort of fanaticism and scorn proper indoctrinate can yield in the university trained mandarin classes.

It's almost as if you believe that every single scientist goes through a process where their brains are melded into a single drone like state and they follow the commands of some evil overlord. That's not the case, I assure you.

Science have advanced over the centuries so clearly the indoctrination is not always effective in preventing some establishment scientist from thinking that they are in fact supposed to advance their fields in any which way they choose.

You'll never find a more interesting discussion then at a BBQ party where the crowd is made up of physicists, biologists, and the occasional mathematician. Not too many though, they're a'tad nuts.

And that only proves that they are by no means stupid and know exactly how to play the ball and keep their jobs and standing in the community and class they have decided to serve for personal benefit. Sure most of them may not go into science knowing or understanding what will happen but what they do not know is that did not manage to get into college or university by accident and that they are in fact the type of people the establishment believes it can properly indoctrinate to further its ends. Those who go their by simply being oblivious are in for a rude shock the moment they arrive at conclusions that do not suit the corporate/ruling class interest at which point all their standing and credentials are unlikely to save their careers.


posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 06:31 PM
I found a good description of the electric sun at;

another page about the electric sun, with references;
A little known fact: Popular ideas about the Sun have not fared well under the tests of a scientific theory. The formulators of the standard Sun model worked with gravity, gas laws, and nuclear fusion. But closer observation of the Sun has shown that electrical and magnetic properties dominate solar behavior.

Today, astronomers assure us that the most fundamental question is answered. The Sun is a thermonuclear furnace. The ball of gas is so large that astronomers envision pressures and densities within its core sufficient to generate temperatures of about 16 million K—producing a continuous “controlled” nuclear reaction.

A growing group of independent researchers, however, insists that the popular idea is incorrect. These researchers say that the Sun is electric. It is a glow discharge fed by galactic currents. And they emphasize that the fusion model anticipated none of the milestone discoveries about the Sun, while the electric model predicts and explains the very observations that posed the greatest quandaries for solar investigation.

More than 60 years ago, Dr. Charles E. R. Bruce, of the Electrical Research Association in England, offered a new perspective on the Sun. An electrical researcher, astronomer, and expert on the effects of lightning, Bruce proposed in 1944 that the Sun’s,

"photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and the spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it is an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel."

This discharge characteristic, he claimed, "accounts for the observed granulation of the solar surface." Bruce’s model, however, was based on a conventional understanding of atmospheric lightning, allowing him to envision the “electric” Sun without reference to external electric fields.

Years later, a brilliant engineer, Ralph Juergens, inspired by Bruce’s work, added a revolutionary possibility. In a series of articles beginning in 1972, Juergens suggested that the Sun is not an electrically isolated body in space, but the most positively charged object in the solar system, the center of a radial electric field. This field, he said, lies within a larger galactic field. With this hypothesis, Juergens became the first to make the theoretical leap to an external power source of the Sun.

Juergens proposed that the Sun is the focus of a "coronal glow discharge" fed by galactic currents. To avoid misunderstanding of this concept, it is essential that we distinguish the complex, electrodynamic glow discharge model of the Sun from a simple electrostatic model that can be easily dismissed. Throughout most of the volume of a glow discharge the plasma is nearly neutral, with almost equal numbers of protons and electrons.

In this view, the charge differential at the Earth’s distance from the Sun is smaller than our present ability to measure—perhaps one or two electrons per cubic meter. But the charge density is far higher closer to the Sun, and at the solar corona and surface the electric field is of sufficient strength to generate all of the energetic phenomena we observe.

This recent paper in the IEEE journal of plasma science says that a new electrical theory of stars is required;

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

Looks as if more astronomers are starting to pay attention to this now.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by dreadphil
This whole theory just makes my head spin. Im not sure I understand it all..but if what im hearing, this means that for years scientists have been wrong about certain aspects of the theory of gravity. It punches a hole in the idea that space is "empty" and just basically turns all we know of physics in general upon its head. Somehow this energy is streaming into the earth and could somehow be harnessed. What I really dont understand tho is abuot the sun being electric..I mean its being powered by nuclear forces right? Fusion at the Nth degree? or is this idea too being shot to death? Im terrible with math and dont understand the "Hard" mathematical side of things..but I do understand the basic concepts and ideas...could anyone lay it (EU theory) out a lil cleaner for me? or am I just too dumb to get it?

Hey there dreadphil, hopefully I can clarify a few points.
A theory for gravity is still up for grabs, (I personally think it is an electrostatic effect). The issue with gravity is that all our current models for the universe are solely based on it, It's considered the only force that exists on the the large scale, It's safe to say now this is not the case. Electromagnetism is a thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity and is repulsive as well as attractive. Newtons laws are accurate to a degree, as has been pointed out already. In fact Coulombs law which is used for calculating the force between charges is fundamentally the same as Newtons law, to me this hints that gravity is a product of electrical forces.
And yes space is not a pure vacuum but is filled with charged particles, this is accepted as fact these days, the density is roughly a particle for every cubic cm, (just a generalization of course) but on a galactic scale it would be like a thick soup.

EU theory is not challenging conventional physics, on the contrary it's incorporating well defined sciences of plasma physics and electrical engineering that have been proven in the lab and are at work in the technology all around us. These aspects have been ignored by astrophysicist who seem to like to invent hypothetical forces to explain their observations. Simply because space is considered electrically neutral, even though they are fully aware of the vast extent magnetic fields in space permeate.

No, the sun is not nuclear powered. Fusion is occurring at the corona where the heat is the greatest, it's an effect not the cause. Plasma Z-pinch is one of the processes being used on Earth to achieve fusion. The highest temperatures on Earth ever have been achieved through this process, the same process at work at the sun's double layer or corona.
Google the Z machine for info.

To get a basic understanding of EU theory watch the tutorial "Thunderbolts of the Gods" it's meant for the layman and explains the concepts very simply.
It's linked here a page back I think, but watch it at Google at full resolution.

posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 08:23 PM
interesting. The sun needs an orbital studying facility.

top topics
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in