It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

page: 6
114
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
You stipulated that the upper atmosphere receives significant amounts of heat from the solar wind. This would mean that astronauts would receive a lot of heat, too.


I can't see how incident particles could result in anything other than heating of atoms in the atmosphere.

Both bodies of the astronauts and the atmosphere will be absorbing energy from the passing charged particles that constitute the solar wind/plasma. I hope that clarifies that for you.


Heat is proprtional to the kinetic energy of particles in any space


That's not entirely correct but will do for a moment, now:


and if the atmosphere is having trillions of protons being fired into it from the sun that would significnatly increase the movement of the particles, and thus the temparature of the atmosphere.


My point is that the density of the astronauts' bodies is anywhere 1000 times to 100000 times larger than the atmosphere, depending on the altitude you are talking about. They are far better absorbers
And therefore liable to be cooked




But we still do not know that it is just the mass of the atoms that causes the force due to gravity. This is a conceptual issue.


It's hard to conceptualize and explain gravity... Ok, fine. We can only offer additional detail when we have new evidence, right? So far you listed none, with all due respect.



Since there is no physical process by which gravity works


Excuse me! This is nonsensical. There is a "physical process", one way or another, for the electromagnetism to work and same applies to gravity. Are you sure you understand how electrostatic attraction works? How can you so confidently draw a division between it and gravity?


I say this mainly because it is so unbelieveably weak when compared with all other forces, it seems logical to suggest that electro-magnetism could play a role in space aswell as gravity.


I don't think this is logical at all. If you continue this logic, you could say that the electroweak interaction is so damn weak that the strong interaction must play a role. That's just baseless.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Some people have deeper insight than others. Does that susprise you?


Deeper insight into what? Did Birkeland employ information that was not commonly available or verifiable by others? Sure his conclusions might have been startling for the time but the question here is not if they or not but why he managed it so long ago. In fact i think the whole deeper insight babble is just that and that by looking at the same pool information in the same objective way is going to yield the same result. Birkeland had no deeper insights than anyone else and simply made logical uninterested conclusions based on observation and experimentation. The fact that so many maverick inventors and scientist arrives at conclusions that is accurate but opposed by the establishment speaks volumes as to what bias and external interests can do to our search for the truth.


There is only one criterion of truthfullness in physics, and that is whether the theory is in fact supported by experimental facts.


So how do scientist ever make mistakes and arrive at theories that are later replaced due to gross flaws? Why did we not have jet aircraft or quantum physics a thousand years ago if scientist do not make mistakes? If experiments disproves bad theories why are most theories wrong and why do the establishment support such theories when they should be able to do plenty of experiments to determine the truth? What you do not seem to know, or are willing to acknowledge, is that you can prove almost anything with a suitable biased or limited in scope experiment and that's just how they have been doing it for thousands of years. What sets apart men like Birkeland and Tesla is that they do not tailor their experiments after what they wish to find but attempt to theorize based on experimentation!


I know that this notion is intensely disliked by "armchair scientists". Now, until the magnetic field is indeed mapped out and the particle fluxes are measured, any hypothesis is jsut that.


So your STILL sitting on the fence despite it's absence? Did you notice the carpet was in fact gone?


Well, try to take a graduate-level general relativity class and you'll understand why. Truth may be tougher to obtain than you think.


Well it really can't be as that would rule out the massive contributions of the self taught geniuses that gave us much of the twenty and twenty first centuries. The only thing the majority of university educated, or rather indoctrinated ( which does not mean it's ALL wrong just that it's taken as gospel- the final word- and normally defended as such) classes have in common is that they believe they are some unique when it comes to the intellectual prowess. If that was not such a obvious misrepresentation i would spend more time proving the inherent fallacy but for now i think the track record of the establishment/university educated classes proves that they are selected for credulity ( they will believe anything as long as other university educated people do too ) and not objectivity.


Theories, again, are proven by experiment, whenever the capability for such an experiment arises. Do you have a problem with that?


What other instruments did he need a hundred years ago to arrive at the encompassing conclusion that space is not neutral and in fact filled with energy flows? Why do you think he needed modern instruments for that and why do you think his theories were not validated a hundred years ago? What shortcomings where there in his original work that supposedly resulted in us having to wait a additional hundred years for 'proof'.


When I enjoy a particularly powerful PC, or marvel at the wonderful pictures of Hyperion, I feel that the science, by and large, it working just fine. You, somehow, want just all the correct results here and now. That's a pretty infantile attitude.


So basically you are telling me that being unaware of what you are missing should be taken as proof that you are getting the best there is? Why is your uninformed and conservative views supposed to serve as proof that we should all just be happy and accept what we have now as the best of worlds? Did the list of suppressed facts not get you thinking as to where the world could have been given suitable acknowledgement and implementation of all those conclusions? Where would we have been now if a hundred years ago we started building devices that could in the comfort of every home tap enough every from the vacuum to power our homes? Why do you think the scientific paths NOT chosen ( due to establishment and governmental intervention) have simply had little if any effect on our wealth of social conditions?


Well if this is how you define proof, I can't help you. I prefer the usual, scientific definition of proof -- design and build an apparatus, evaluate its characteristics, do the measurements, analyze data, offer it for a review, publish it in an open refereed publication, so others have a chance to question the method and the result. Follow up if necessary.


Which again is what 'proof' should constitute but not what the establishment considers proof when it conflicts with theories that serves their interests. Why do you think cold fusion is still such a cold topic when it's been validated hundreds of times over? Why do the establishment still talk of perpetual motion nuts when our whole world is currently being powered right from the vacuum by wastefully employing fossil fuels and the sun's radiation to create dipoles from which electricity freely flows?


This is the cycle I follow in my research, and so does every serious scientist. Those who think that "proof is a subjective measure", on the other hand, are not taken seriously.


So how can scientist ever arrive at the wrong conclusions when proof is never subjective? Talk about unresolved contradictions! It's just fascinating how the mind of educated types works to obscure the reality that they are also human and predisposed to the same self serving bias as the rest of us. It's like no scientists have ever made mistakes!


Well, that would make you look rather foolish, don't you think?


Foolish for arguing with such a well indoctrinated individual. Bashing one's head against a wall is sometimes more productive than attempting to inform those who believe themselves to be gods gift to possibility of human progress!



I see you have a beef with NASA over budgeting the Hubble time. Well, welcome to the real world, where there is competition for resources in science.


The real world where scientist make only mistakes and the largely corporate funders who know control the establishments that funds major research does not act in self interested ways. Why exactly do you believe that corporations will do not what allows ever increasing profits and why do you believe they will not do what they can to suppress the types of breakthroughs or knowledge that will affect their bottom line? Why should we in fact presume they will do anything else? Since can the average Joe be considered so completely stupid?


Some projects get canceled, some downsized, and only a paranoid type will speculate that there is a continuous nefarious agenda behind all of that.


Which does not explain how scientific discoveries are implemented in our society and why they are so frequently applied to violent ends or protected by 'patent' rights that allows for the monopolization of production. Why are countries forced to accept international patents rights agreements when the enter the WTO thus preventing them from producing aids/TB/etc medication for cents on the dollar?

Why should i not presume to consider such a blatant disregard for human life as evidence of a nefarious and consistent agenda? Why presume that i am stupid or ignorant enough not to be able to spot the connection and wonder what such people are truly capable of? Why should i not start to wonder why science progresses so slowly and why a scientific breakthrough that happened a hundred years ago are only know being 'accepted' by the establishment? Do i seem that stupid to you?


That's a cookie cutter post (I've seen quite a few here on ATS) coming from a person who, unfortunately, was not able to obtain formal training in physics and compensates for this by blasting the "establishement" and basking in realization that his hindsight is always 20/20 and now he can say "I told you! this maverick was a genius and the evil govt suppressed him!".


Hindsight is not in fact 20/20 as the establishment is STILL opposed to the plasma/electric theory of the universe! The problem is not that the knowledge is not available or that lay people such as myself think ourselves especially clever but that the establishment is acting in self interested ways by obscuring the information and rewarding those scientist who would cooperate in suppressing it. As to the 'evil government' the people doing the vast majority of the work do not need to be 'evil' to serve as functionaries in a system that results in evil policies.


In addition, back to the topic at hand:
Birkeland was highly trained, well connected and a part of the establishement. He was a physics chair, for gossake. AND he was a genius.


And despite his standing and credentials his work were still effectively suppressed for the majority of the century. Imagine what's it's like if you have no formal training and no standing in the establishment? Should we start doing some case studies of how certain conclusions were suppressed in the science establishments of the western ( imperial) world?

Stellar

PS. Since i am aware of the scorn you have been indoctrinated to have for the 'uneducated masses' i am not going to take it personally and you applying more or less of it wont affect me.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Double post! Maybe if i check the latest responses i will find something disagreeable.


Turns out it wasn't hard to find something i , to say nothing of observation, could disagree with!


Originally posted by buddhasystem
I disagree with that based on this fact: the astronauts who spend any amount of time in orbit would be quickly cooked right inside their space vehicles if such energy transfer was of any significant value.


Why are you pretending that the space vehicles do not protect them from such energy flows? Why do astronauts wear space suits?

www.astronautix.com...


By cross checking the orbital motion of the planets and their moons in the solar system, it is possible to see if it matches with a purely gravity driven picture. And you know, it does.


That depends entirely on what has been presumed to be effects of such a gravitational force. Since when does a theories predictive powers alone serve as proof that the universe really works in a certain way? Again i ask why scientist get it so wrong if they can make their theories predict effects by appealing to cleverly crafted theorems? Does circular reasoning and generally application of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc ' fallacy?


Scientists calculate minute perturbation of the motion of space probes based on gravity, not on an extra magnetic force. To me, that's a clear proof that such force is negligible.


And when they can make the General theory of relativity work on galactic or local cluster scale i will start taking them seriously. Our ability to predict local effects should not be taken as evidence that our theories are any good beyond and that's been proven with the implied absence of 95% of the universes mass under our current 'understanding' of physics. Until we are confident about 95% of the mass i suggest we hold up on the fanfare.


There is indeed direct pressure from solar wind and one can build a solar sail, but that's still a minor effect compared to gravity.


Of the four supposed fundamental forces gravity is by far the weakest but yet we are supposed to believe that it is determines what happens in this universe? What sort of force is gravity to start with if it can clearly be shown to propagate at faster than light speeds? Why are we supposed to believe that gravity is anything other than the effects of electromagnetic interaction? Why do their TOE models have such a impossible time trying to incorporate 'gravity'?


I would say that this is not based on facts. We don't know what gravity is, but saying it's magnetic in nature is as baseless as saying it's based on psychic power.


I should have read his entire post! I would say you don't care for the facts as long as they contradict what you been trained to consider.
We don't know what gravity is because they refuse to consider it part and parcel of regular electromagnetic interaction. The problem is not that it's not readily obvious but that it would imply realisation and technologies that they are not willing to have us understand!

Stellar

[edit on 22-12-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreadphil
reply to post by squiz
 



thank you very much squiz I appreciate the clarification. I am about to watch the video you suggested.This is a very interesting subject to be sure..the way that the EU is being described almost makes me think that what used to be called the "Ether" may not be such a far off concept..sure the language has changed but the basic concept is there..Ill be keeping an eye on this thread and look around for more info on the web...great info from all...


Ether may not be so far off... (Entrained ether, assuming Miller's experiments were succesful, as claimed here.)

www.orgonelab.org...

Only one sources, but makes some interesting points. More research needed with modern methods and materials?

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Giday again all, a most interesting discussion. Most of my time is taken elsewhere, but I regularly check up on the replies to this thread.

A friend in the EU arena recently sent a reminder of a very good paper, for those new to the EU theory to read. It's actually a lecture given by Sci-Fi writer James P Hogan, to a bunch of scientists at the Eglin Air Force Base, and was, by all reports, very well received by them.

Not ALL scientists are of the closed-mind variety.

You can download it from www.jamesphogan.com in fact I've included the pdf in the link, so it will download straight to your machine.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[edit on 07/12/23 by davesmith_au]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by davesmith_au
 


That's a great paper Dave, thanks.
thought I'd pull out a few comments that relate to this thread.


For a start, the calculated density at the center of the Sun is about a hundred times too low to ignite a thermonuclear process. At the indicated temperature of 13,000,000 0K, protons wouldn't have enough energy to overcome their mutual repulsion. The response is to invoke quantum-mechanical tunneling. That permits fusion only when the protons approach each other head-on, which occurs only in a miniscule proportion of cases. But for as long as an interior energy source is insisted on, there is no alternative, and so the conclusion is drawn that the requisite conditions must exist "somehow."......

.....The Z-pinch effect of currents in arc-mode plasmas is extremely powerful. In the photosphere it would be strong enough to fuse nuclei. The Fraunhofer spectrum of the photosphere contains over 27,000 absorption lines that indicate the presence of 68 out of the 92 naturally occurring elements. A problem with the standard model is how heavier elements are transported from the core, where they're supposed to be created, to the surface. Another is where the elements heavier than iron come from, since they can't be produced by thermonuclear fusion. The electrical model says simply that we seen them in the photosphere because that's where they're being made. The simplest way of producing heavy nuclei in laboratories is by using electric fields to accelerate protons or other light nuclei. It's practically 1920s vacuum tube technology. The accelerated particles can be made to fuse with just about any element in the Periodic Table.






A part of the Sun's visible surface or photosphere. The conventional model applies the physics of fluid dynamics as we know it here on Earth, and explains the granulated appearance as being the tops of convection columns. The trouble with that is that at the temperatures and densities involved, the motion should be violently chaotic, not ordered and structured. The quantity that defines a critical limit beyond which orderly motion gives way to complex turbulence is known as the Reynolds Number. Under the conditions prevailing in the photosphere, it's exceeded by a factor of 100 billion. That's not a trivial discrepancy. Similarly, the Rayleigh Number, specifically devised as a criterion for the formation of convection cells, is exceeded by a factor of 100,000.


I especially liked his comments and "modifications" to the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, fascinating stuff and justs reeks of common sense.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by squiz]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
This is a good site for electric stars; www.electric-cosmos.org... Instead of focussing on the sun and its electrical behaviour they take a look at how the electric model can be applied to other stars and bodies in the cosmos.


If the Sun is essentially an electrical phenomenon, as seems the case, and it is also a fairly typical star, then all stars should exhibit properties that are consistent with the Electric Sun (ES) model. Do they? Let us extrapolate the ES model and compare it to what we have observed about stars.


Also i really like the list from their summary; www.electric-cosmos.org...


# The entire cosmos is permeated with plasma. In some regions (within a galaxy, within a solar system) the plasma is denser than it is in others. In some cases the plasma is visible, in some, not. But everywhere our spacecraft have gone - they have found it.

# The electrical properties of plasma vastly outweigh its mechanical (gravitational) properties.

# There is nothing mysterious about magnetic fields. They do not "get tangled up", "break", "merge", or "reconnect". They require moving charges (electric currents) in order to exist.

# The relative distances between even the most densely packed stars are vast in comparison to those stars' diameters.

# The homopolar motor - generator shape seems to be ubiquitous. Stars, pulsars, and galaxies are organized in this morphology.

# The z-pinch effect that occurs in Birkeland currents (electrical currents that flow through plasmas) is responsible for the accretion of stars, planets, and galaxies.

# It is quite possible that the solar system started out as a collinear array of "Herbig - Haro" type objects formed by a z-pinch.

# The presumption that, if an object exhibits redshift, it must be far away - is false.

# The Big Bang Theory is false. It has been defended in a most unscientific way.

# There is a lot more electrical activity out there in the cosmos than astrophysicists seem to want to admit.

# Astrophysicists and cosmologists need to take some courses in electrodynamic field theory and experimental plasma physics.

# Astrophysicists need to stop acting in a "knee-jerk" confrontational way to any new ideas, especially those involving electricity. True professionals do not engage in ad hominum attacks.

# Astrophysicists should stop dreaming up impossible imaginary entities such as black holes, neutron stars, strange matter, WIMPs, MACHOs, and MOND, when a perfectly real and well understood body of knowledge stands ready to explain all the things that "mystify" them so. For anyone who is interested in learning more about these ideas, some important web pages to take a look at are shown on the Links page that follows this one.


If only more scientists would read this type of material i'm sure it would gain more support, the trouble is most scientists dont even know it exists yet.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I just realized something that i cant believe i missed before. Sandia's Z-machine, which produces high energy fusion output, works on X-ray principles. This seems to be exactly what the Japanese spacecraft has found;



originally posted by Squiz


Dec. 06, 2007: Astronomers using Japan's Hinode spacecraft have discovered that the sun is bristling with powerful "X-ray jets." They spray out of the sun's surface hundreds of times a day, launching blobs of hot gas as wide as North America at a top speed of two million miles per hour.



www.nasa.gov...



plasma-universe.com...

The Z machine is the largest X-ray generator in the world and is designed to test materials in conditions of extreme temperature and pressure [....]

[...] When the Z machine fires, the energy from a 20-million-ampere electrical discharge vaporizes an array of thin, parallel tungsten wires, creating plasma. Simultaneously, the electrical current creates a powerful magnetic field that compresses and implodes the plasma by means of a z-pinch process. The imploding cylindrical plasma produces an X-ray pulse which can create a shock wave in a target structure.


Now if thats not strong evidence of Z-pinch fusion powering stars, and not nuclear fusion, then i dont know what is. The key aspect of Z-pinch fusion is that it needs fast and strong electric currents to create energy output, something that astronomers still claim can not happen in a largely neutral universe.

In other words Nuclear fusion can not account for the production of these high energy X-rays we now know are eminating from the sun, but Z-pinch fusion can.

Electric plasma sun: 1

Conventional Nuclear sun: 0



[edit on 30-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Well, another prediction confirmed! Dual hotspots of Saturn. Mainstream didn't expect it. EU did. Not much more to say.

(Sorry I have to split this, but it won't let me paste all the text I need, so I'll split it over 3 posts. Erm, 2nd post was still too long, so 4 posts?? Grr. Annoying caps on post length. Again, apologies.)

(Saturn's Strange Hot Spot; February 4, 2005)
www2.keck.hawaii.edu...

Keck Observatory wrote:

Astronomers using the Keck I telescope in Hawaii are learning much more about a strange, thermal "hot spot" on Saturn that is located at the tip of the planet's south pole. In what the team is calling the sharpest thermal views of Saturn ever taken from the ground, the new set of infrared images suggest a warm polar vortex at Saturn's south pole -- the first to ever be discovered in the solar system. This warm polar cap is home to a distinct compact hot spot, believed to contain the highest measured temperatures on Saturn. A paper announcing the results appears in the Feb. 4th issue of "Science."

A "polar vortex" is a persistent, large-scale weather pattern, likened to a jet stream on Earth that occurs in the upper atmosphere. On Earth, the Arctic Polar Vortex is typically located over eastern North America in Canada and plunges cold artic air to the Northern Plains in the United States. Earth's Antarctic Polar Vortex, centered over Antarctica, is responsible for trapping air and creating unusual chemistry, such as the effects that create the "ozone hole." Polar vortices are found on Earth, Jupiter, Mars and Venus, and are colder than their surroundings. But new images from the W. M. Keck Observatory show the first evidence of a polar vortex at much warmer temperatures. And the warmer, compact region at the pole itself is quite unusual.

[...]

The puzzle isn't that Saturn's south pole is warm; after all, it has been exposed to 15 years of continuous sunlight, having just reached its summer Solstice in late 2002. But both the distinct boundary of a warm polar vortex some 30 degrees latitude from the southern pole and a very hot "tip" right at the pole were completely unexpected.

“If the increased southern temperatures are solely the result of seasonality, then the temperature should increase gradually with increasing latitude, but it doesn't,” added Dr. Orton. “We see that the temperature increases abruptly by several degrees near 70 degrees south and again at 87 degrees south.”

[...]

"One of the obvious questions is whether Saturn's north pole is anomalously cold and whether a cold polar vortex has been established there,” added Dr. Orton. “This is a question that can only be answered by the Cassini's CIRS experiment in the near term, as this region can not be seen from Earth using ground-based instruments."

[...]


End part 1 [...]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
[...] Begin part 2.

(Saturn's Strange Hot Spot Explained; February 5, 2005)
www.holoscience.com...

Wal Thornhill wrote:

The report states the "warm polar vortex at Saturn's south pole is the first to ever be discovered in the solar system." Keck researchers don't seem to have done their homework. Or maybe things that can't be explained get forgotten! Saturn's "warm polar vortex" is NOT "the first to ever be discovered." The Pioneer Venus Orbiter (PVO) discovered a warm "giant vortex of surprisingly complex structure and behaviour located in the middle atmosphere at the north pole of the planet, with a similar feature presumed to exist at the south pole also."*



>>The above diagram shows the main characteristics of the Venusian polar dipole. The diameter of the collar is about 5000 km and the temperature contrast between the hottest part of the chevron and the coldest part of the collar is about 45 K. Credit: F. W. Taylor. Composite image: W. Thornhill.

Just as was found in the very hot "tip" at the pole on Saturn, the polar vortex on Venus is the hottest spot in the planet's upper atmosphere!

Professor Fred Taylor of the of the University of Oxford Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department wrote about the Venusian polar vortex: "the absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations."*

This situation will not be changed until the electrical nature of the universe is acknowledged and scientists studying the solar system and deep space are appropriately trained. The Venusian polar dipole is immediately recognizable to a plasma cosmologist. But plasma cosmology is a paradigm only recently recognized by the electrical engineering fraternity of the IEEE. No university on Earth presents a course in the subject. Metaphysics is preferred in cosmology over sound engineering principles.

The Electric Universe takes plasma cosmology a step further in proposing that a star is primarily an electrical phenomenon, forming a focus within a galactic "glow discharge." Planets are minor "electrodes" within a stellar discharge envelope. The electrical energy is delivered to stars and planets in the manner of a simple Faraday motor.



>>Schematic of the Faraday motor effect upon a planet (or star).


End part 2 [...]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
[...] Begin part 3.

(Saturn's Strange Hot Spot Explained)
www.holoscience.com...

Wal Thornhill continues:

The electromotive power is deposited mostly in the upper atmosphere at mid to low latitudes and gives rise to its "super rotation." That is, the atmosphere races around the planet faster than the planet turns. It is a phenomenon observed on Venus and Titan and remains unexplained by the usual atmospheric physics, which relies mainly on solar heating. It is the cause of the phenomenal winds on the gas giant planets in the outer solar system, where solar heating is minimal. It has implications for the jet streams and weather patterns on Earth as well.

It is obvious, looking at the diagram, that there is a concentrated current flow at the planet's poles. Plasma cosmologists explain that electric current is transferred over vast distances in space by cosmic current filaments. And the filaments tend to organize into "twisted pairs" according to the Biot-Savart force law. It is known as the principle of "doubleness" in current-conducting plasmas. It is intuitively pleasing to see that Nature uses this (well-known to electrical engineers) twisted pair arrangement of conductors to minimize losses. Such filament pairs are called "Birkeland currents."

So we should expect to see evidence of the twisted pair configuration at both poles of Venus, if the input current is sufficiently strong and this model is correct. And that is precisely what was discovered at the north pole of Venus. The two hot spots are the footprints of cosmic Birkeland currents. The Venusian polar dipole shows the precise configuration and motion of Birkeland current pairs in plasma discharge experiments. That includes a surrounding spiral vortex.

The enhanced infrared emission from the polar dipole is due to the dissipation of electrical energy in the upper atmosphere of Venus. The polar dipole has a variable rotation rate and it varies the position of its axis of rotation with respect to that of the planet. It was observed to move 500 km from the Venusian pole in less than a day and return just as quickly. The variable nature of the electrical input to Venus via the Sun and the snaking about of the Birkeland currents explain both these characteristics.

Of particular interest are the linear filaments sometimes seen connecting the opposite sides of the hot spots. Taylor writes: "It is virtually impossible, even with complete license, to begin to speculate in any detail as to what mechanism could give rise to such a curious effect." The answer, in the Electric Universe model is simple. They are a feature seen in simulations of the behavior between two interacting Birkeland current filaments where plasma becomes trapped in the elliptical core between them.

[...]

Returning to Saturn's polar very hot "tip", it should be found on closer inspection to exhibit a similar structure to the Venusian polar dipole. Its compactness is due to the electromagnetic pinch effect where it enters Saturn's atmosphere. The hot spot's behavior should be variable like that on Venus and correlated with the appearance of Saturn's ring spokes, which are a visible manifestation of a heightened equatorial discharge in that part of Saturn's Faraday motor circuit. The Electric Universe also predicts, experimentum crucis, that BOTH poles should be hot, not one hot and the other cold.

[...]


End part 3 [...]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
[...] Begin part 4.

(Scientists find hot spot on Saturn's chilly pole; January 3, 2008)
www.reuters.com...


Saturn's chilly north pole boasts a hot spot of compressed air, a surprising discovery that could shed light on other planets within our own solar system and beyond, researchers said on Thursday.

Scientists already knew about a hot spot at Saturn's sunny south pole but data from the Cassini spacecraft now shows that the winter pole drenched in darkness also has a hot spot, said Nick Teanby, a planetary scientist, who worked on the study.

"With this Cassini mission we can also see the winter pole, which we are not able to see from Earth because of the tilt of the planet," said Teanby of the University of Oxford. "We didn't expect it to have a hot spot at the north."

The hot spot is essentially a small, narrow region hotter than the gas surrounding it, the international team reported in the journal Science.

[...]


Experimentum crucis prediction CONFIRMED.

Another notch on the belt of EU's successful predictions, distinctly different from and, in fact, opposition to the mainstream's erroneous predictions.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

P.S. For more details, as the discussion continues, please see the thread on the Thunderbolts forum here:

(Experimentum Crucis prediction VERIFIED! Saturn's hotspot(s).)
www.thunderbolts.info...

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Now if thats not strong evidence of Z-pinch fusion powering stars, and not nuclear fusion, then i dont know what is.


Zeuss, we seem to have agreed in the parallel thread that there is only one type of fusion, which is nuclear fusion. I also commented that Z-pinch by definition is a transitive phenomenon. There is no proposed current model for stars, so I really don't see how you can claim that a model that does not even exist is superior to the one that does.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I disagree with that based on this fact: the astronauts who spend any amount of time in orbit would be quickly cooked right inside their space vehicles if such energy transfer was of any significant value.


Why are you pretending that the space vehicles do not protect them from such energy flows? Why do astronauts wear space suits?

www.astronautix.com...


I am not pretending anything, StellarX. If you read your own link on the space suit, you'll find that it's about oxygen, and thermal insulation. Now, see the fallacy in your "protection" argument:

if the energy flow was so large as to significantly contribute to the temps in the upper atmosphere, this would lead to significant heating of the space vehicle shell during the solar flare, due to absorption. This was never observed.

You might also find this useful:
www.sirr.unina.it...

There is a huge difference in scale: at the point where radiation is capable of delivering a noticeable thermal energy to the medium, NO PROTECTION is possible for the crew or the gear. Period.



By cross checking the orbital motion of the planets and their moons in the solar system, it is possible to see if it matches with a purely gravity driven picture. And you know, it does.


That depends entirely on what has been presumed to be effects of such a gravitational force. Since when does a theories predictive powers alone serve as proof that the universe really works in a certain way?


Full stop. Experiment is the criterion of truth. We've got plenty. They match our theory that planets move according to gravity, and we need to sometimes include corrections due to relativity for more precision (Mercury orbit being one).



Scientists calculate minute perturbation of the motion of space probes based on gravity, not on an extra magnetic force. To me, that's a clear proof that such force is negligible.


And when they can make the General theory of relativity work on galactic or local cluster scale i will start taking them seriously. Our ability to predict local effects should not be taken as evidence that our theories are any good beyond and that's been proven with the implied absence of 95% of the universes mass under our current 'understanding' of physics. Until we are confident about 95% of the mass i suggest we hold up on the fanfare.


Until you have a model showing that some kind of electric force is governing the motion of planets, and that model matches the data, all this pompous talk about EU and how it is superior to the gravity theory is a sort mental diarrhea.



There is indeed direct pressure from solar wind and one can build a solar sail, but that's still a minor effect compared to gravity.


Of the four supposed fundamental forces gravity is by far the weakest but yet we are supposed to believe that it is determines what happens in this universe?


All of the fundamental forces do. Processes inside stars are governed by strong and weak interactions as much as gravity. But when it comes to some amazing precision flight of a space probe, good old gravity work fine.



Why are we supposed to believe that gravity is anything other than the effects of electromagnetic interaction?


Because this is an entirely empty claim with no foundation in facts.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Actually, I think that in Don Scott's The Electric Sky, it's stated that the sun is powered via an influx (slow drift) of electrons? Though I don't have the book right in front of me to quote chapter & verse as it were.

I'd certainly say that prominences display z-pinch characteristics quite clearly. They're often rather distinctly compressed tubular features. Likewise the so-called "flux tubes" originating in the polar regions of the sun and extending many millions of miles through space, retaining their tube-like shape. It's not uncharacteristic of electric current in plasma to form spiraling or tube-like structures.

In fact, it's most likely the current flow that sustains it. As one knows, when you flick off the current to a plasma globe, the glowing filaments rather immediately radiate away their energy and collapse out of glow mode and into either dark mode or, well, "no mode." :wink:

Likewise, prominences and flares are transitory, only occurring while there's imbalance leading to current input, and collapsing once the imbalance is balanced out.

But, the flux tubes tend to be somewhat more stable over distance. In an article on vortex stabilization of high voltage discharges, Bernard Vonnegut (well-respected mainstream scientist) reveals that in experiment it was possible to stabilize a high voltage discharge by inducing a vortex in the conducting medium.

(STABILIZATION OF A HIGH-VOLTAGE DISCHARGE BY A VORTEX)
/29a448

One of the results of the experiment was that not only did the discharge stabilize, but several factors changed. It transitioned from an arc / spark discharge into a slower but more stable "glow discharge." Probably due to density changes in the material? Not only did it transition to glow mode, but it was able to sustain such a discharge over considerably longer distances.

I tend to view the "flux tubes" as extremely stable "dark mode" discharges. IE, the vortical / filamentary / tube-like nature hints (based on Vonnegut's experiments) that it might be that such a dark discharge is even more stable over even longer distances than its glow mode or arc mode counterparts. On the order of being stable over millions of miles in interplanetary space (as the "flux tubes" appear to be).

Just some thoughts. Hope they help point in the right direction...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Now if thats not strong evidence of Z-pinch fusion powering stars, and not nuclear fusion, then i dont know what is.


Zeuss, we seem to have agreed in the parallel thread that there is only one type of fusion, which is nuclear fusion. I also commented that Z-pinch by definition is a transitive phenomenon.


One might ask, just as a question about z-pinches, do z-pinches produce [nuclear] fusion in the elements / particles involved in the z-pinch (however transitory it is)?

When does the Z-pinch "transit" out of existence? When current flow ceases to be sufficient to maintain arc-mode in plasma, yes? (At which point it reverts to glow mode, dark mode, or no mode...
)

If we see arc mode in plasma, should we then necessarily assume there is a current powering it? Likewise, when we see magnetic fields (as in the "flux ropes" connecting Earth to the Sun and/or vice versa), shouldn't we also be required to acknowledge the powering currents (as Alfven emphatically instructed)?

If so, do we see plasma that appears to be in arc mode with relation to the sun (I'd wager on solar prominences, jets and some solar flares)? If so, must we naturally assume there is a current powering the arc-mode feature?

If we must assume that there is a current powering the arc-mode feature, where does the current come from and how is it maintained?

Mustn't there be a source of current, either from without or within to power the arc-mode features. Again, assuming that the prior assumptions about arc mode, currents and plasma are reasonable...

Just some thoughts to prompt further inquiry / thought. Don't mean to be "definitive" about it, or anything. Though if it's taken as such, c'est la vie.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

P.S. Apologies if I don't respond in a timely manner to responses or queries on this forum as I'm only here transitorily, much as an arc mode discharge or z-pinch. Some might call it a "flash in the pan." I just tend to have other obligations, and such and tend to contribute more on the Thunderbolts forums, of late. Good times!

[edit on 3-1-2008 by mgmirkin]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
This model is quite intriguing.
However from what I've read of electric universe and electric sun theories, stars are positively charged anodes and thus current sources, drawing electrons throughout the universe into these sources. This model does beg a few questions however.

1) How did the positive charges aggregate into a relatively small area (by cosmic standards) as the sun? Electric forces are far stronger than gravitational. What could possibly have caused stars to form in the first place?

2) What holds these charges in place? One would expect them to fly apart. I've seen some models that predict an E field spike that counteracts the expected flow, but it seems somewhat amazing to me.

I haven't been able to find adequate answers to these issues yet on the sites I've read.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
And so for the umpteenth time, science and society in general owes Velikovskii an enormous apology.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Full stop. Experiment is the criterion of truth. We've got plenty. They match our theory that planets move according to gravity, and we need to sometimes include corrections due to relativity for more precision (Mercury orbit being one).


please stop saying that gravity has been tested, gravity has never been directly tested. You are speaking as if you have found the illusive graviton, or as if you have found out why gravity causes mass to attract, no-one knows that. Your statement that gravity has been tested is exactly what is wrong with modern astronomy. Gravity (or the force that is currently thought to be caused only by the attraction of mass, i should say) is unbelievably weak, which makes testing its exact nature nearly impossible without the other forces interfering with the experiment.


Maybe my previous post did not explain it enough for you to understand what i was trying to say. Let me elaborate further.


Newton's Law of Gravity is one of the most useful mathematical formulae ever devised. This little formula has made space travel and the exploration of the Solar System possible. It made satellites possible. . . . Scientists use this little formula to gain an understanding of galaxies far away, and indeed the behaviour of the universe as a whole. It is now more than 300 years since Newton devised this little formula; and we still do now know what causes gravity.


Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and proven with the bounds of the solar system. However, Newtonian gravity remains untested in other areas. All we have is a formula. This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth. This is based on the concept that for each mass of M inside the Earth, it exerts and attractive force of F. We do not know the valid range for Newtonian gravity. Inside Newton's formula is G. G is the "universal gravitational constant". It is assumed, and assumed is the correct word here, that each mass of M exerts the same force of F regardless of where in the universe it may be placed. How did newton work out this assumption? he certainly could not test it back then. It is also assumed that each mass of M exerts the same force F whether it lies on the surface of a planet or star or whether it be deep inside the body.


This assumption rules out the very real possibility that particles near the surface of a body in space might exert a force greater (or less) than those deep down. Its also rules out the very real possibility that other EM forces that are much stronger than gravity can effect these particles. The key to all of our gravity is the mass of the Earth. If the mass of the Earth is wrong, then so are our estimates for those of other bodies. If the mass of the Earth has been overstated, then it follows that the masses of all other bodies in the solar system have also been overstated.


How can we be sure that the Earth really has the mass accorded it by Newtonian gravity? As gravity is so unbelievably weak, is an experiment using two lead balls really representative of the entire Earth? No, of course not, that is probably down to EM forces in the first place, not gravity. There are electrical forces to account for, magnetic forces and (obviously) electromagnetic forces, that are a lot stronger than gravity, that the current theory does not take into account.


There are a number of odd facts that you can draw from Newtons (now ancient) theory of gravity. Either Newton was an absolute genius and worked all of this out nearly perfectly hundreds of years ago, or his theory has been made to fit with the current forces attributed to gravity. Newtons idea of gravity is that all mass attracts equally, a simple idea, that is very hard to disprove due to the weakness of gravity.


I would point out that a lot of what we think we know about space is also based on special assumptions in gravity. If gravity turns out to not to work exactly how it is thought it would mean that the mass of earth is wrong, and so to every other body in space. That throws a lot of modern astronomy out of the window, it would also render things like gravitational lensing and dark matter pointless.


Over all these years you would expect that someone would have tested that gravity is due exclusively to the equal attraction of mass. This could be easily tested by measuring gravity at depths in the earth to see if the strength of the gravitational field drops off proportionally as you descend. According to newtons theory, at the centre of every spherical body in space there is absolutely zero gravity, as it cancels out in all directions. (see newtons shell theorem; en.wikipedia.org...)


So as you descend it should decrease at a roughly constant rate, until you get to the centre where you will be completely weightless. Surprisingly, no-one seems to have tested it. They probably have tested it somewhere, but the results probably did not agree with newtons theory, and so it would not be accepted for any journal. If you could find any data on this, i would greatly appreciate it, i certainly cant find any info on gravity at depths. All journals seem to be surprisingly silent when it comes to ways of confirming certain aspects of newtons theory of gravitation.


I hope that clears some of the misconceptions about the force that has been hypothesized to be due to the attraction of mass, ie. Gravity.




[edit on 4-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
the page at plasma universe on electric stars has been chnaged, so the old links wont work any more. The title of it has changed to the more generic title of Sun and stars. All the refernces to non peer reviewed material had to be removed (even NASA's material), as the site owner is trying to avoid ideas that are considered unorthodox to stop any critisism of his site, which is fair enough.

meanwhile i found Ralph E. Juergens work (one of the original pioneers of the electric sun model) on a website. It was the very first full ES model proposed. A lot of it is still true to this day, some is a bit dated, and the main concept of the electric sun idea is all there;

# The Photosphere: Is It the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun?
From Kronos Vol. IV No. 4 (Summer 1979)

# Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)
From Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1 (Fall 1982)

# Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part II)
From Kronos Vol. VIII No. 2 (Winter 1983)



[edit on 4-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join