New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

Here is some proof against the electric model I dunno what to think about it, so:

www.tim-thompson.com...

And here's the response www.electric-cosmos.org...
It's been written quite a while ago I think, still no response from Tim.

BTW that's an awesome name you have there.

Yet more fuel to the controversies... NASA reverses IPCC findings on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), says that global climate change is forced by the Sun!



Hmm, interesting... Here's the prior article they linked to:

science.nasa.gov...



Now, I just happened to be perusing Don Scott's The Electric Sky and Thornhill/Talbott's The Electric Universe recently. So I had a particular diagram fresh in my head, and as some may know, I love to compare and contrast, plucking odd snippets out of the entrained aether...

Doesn't the solar circuit proposed by Alfven, and quoted in The Electric Sky and The Electric Universe look suspiciously like the stripped-down "conveyor belt" image from the NASA release? Only more technical, and probably more accurate, being based on predictions coming out of actual lab work with plasmas.



Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

As you say, quite interesting...

I don't profess to be an expert. I've done a bit of reading (being new, there's a learning curve; sometimes a steep one), but there's still plenty more reading to be done. Enough to last a lifetime, methinks.

I might proffer a roundabout quote from Alfven. It went something to the effect that "gravitational systems can be considered the ashes of prior electrical systems." IE, the electrical interactions do the "heavy lifting," until such point as gravitation interactions are capable of taking over and the electrical current quenches. One would assume that if the materials are insufficient for gravity to "take over" after the current, then it wouldn't and you get something more like a nebula or some such? Hard to say. I probably wouldn't speculate. You may wish to send an inquiry to the thunderbolts.info site administrators. Being busy, I don't know if they could guarantee a timely response. But, it's worth a shot. They're generally a friendly bunch and try not to bite folks with courteous questions.

It's not to say that the Electric Universe eschews the force of gravity. To the contrary. It has been observed and used successfully for some time. Its origins, however are still a bit mysterious. Wal Thornhill has some ideas on where gravity may originate from. I haven't yet fully read his material on that just yet. It's on something of a to-do list.

Returning to the "gravitational systems being the ashes of prior electrical systems" bit, I might point toward something called Marklund convection. In essence it is a scavenging of charges and materials from surrounding regions of space in the process of a z-pinch, if I recall correctly. Thus, if I recall right, the very process of a current filament pinching down also draws in surrounding materials A) enriching the regions of the discharge with more material B) depleting the region AROUND the discharge. This might be one reason the universe appears to display a filamentary nature with voids between. The voids may have been literally vacuumed out by the filaments and/or Marklund convection. Just a thought.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Before my time. But, if it's so, so be it.

I think that, from what I've heard, Velikovsky was a "mixed bag" so to speak. Some things may have been right (opening the door to the discussion of electrical interactions in interplanetary, interstellar & intergalactic space), some things may have been wrong (specific timelines and interpretations of some celestial events and/or local / non-universal mythological archetypes)...

Again, from my second-hand understanding, if nothing else we owe Velikovky a debt for "starting the conversation," so to speak, even if his work doesn't turn out to be the definitive "end-all, be-all" and requires a bit more thorough reconsideration.

But, one last time: before my time, so I've nothing invested in that particular discussion.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

One might also rightly point to the pioneering work of Charles Bruce:
Selected works of Charles Bruce

Likewise, one might point to some of the works of Eric Crew:
Lightning in Astronomy
New Light on the Sun
Solar Physics: Magnetism's Blind Alley
Electrons in the early Universe

Though they perhaps don't go specifically into the "Electric Sun model," they do make for interesting reading...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Next thing the tabloids will be posting this as more proof we live in an artificial universe or miniverse on someones night stand or table and they're plugged into it like the Matrix with a temporal connection in some type of simulated reality game.

reply to post by mgmirkin

---

Some very interesting reading material you have linked us to. I guess I'll be busy on this for a while, trying to wrap my head around this. Just skimming, it seems that here we can get a bit more of the basics, which helps with understanding some of the finer points of the arguement for this theory.

Thanks.

I found this interesting in light of the THEMIS discovery.
From the TRACE site.



I’d say we have a pretty good answer for that now.



trace.lmsal.com...

And add another to the list…


arxiv.org...

Hasn't this already been proven by NASA during the tether experiment? It was my understanding that they were able to capture waaaaaaaaaay more energy than the tether could withstand.

Seems there was a news post on the topic elsewhere on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've added a link to my Slashdot journal post(s) over there. Feel free to check it out:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guess that if folks want to add to the discussion over there, they can feel free. Don't know if the folks over there will be quite as interested in in the words "universe" and "electric" appearing in the same sentence (not necessarily in that order). So, I've not alluded to it. I don't want to make it a knee-jerk type issue, which it shouldn't be. It's simply about a news release and interpretation, an experimentum crucis and a confirmation of the prediction. That's all it should be about, in my opinion. Anything about EU tends to polarize the discussion and sometimes leads toward EU-bashing rather than a discussion of the issue at hand. Granted, the predictions was experimentum crucis for the EU. But I'd rather simply talk about it being an experimentum crucis between Wal Thornhill's prediction and the original Keck interpretation, which is all that it should be rightly about in discussion (which interpretation had better predictive ability?).

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Yeah, but they base their gamey cr@p on mysticism, metaphysics and what they think the "pulp fiction" audience wants to hear to sell papers.

Would be nice if they'd base an article or two on ACTUAL physics / science, once in a while. Just to throw people a curve ball. :wink:

C'est la vie...

~Michael Gmirkin

[edit on 9-1-2008 by mgmirkin]

Any time! Always good to meet open-minded fellows.

Hopefully not TOO open minded (to the point of not knowing up from down). :wink:

Way too much stuff to read in one lifetime. But that never stopped me from trying!

~Michael Gmirkin

[edit on 9-1-2008 by mgmirkin]

I seem to recall the tether basically shorted a small portion of the ionosphere, which was the end of that experiment pretty quickly. Probably passed through a double layer, or simply moving the conductor through the charged particles / magnetic fields induced a current in the tether.

It's been a while since I read the interpretations of the event. So, don't quote me on it. ;o] Not an authority, by any stretch...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Wait a second. How much more "directness" do you want in a measurement, compared to the study of celestial bodies? An object moves under the influence of a force, you map out that force... Same applies to studying electromagnetic interactions. I say what we see is pretty damn direct.

If you are talking about very large distances, you are right, there hasn't bee a direct confirmation. We all know that. However, inside the Solar system things cross-check to an amazing degree.



I never said I found the elusive graviton or that I have a firm grap of how gravity works (not any more than most physisists). Likewise, I could say that you sound like you fully understand electromagnetism. Do you? What is the nature of attraction between negative and positive charges?

All I said was that we know gravity fairly well, enough to send space vehicles around and calculate subtle effects in the behavior of planet Mercury and such. You want to replace gravity with electromagnetism for some reason, and you can't offer any model for that. I just find this bizzare. Kepler's laws work, trust me.




Wait a sec, didn't Cavendish first tackle pretty subtle measurements of gravity, centuries ago? A lot of mesurements in science are difficult, so what, what kind of argument is that? Nearly impossible? Not for those who know what they are doing. Detecting neutrinos ain't easy either, and yet we do it rather well now.




That does not invlaidate it in any way, and it doesn't mean that it's due to EM phenomena, at all. As I said, we don't know why exactly charges attract. We can draft field equations that describe such things, but that's about it. So your point is moot.



That's bull. When you fly a probe to Saturn, you have a direct way of watching its trajectory and seeing whether it behaves like it should, in the gravitational field.



I don't recommend stepping into an open elevator shaft, because you may find otherwise.

The force that we measure is direct, correct. The cause of that force is not direct. I have always tended to favour some of the electrogravitic models that have been proposed, mainly due to the large amount of gravitational anomalies associated with electrical processes. You have the Podkletnov gravitational-shielding machines, the Casmir effect, the Bifield brown effect and many more process's that seem to be able to negate gravity. There have been many effects achieved with rotating superconductors, and superconductors get their characteristics from electrical processes also. This lifter is a fine example;

YouTube Link

When it lifts off the ground the whole of the earths mass should be pulling it back down, and yet a simple high voltage electrical effect seems to be able to overpower it.



If you look at the amount of effects associated with electrical devices and gravitational anomalies i would say that is pretty damn good evidence that gravity works electromagnetically.

This is one of the better models i have seen about for electrogravitics, which is based on the effects that an ions non uniform electrical field will have on the geometry of electron orbits. Although i would not call it a definitive model, it does well to show that a secondary effect of EM forces and fields could occur from geometric properties of particles.



In most electrical models it is useful to consider electrical fields as uniform, for one it makes the equations a lot easier to manage and secondly the larger up in scale you go the more uniform they do become. However at an atomic level the electric fields are not uniform, they diverge away from each other as they increase in distance from the source. It is very hard to conceptualize this unless you illustrate the magnetic field lines in a completely different way than they are usually described. By drawing the lines of the field parallel to the atom, and not in the usual circular form, you can see this more clearly.



and since the proton and the electron repel this will result in the atom being attracted to the area of highest electrical field, ie where the most particles are.





The problem is the probes that map out the forces in space then use these forces to calculate what the mass of every planet in the solar system is and of other bodies in space, and all that assumes that the only thing causing this force is the mass of the planets and gravity. So it follows that if the force attributed to gravity is not due exclusively to the attraction of mass then these calculations to work out the mass of bodies in space are completely worthless. That was the main point i was trying to make.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...



[edit on 10-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Squiz, did you also post this thread on another board? If so, that's fine, but if not, it appears that your thread has been plagiarized pretty much word for word and link for link by one of our competitors.

www.godlikeproductions.com...

Zeuzz, I don't know what to make of your statement, as you surely understand that the shown experiment has nothing to fo with superconductors or rotating superconductors.



Zeuss, if you want to learn physics, you need to tone down the drama in your descriptions of simple physics processes. Whole earth and all that.

I have an air purifier that's based on applying high voltage to a set of electrodes. There is a very noticeable airflow emanating from this small device. The inside construction is generally similar to what was shown in the video.

It is important that you realize that there is no electro-gravitics in this. Electric discharge produces ions, ions are ejected by high voltage. Same principle as in ion drive used in spacecraft. I've seen an actual drive to be installed on a Soviet craft once.



I just happen to totally disagree. I need to see a paper in a peer-reviewed journal which contains the specifics.



Right, because there is no reason to assume that on the scale we've studied so well there is absolutely anything in addition to plain old gravity. Things may work differently in other situations, but -- things cross-check in the Solar system. If you postulate that there is force X that behave in a way identical to gravity, I find this a completely extraneous proposition.



[edit on 10-1-2008 by buddhasystem]

You really dont get it do you. I am not saying that anything behaves identically to gravity, i am saying that the force that we think is due to the attraction of mass (gravity) could be caused by other EM properties.

The force due to gravity is known, and the key point here, which is assumed to be caused by the attraction of mass. As my previous post showed the attraction could be achieved from atoms electromagnetic properties. If that were true then the only way to overcome gravity is with mass, but electric devices seem to produce similar effects. And you cant just pass it off as an ion wind as most people do, please call it an electric current. Its the same as the solar 'wind', it gives the completely wrong impression about what flowing charge is.

I have seen it described as a "Ionic Breeze" mechanism, "Ion drift" "Ionic propulsion" and others, but what it really should be called is an electric current, as it is the flow of ions traversing a potential difference.

wikipedia has quite a detailed page on these, and even there they describe it as an electrogravitic, or "electrohydrodynamic" device.



[edit on 10-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

reply to post by ZeuZZ

---

I invite you to read more from the Wiki article you quoted:



You, as they say, a reference to "gravity" is a misnomer here. I find it astounding that you choose to drag gravity into this, even though it must be obvious that it doesn't belong in this issue.