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: 8
114
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
You really dont get it do you.


I actually get it, and I also get that your logic is flawed:


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.


First, if something (force X) behaved differently from gravity, it would be evident in what we observe happening in the Solar system. So in fact you MUST assume that it behaves in an idetnical manner.


As my previous post showed the attraction could be achieved from atoms electromagnetic properties.


I visited the link you provided and it's a bunch of amateurish crap. Atoms? What about plasmas? So plasma is not subject to gravity? What about neutrons bouncing in the gravity field? No atoms there for sure.




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.



I never used the term antigravity. It does well to show that by means of electrical processes you can create thrust. Whats to say that the billions of particles streaming through your body now are not creating a similar effect? Of course, that is highly unlikely, but thats the point; we just dont know. How gravity works is completely unknown. I am just postulating a possible mechanism by which it may work.

Also I cant see how you can say gravity does not come into this issue when the whole point of that device is for a voltage to create propulsion from the ejected particles to overcome gravity. It does well to show the comparitive weakness of gravity to EM effects. It was not the best example i admit, but there are far more effects that are in the process of being ivestigated to do with EM forces and gravity. In terms of peer reviewed journal entries on them i think they are quite lacking as journals are quite hesitant to publish this sort of stuff. Some universities have confirmed the Podkletnov Gravitational-Shield effect, and work is ongoing.
www.sciencedaily.com...


news.softpedia.com...

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

This gravitomagnetic field is similar to the magnetic field produced by a moving electric charge (hence the name "gravitomagnetic" analogous to "electromagnetic"). For example, the electric charges moving in a coil produce a magnetic field – such a coil behaves like a magnet. Similarly, the gravitomagnetic field can be produced to be a mass moving in a circle. What the electric charge is for electromagnetism, mass is for gravitation theory (the general theory of relativity).


I think it far more likely that charge and other EM effects are what cause gravity, rather than purely mass.



[edit on 10-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

I never used the term antigravity. It does well to show that by means of electrical processes you can create thrust.


Right, people invented electric fans a very long time ago, and fans do create thrust. There is no gravity connection.


Whats to say that the billions of particles streaming through your body now are not creating a similar effect? Of course, that is highly unlikely, but thats the point; we just dont know.


You don't know whether I am an android form the Galaxy who is studying ATS for the benefit of the supreme being Zmorrg, who is a giant pulsating brain in the center of a neutron star. You just don't know. I find it silly to drag nore unknowns into a problem unless you absolutely have to. And you don't.


Also I cant see how you can say gravity does not come into this issue when the whole point of that device is for a voltage to create propulsion from the ejected particles to overcome gravity.


Are you intentionally doing these non-sequiturs or what? When a woman gets pregnant, her belly is distended and the gravity force acting on her becomes bigger. I fully expect you to claim that this is due to effects of the male sperm, which in fact contains gravitons and possibly, microscopic black holes. Or that jet fuel has antigravity characteristics because planes fly. Yes, your paragraph above is just about as silly, I'm sorry to say.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Right, people invented electric fans a very long time ago, and fans do create thrust. There is no gravity connection.


That is quite a different process. In that instance it is the rotation of the fan causing the thrust, not the voltage of the fan repelling particles. When particles are accelorated away from a high voltage body you would call that an electrical process, and so i think that my terminology of this as an electrogravitic effect is fully justified. It is using a voltage to repel particles to counter the force of gravity. In your case the voltage is powering the fan. full stop. Its then the fan that creates the thrust by rotation, the electricity has nothing directly to do with the actual motion of the particles.

And to keep this slighlty to the OP, this is a similar process that is occuring on the sun. It is at a high voltage and is repelling +ve ions and attracting -ve ions, leading to a constant stream of particles into and out of the sun from the surrounding galaxy. When i am less busy i will will explain in more detail some of the models about.




You don't know whether I am an android form the Galaxy who is studying ATS for the benefit of the supreme being Zmorrg, who is a giant pulsating brain in the center of a neutron star. You just don't know. I find it silly to drag nore unknowns into a problem unless you absolutely have to. And you don't.




That is true, i certainly dont know that, but logic and common sense would tell me that that is absurd.

proposing a mechanism for something that currently does not have a mechanism by which to work is surely a rational thing to do.

I'm going to start a new thread to discuss gravity soon, as this is not the right thread to be doing it, lets try to keep this thread to electric stars.


[edit on 10-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Right, people invented electric fans a very long time ago, and fans do create thrust. There is no gravity connection.


That is quite a different process. In that instance it is the rotation of the fan causing the thrust, not the voltage of the fan repelling particles. When particles are accelorated away from a high voltage body you would call that an electrical process, and so i think that my terminology of this as an electrogravitic effect is fully justified.



No. Both in the fan and in the high-voltage ionic breeze there are moving parts that produce movement of the air. In the fan, this is the rotor, in the ionic device, these are the ions that physically move through the air and grad it along, so in essense they are not different from rotor blades.

In both cases the movement of the "propulsion actuator", be it a blade or an ion, is caused by electromagnetic forces, and energy is supplied from an electric source. There is no gravity component in this whole process.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
i really can't by the whole electric sun theory... the sun is a self-sustaining engine, and will run out of fuel.
the whole electromagnetic properties is fueld by the massive thermonuclear reaction inside the sun, in my opinion fusing 6 million tons of hydrogen every second could make anything happen... and soon we will have explainations of all our questions.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
What is the causation of gravity, then Buddha?

I think i have my answer (but will keep it to myself because i do not have much evidence to support it yet)...but what do you say?

As well, how do you think electromagnetism influences light? Can you "bend" light with electromagnetic force, in your estimation?

________________________________________________

Whomever it was that states they don't buy the EU theory (i didn't get the name before writing this post...but it is right above)....have you really read into it? Do you understand the theory? Do you know what a Birkelund current is? If not, then you might wish to read up a little more before completely discounting it. Choosing to believe in a thermonuclear furnace doesn't answer all of the anomolous findings found in such a belief system.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
well in general gravity is a warping of space right, usually space warped by matter...
i dont know how electromagnitism could bend light waves since light is apart of the electromagnetic spectrum... and since light is composed of photons a massless and neutral particle (just a ball of light)

but, since energy and mass are exchangeable (e=mc2) electromagnetic energy could warp space the same as matter and change the direction of light just like high gavity...

[edit on 10-1-2008 by tilly21]

[edit on 10-1-2008 by tilly21]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tilly21
 


1.) If the sun is powered by a thermonuclear reaction, please explain how it is that the corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere.

2.) The solar 'wind', or ion 'stream', is not only quite variable, but has been known to stop completely. Explain this with a thermonuclear model.


The standard model cannot explain these, nor almost any other facets of the sun's behaviour. Though I'd like to see you try...


Cheers, Dave Smith.
PlasmaResources.com



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by davesmith_au
 


reply to question 1--well there are many theories as to why the corona is hotter than the surface... one is the powerful magnetic fields wrapping around the sun like a corkscrew flowing thru the corona. just like the solor wind energeticly interacts with the Earths magnetic field (the escaping particles are "re-excited" as they pass thru these fields) it is still debateable, but the electromagnetic theory cant explain much either now.

because if this energy is flowing into the sun, then why is the corona cooler than the core? and thus the surface cooler than both? (hot to cold to hotter)

and how does this theory explain sun birth and death? wouldn't an unlimitless energy source allow stars to never die? yet we have proof of stellar death.

reply to question 2--currently particles leaving the sun take a very long and irratic path to the surface of the sun... it takes particles anywhere 100,000 to a million years to make the journey from the core to the surface... there could have been a diminishing of thermonuclear activity or period with little detectible particles (anywhy this had to have happened a long time ago) but the internal pressure (the heat and trillions upon tillions of bouncing nuclei) can still fight gravity... besides the fact the sun is not massive enough to collapse in on itself because it does NOT have the mass of the Chandrasekhar limit

The suns core is not like a timed machine... it is very irratic these reactions all happen by chance... but probability say they MUST happen because conditions are ripe for them to occur







[edit on 13-1-2008 by tilly21]

[edit on 13-1-2008 by tilly21]

[edit on 13-1-2008 by tilly21]

[edit on 13-1-2008 by tilly21]

[edit on 13-1-2008 by tilly21]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
but then again i am just stating my side (i am not saying i am right). one of us could be right but we could both be wrong, the universe is still a big place and we are still getting aquainted with it.

i just really enjoy talking about space



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by tilly21
reply to question 1--well there are many theories as to why the corona is hotter than the surface... one is the powerful magnetic fields wrapping around the sun like a corkscrew flowing thru the corona. just like the solor wind energeticly interacts with the Earths magnetic field (the escaping particles are "re-excited" as they pass thru these fields) it is still debateable, but the electromagnetic theory cant explain much either now.



Another team of Hinode researchers led by Bart De Pontieu of Lockheed-Martin have found evidence for more Alfven waves coming from a layer of the sun's atmosphere called the chromosphere. (The chromosphere is to the sun as the troposphere is to Earth; both are near-surface layers of atmosphere.) These Alfven waves are not launched by jets but rather by turbulent motions within the chromosphere itself. "If we add all the Alfven waves together, the ones from the chromosphere plus the ones from X-ray jets, it may be enough to solve the mystery of coronal heating," says Cirtain.

source

This is based on the standard model, as you can see, if we take a little from here and a little from there we MAY have an explanation.


The corona is an electric arc glow, yes it even looks like one. If the energy is an external source this is where the heat should be present, in the suns double layer.


because if this energy is flowing into the sun, then why is the corona cooler than the core? and thus the surface cooler than both? (hot to cold to hotter)


In the electric model the core is not hotter, that is an assumption not a fact. The standard model is the model at odds with thermodynamics, like you mentioned hot, cold, hot.


and how does this theory explain sun birth and death? wouldn't an unlimitless energy source allow stars to never die? yet we have proof of stellar death.


Well even the astrophysicists working with the standard theory acknowledge that the gravitational collapse origin of stars is plagued with problems, Birkeland currents are ultimately responsible for the birth of stars.
In the electric universe supernovae are also exploding stars, this sort of brings up the whole stellar evolution and the various types of stars, size and current density are the key factors differentiating the types of stars not age. A few links below may help answer those questions.


These cosmic electric currents are the most efficient scavengers of dust and gas in space. Matter is squeezed or “pinched” toward the current axis by a strong force that varies inversely with radial distance from the axis. Contrast that with the weak force of gravity, which falls off rapidly with the square of distance. Stars are formed like beads strung along a cosmic power line with their rotation axes aligned along the current filaments. Evidence for that model comes from the alignment of the spin axes of stars with the magnetic field in giant molecular clouds. The effect is rather like the old toy spinning tops, with the helical thread plunger passed through them to impart spin. The strong electromagnetic coupling between the proto-star and its environment is also capable of removing angular momentum during collapse - a severe problem for the gravitational collapse model of stars.


www.electric-cosmos.org...
www.holoscience.com...
www.thunderbolts.info...



reply to question 2--currently particles leaving the sun take a very long and irratic path to the surface of the sun... it takes particles anywhere 100,000 to a million years to make the journey from the core to the surface... there could have been a diminishing of thermonuclear activity or period with little detectible particles (anywhy this had to have happened a long time ago) but the internal pressure (the heat and trillions upon tillions of bouncing nuclei) can still fight gravity... besides the fact the sun is not massive enough to collapse in on itself because it does NOT have the mass of the Chandrasekhar limit.


Not only must the particles escape gravity, but an explanation as to why they continue to accelerate with increased distance from the sun is also required, from a gravitational view it should be the opposite. Hmmm.... so how do we accelerate particles here on earth?

I understand your skepticism Tilly, it can sound strange when you've been taught something contrary all your life. If your interested in discussing it further I suggest going back to the beginning of the thread, and checking the links provided throughout, so you can see that there is quite a bit of evidence to support this theory, as well as a substantial amount of major problems with the standard theory



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
well i guess we can agree to disagree
... i still stand by these theories. they just make more sense to me, just like the elctro-sun theory make more sense to you. i would like to read some more on this and get back with you if i have questions.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
The corona is an electric arc glow, yes it even looks like one.


Unbelievable! "It glows, must be an arc!". It's like in most computer games, "radiation" must glow.

Really, thanks for a good chuckle. You know, I saw Cherenkov radiation once inside a nuclear reactor, it was glowing... Apparently, everybody missed the fact that it's an arc!



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Unbelievable! "It glows, must be an arc!". It's like in most computer games, "radiation" must glow.

Really, thanks for a good chuckle. You know, I saw Cherenkov radiation once inside a nuclear reactor, it was glowing... Apparently, everybody missed the fact that it's an arc!


Wow. First of all, he didn't state that it must be an arc because it is glowing... Is that the type of reasoning you employ?

Second, if this is really the first time you have heard that corona can be caused by/is related to arc discharge phenomena, come back after doing a bit more research.

edit: here is a ppt explaining some basics Power Point on Discharge Types (Moogega Cooper, Drexel)


[edit on 14-1-2008 by Ionized]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by squiz
The corona is an electric arc glow, yes it even looks like one.


Unbelievable! "It glows, must be an arc!". It's like in most computer games, "radiation" must glow.

Really, thanks for a good chuckle. You know, I saw Cherenkov radiation once inside a nuclear reactor, it was glowing... Apparently, everybody missed the fact that it's an arc!


Would it not seem that your post does not follow civility and decorum?






Originally posted by behindthescenes
1. How will you differentiate "personal attacks" versus legit conspiracy chat regarding members and non-members alike?



Any post that contains commentary that focuses on a person's capabilities or credibility would apply.


Skeptic Overlords Clarification Of Civility/Decorum



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
First of all, he didn't state that it must be an arc because it is glowing... Is that the type of reasoning you employ?


Well, my reasoning might be off mark here, but what kind of logic in your opnion can be extracted form this:

The corona is an electric arc glow, yes it even looks like one



The Powerpoint slides you referred me too aint bad. A little dry, but a nice refresher. Now, what these have to do with the solar corona, isn't clear at all.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Would it not seem that your post does not follow civility and decorum?


No it wouldn't. Every member has a right to note a lack of logic in another member's post, and same applies to this delightful example:


The corona is an electric arc glow, yes it even looks like one


I am sorry, but the following does not remotely look like discharge in a spherically shaped capacitor... Note the loops...



[edit on 14-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

You'll find I'm in pretty good company with that comment.

Your egocentric comments betray you, your not a Buddhist are you Buddha?

Congratulations on finding a coronal loop.


I'll re post something from an earlier post, which you obviously filtered out of your err... "reasoning".


Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle

Gamma rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops….

……other quantitative measurements on the Sun revealed puzzling hints that a solar CNO cycle operates near the solar surface, where H, He, C and N are abundant, rather than in the Sun's interior.

Gamma-rays from nuclear reactions in a solar-flare-induced electrical discharge.

arxiv.org...

I see it's pointless in debating the issue properly with you, I'll apply a great philosophy from Confucius in your case, which I won't mention here.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


It's funny you call me egocentric for pointing out holes in your exposition of the supposed electric discharge between the alleged "shells" that forms the solar corona. Thing is, the model you are trying to push is not compatible with the loops at all.

Nobody doubts that the magnetic and electric fields on the Sun's surface are a very complicated business. However, for you to claim that you have found a viable explanation for the corona phenomena as well as the solar energy generation mechanism is quite premature at the very best.

By the way, I didn't "find" the loops. I've know about them for a long time.
The link you posted is very interesting but it does not hint in any way that any significant portion of the total Sun's energy is produced on the surface.





[edit on 15-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join