Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Basically, electricity is only magnetic force.

Well, if we believe in Maxwell's equations, that sort of follows, doesn't it?

Alternating current through a oscilloscope looks like a wave.

Current though an oscilloscope... An interesting idea. How many amps do you plan on using?

The UP is the North pole, and the DOWN is the South pole of the magnetic current AC wave.

Magnetic current... Sounds cools but still bull.

This explains why there is electromagnetism outside of electrical wires

It does?

because magnetism is flowing through the wires.

Wait, you said electricity was the only magnetic force. Now there is some kind of mysterious "magnetism".

Once you find out it is true, you then see how all matter, all atoms, are held together with magnetic force.

Oh really? Is it measurable?

Once you learn the laws of magnetism, you will see we are all connected, and working together to form ONE giant magnetic force.

Have you learned "the laws of magnetism"? Based on your post, I strongly doubt that.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Basically, electricity is only magnetic force.

Well, if we believe in Maxwell's equations, that sort of follows, doesn't it?

Please explain why you need other people to do your thinking? Please explain to my why you don't experiment like Maxwell, but you only read?

I could tell you 100 scientific experiments that prove electricity is only magnetic force running in streams.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Current though an oscilloscope... An interesting idea. How many amps do you plan on using?

Interesting idea? It's not an idea... its a real tool. Do you even know what an oscilloscope is? I suggest you download Multisim and EXPERIMENT. Get an AC power source and connect it to the oscilloscope, and you can physically see the North and South of magnetic force working together to travel through wire.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Magnetic current... Sounds cools but still bull.

Really now? Please tell me why generators, alternators, and dynamos, and almost every "electrical power plant" uses MAGNETS to create electricity? That is because the electricity is IN the magnets. The magnetic force IS the electricity. The only reason we call it "electricity" is because we happened to only use Direct Current first, which deceived us to think electricity is one sided, when it is really two sided (AC current).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait, you said electricity was the only magnetic force. Now there is some kind of mysterious "magnetism".

WHAT?!!?!

You don't make sense. I said electricity is MAGNETIC FORCE. Magnetic force (magnetism) is electricity. Did that reach your peanut?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh really? Is it measurable?

Yup your science has already found it. I am not making this up, it is TRUE.
en.wikipedia.org...

All particles in this universe have an "electric charge", this is electromagnetism. All matter, all life, every atom, has magnetic force around it. Everything is magnetic.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Have you learned "the laws of magnetism"? Based on your post, I strongly doubt that.

Yes I have actually. I have been experimenting with physics and magnetics and electronics my entire life.

I know "likes repel, opposites attract".

I know "magnets grow strength in numbers".

I know "magnets loose strength with distance".

I know pretty much all of everything about magnetism. I even know how magnetism runs through wires, and objects, and matter. I even know how to create my own magnets with electricity. I can make my own permanent magnets on the fly, and I can even make one fly.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Please explain why you need other people to do your thinking? Please explain to my why you don't experiment like Maxwell, but you only read?

But I do, mon ami. I've done more physics experiments in my life that you ever dreamt of. I taught physics lab at an Ivy League school in addition to that. So take heed and listen, because any other mode of behavior would be silly at this juncture.

I could tell you 100 scientific experiments that prove electricity is only magnetic force running in streams.

I'm all freaking ears. Seriously. I'm waiting to be surprised.

Interesting idea? It's not an idea... its a real tool. Do you even know what an oscilloscope is?

Sure, my favorites are Tektronix for analogue and LeCroy for digital. What are your favorite models? I actually had a drink with Mr. LeCroy when I worked for L3.

I suggest you download Multisim and EXPERIMENT. Get an AC power source and connect it to the oscilloscope, and you can physically see the North and South of magnetic force working together to travel through wire.

I don't need to listen to boy scouts who ran pre-fab simulations on their parents' PC when it comes to the conduct of a physics experiment. And "physically see" a North pole on the simulated screen of simulated knowledge.



[edit on 30-1-2008 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I know "likes repel, opposites attract".

I know "magnets grow strength in numbers".

I know "magnets loose strength with distance".

I know pretty much all of everything about magnetism.

Oh, and I needed to add: such depth of knowledge blows my mind!

Surely, equipped with knowledge like THAT, you can explain the mysteries of the Universe. I'm not holding my breath, though.

reply to post by ZeuZZ


Okay, first off, let me just explain that I like the electric star model. It makes sense on a lot of levels, and I'd like to hear of more solid research into the idea.

However, whenever I see someone making claims like you are in this particular post, my skept-o-meter goes off. The idea that science is absolutely dogmatic and your theories are so revolutionary that they would shatter the scientific universe are ludicrous, to say nothing of the concept that a lot of scientists would be left looking foolish. Fact is, they would remain right where they were, while whoever proves the new theory races up to join their ranks. Hawking did not make Einstein look like an idiot, Copernicus did not make Aristotle look foolish. Basically your post - this one, at any rate - screams of conceit and a lack of understanding of how the scientific community works.

It's not a conspiracy to oppress your great and wonderful ideas. it's a meritocracy encouraging you to gather and provide absolutely as much data as you can for your theories.

I have often spoke about this issue as if i really understood electricity and the like and since that's just not the case it's probably best that i either stop or direct my claims at someone who do in fact know exactly what people in this field were taught.

These are a few statements and some of the questions i would like to discuss:

It's been known since the days of Faraday and Maxwell that if you wave a magnet back and forth in the vicinity of a conducting wire, a current is induced in the wire. The same thing takes place in the sun's atmosphere. Oscillating magnetic fields generate currents that flow through the highly ionized gases above the photosphere and in the corona. How does that heat the corona? When current flows through a resistor some of the energy is dissipated as heat. A common light bulb is a good analogy. Electricity moves through a partially conducting filament, the filament glows and it also become very hot. Again, the question hinges on better observations of magnetic fields and plasmas in the corona. Scientists know that there is some resistive dissipation of energy in the corona, but they can't be sure how much.

There is no shortage of ideas about what may heat the corona. Microflares, magnetic and acoustic waves, and electrical dissipation are all good candidates, but the observed energy flux into the corona from each of these mechanisms is about an order of magnitude too low to account for coronal heating. More and better data are needed to finally reveal the culprit.

"My bet is that it's going to be some mixture," says Hathaway, "but only time will tell! When we do know, we'll have solved one of the big mysteries in astrophysics."

science.nasa.gov...

Since current is what it's all about we can deduce that some interaction between a magnet ( dipole) and the circuit results in a transfer of energy ( however you want to call it) that results in a electron flow in the circuit. Since that seems to be the case why do we perpetually need to use fossil fuels to separate charges thus supposedly leading to a electron flow? Why not just maintain the charges?

Most modern generators with field coils feature a capability known as self-excitation where some of the power output from the rotor is diverted to power the field coils. Additionally the rotor or stator contains a small amount of magnetizable metal, which retains a very weak residual magnetism when the generator is turned off. The generator is turned on with no load connected, and the initial weak field creates a weak flow in the field coils, which in turn begins to slightly affect the rotor to begin to produce current that then further strengthens the field. This feedback loop continues to increase field voltage and output power until the generator reaches its full operating output level.

This initial self-excitation feedback process does not work if the generator is started connected to a load, as the load will quickly dissipate the slight power production of the initial field buildup process.

en.wikipedia.org...

Why do we allow the destruction of the dipole ( which is what separated charges represents) by always attaching loads big enough to dissipate them without additional energy to keep the charges separated?

This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

I do not find the proposed explanation in the stated paper useful in explaining how the same field that is supposedly the result of electron flow is in fact ,according to theory, getting their energy from the electron flow? Which is in fact the cause and which the effect and how has this been resolved?

Schlichting (1991) provided a striking example of how students do not see what actually is to be seen but what their conceptions allow them to see, so to speak. He presented the experimental setup shown in Figure 6 to a grade 10 class and asked where the thin wire starts glowing when the circuit is closed. There were three different predictions. (1) The wire will glow first at the left or the right side depending of the assumption of direction of current flow taken as current enters the wire there. (2) The wire will glow up First in the middle as two kinds of current (see above) will come together in the middle. (3) The wire will simultaneously glow up at all places (the correct view). After the prediction the experiment was carried out. Almost everybody saw what he or she expected.

www.physics.ohio-state.edu...

Would the same be true if the experiment were conducted on large enough scale to show that the heating effect happens everywhere at once and not at the speed of light along the circuit?

I have some additional questions but maybe you will type more with less questions.

Thanks

Stellar

[edit on 31-1-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

It's not a conspiracy to oppress your great and wonderful ideas. it's a meritocracy encouraging you to gather and provide absolutely as much data as you can for your theories.

Why are people in this thread insisting on calling this ZeuZZ's theory, it is NOT his theory! He is presenting it to ATS for us, and Im glad! Plus another thing, I personally havnt picked up on any arrogance from ZeuZZ and Im shocked that others have.

buddhasystem, I love that you post in the EU threads but I wish that you could be a bit more specific in your questions and less argumentative. EU theory is not crazy, magical or farout, its entirely feasible and it requires no new laws to explain it - it is fully in the realm of already known physics, lab physics. Please give it a chance and for maybe a day or two, pretend you like the theory and try and prove it right, would be interesting no?

Lets put it this way, if I was seeing both theories for the first time, I know which one Id believe quicker.
Lets put it this way, if I was looking at both theories for the first time, the EU model holds up a hell of a lot better, science is clearly reluctant to embrace such ideas, though times are chinging and I believe it wont be too long before we see these things brought properly to light.

Great post by the way Zeus.

Seriously though , buddha, its obvious your a firm believer in in non electric theries, but do you need to act so damn argumentative and stuck up, I say not.

As a doctor, and the husband of a doctor, let me say that at all levels of science, be it Biology or Chemistry or Medicine, which are my fields, if you provided evidence that showed everything you did was completely false, and that entire field would need to be changed, you would be railed against, and so in that Zuezz is right. If you walked into a Chemistry lab and said "I can make gold out of magnesium and and apple." and you did it in front of ten Nobel prize winers, 9 of them would swear you didn't and the other one would already know but wouldn't dare say it so he could keep is head teaching job. How long did it take Phrenology to be discredited? They knew it was complete crap by the early 1800's, but to stick with convention it was practiced until the 1840's and there are still people who believe it today and refuse to acknowledge that it is a false science. Just keep that in mind before you say that anyone who challenges convention would go unchallenged, even with an amazing model, theory, or whichever based on your field.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Okay, first off, let me just explain that I like the electric star model. It makes sense on a lot of levels, and I'd like to hear of more solid research into the idea.

More solid research? Are you kidding me? Various science establishment have accepted far FAR stupider theories and used them for decades if not centuries. To suggest that the papers cited does carry ample evidence for this specific model is basically suggesting that you only care about 'proof' when it's being used to substantiate a relatively new theory.

However, whenever I see someone making claims like you are in this particular post, my skept-o-meter goes off.

He is not making all that many claims that have not been made by men of great standing in their various fields. To suggest that he has cooked up any number of those ideas is the big lie here.

The idea that science is absolutely dogmatic and your theories are so revolutionary that they would shatter the scientific universe are ludicrous, to say nothing of the concept that a lot of scientists would be left looking foolish.

The science establishment is like any other type of establishment warped to reflect the views of the few ( normally very white) old men who arrived at their positions by getting very old and never admitting to being wrong about anything. In the end scientist are people and just like regular people they act in self interested ways and look to prove what they have already decided to be accurate; objectivity is not something you learn as a scientist but something some scientist are by the means of their inquiry. Sure the scientific process is supposed to err on he side of objectivity but knowing human nature you should know that people normally see what they want and find what their looking for. If that wasn't the case the following 'facts' and their accompanying applications would not have been kept from humanity for so long.

* 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)

www.amasci.com...

IF you investigate the history of scientist and the various scientific establishments of the world you will find a very dark history of suppression and general hatred of all those who dare to question norms. As it stands we have had plenty of earth shattering 'revelations' in terms of scientific theories that were never supposed to be true where the establishment just ran out of means to suppress the truth.

Fact is, they would remain right where they were, while whoever proves the new theory races up to join their ranks.

How would he get to their ranks when his material wont be accepted in the peer review process or given patronage in general? Do you know how easily a new theory can be undermined and destroyed by the grey old men of any given field?

Hawking did not make Einstein look like an idiot, Copernicus did not make Aristotle look foolish.

In many ways they did and anyone who respects 'the truth' as much as you do is unlikely to uncover anything unique. The process of better explaining the world infrequently involves people who respects scientific norms and whatever contradictions they may contain.

Basically your post - this one, at any rate - screams of conceit and a lack of understanding of how the scientific community works.

I think this is one of the better threads i have seen in this specific forum and if you can not see the work and study that has gone into it you either have something against the theory in general or you just don't like the person. Continuing along your current line is just going to further excite me so i suggest you start objecting to the actual material instead of attacking the person.

It's not a conspiracy to oppress your great and wonderful ideas.

Do you think any of the major ideas proposed is his? Where did you get that idea from?

it's a meritocracy encouraging you to gather and provide absolutely as much data as you can for your theories.

Anyone who things that the science establishments of the world works along merit lines do not in my opinion know a damn thing and should be treated with a great deal of contempt. If you don't know any better that is your problem but continuing to make it ours is not going to help you.

Stellar

[edit on 31-1-2008 by StellarX]

Zeuzz,
Thanks for a most interesting read to go with my coffee this morning

I've always believed in the concept of 'as above, so below' in terms of holistic views of science.

By this I mean that what we observe at the atomic scale with particle interactions and how they are bound together, such as how an electron is bound to its shell orbit around the nucleus and the flow of charge between the two that constitute an atom of an element, can be scaled up to apply to atoms bound together and their interrelated and interactive charge-flows that create a physical matter of an element, such as the molecular structure of a diamond crystal

Scale that up again and you have the earth with our single orbiting moon, bound in place by interactive charge-flows that keep it rotating in its orbit, just like an atom of Hydrogen and it's single electron orbiting the nucleus, which scaled up gives us the solar system with the sun as nucleus of the structure and its multiple charge-bound planetary orbits.

Now magnify that to a galactic-macro scale and you have our sun and other stars bound into an orbit around a similarly galaxy-scaled nucleus with the same kind of interactive charge-flow dynamic (much as you describe in your OP) as the atomic structure and you have an answer to how the system of the electric-stars may work.

The only difference I can see in the examples I've described, is in the scale of the overall structure...underneath the all the complex energy-flow dynamics of each system, from atomic to galactic, will lie a generic mathematical equation...a grand unified theory, much like the kind used to generate fractal images.

Originally posted by citizen smith
such as how an electron is bound to its shell orbit around the nucleus and the flow of charge between the two that constitute an atom

There is a "charge flow" between electron and nucleus in the atom? There is electric current from the electron to the nucleus or vice versa? Wow.

interactive charge-flows that create a physical matter of an element, such as the molecular structure of a diamond crystal

Diamond crystal is well, a crystal and not quite a molecule. Did you know that? And where exactly these currents go inside this crystal, huh?

Scale that up again and you have the earth with our single orbiting moon, bound in place by interactive charge-flows that keep it rotating in its orbit

Frekking incredible. It's an electric current that keeps Moon in orbit. What decadent barbarizm.

Originally posted by StellarX
He is not making all that many claims that have not been made by men of great standing in their various fields. To suggest that he has cooked up any number of those ideas is the big lie here.

You are right. The moronic nature of EU is not in any particular part of it, but in its composition. It's a horrid mosaic made of individual facets that make sense in and by themselves. For example, it's very likely that the magnetic field of the Sun is more complex than was anticipated and that because of that, there are "filaments" of current reaching Earth. Fine. Can there be nucelar fusion in the upper layers of the Sun? Sure there can! Except the much lower density won't allow for enough energy to be produced. Etc etc etc. Combined with the fact that armchair scientists will never be able to create a real model of a star based on there "electrifying" ideas, such model can not be argued against, because there is not basis for comparison. Just like in case of solar neutrino -- until some EU proponent will calculate the projected neutrino rates and compare with experimental data, the continued talk of the EU supremacy remains very, very, very cheap.

The science establishment is like any other type of establishment warped to reflect the views of the few ( normally very white) old men who arrived at their positions by getting very old and never admitting to being wrong about anything.

Quite an idiotic statement. Abdus Salam sure was not white, and neither were any of Nobel Prize winners of Chinese descent. I worked for one of them. I'm not sure you realize that many prominent scientists are of Jewish heritage. Your racially loaded claim is both silly and mean.

In the end scientist are people and just like regular people they act in self interested ways

Speak for yourlsef, will ya.

IF you investigate the history of scientist and the various scientific establishments of the world you will find a very dark history of suppression and general hatred of all those who dare to question norms.

Paranoia.

Anyone who things that the science establishments of the world works along merit lines do not in my opinion know a damn thing and should be treated with a great deal of contempt.

Oh I see. On my part, I have a great deal of contempt for those whose strife to feel important and smart drives them to making startling claims about how science is an evil cabal and how they, on the other hand, can explain all the mysteries of Universe using something that's comprehensible to them: a little magnet, a capacitor and a dynamo.


[edit on 31-1-2008 by buddhasystem]

the argument in this forum can often represent the same ego battle that stops great work from being accomplished.
and im no professional physicist, but I think its a bit premature for either of the models to feel proud about what is happening without understanding the complexities of quantum physics and being able to make a distinguishable connection between them all.
Hopefully scientists in the working field can get past all the political and egotistical barricades that mute their works so much and come to understand that they are probably both right on certain levels.
Like i said im no physicists, but if you have two models that have any degree of mathematical validation, why do they not figure out why this is instead of arguing which one is supreme?
or do they? (well I know some people do) it seems to me if I had a competing realm of understanding it is obviously my duty to come to understand how they found rationality in being as proud as i am about my realm of understanding; and only then could one liberate each other from ignorance; as you're still in ignorance if you haven't done the same experiments as the other guys to disprove or improve upon their model, and vice versa.
just seems like trying to play cards with half a deck


[edit on 31-1-2008 by psychedeliack]

Originally posted by psychedeliack
Like i said im no physicists, but if you have two models that have any degree of mathematical validation, why do they not figure out why this is instead of arguing which one is supreme?

But you see, it is the "electric" conconction that does NOT have any mathematical validation (see my example with solar neutrinos). Considering real models of whatever sophistication, on the same basis as a mere claim of "electrical sun", doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. Once the "electric" model is built and calculations done, then we can talk, but before that, putting in a thread titled "Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics" is really, really grotesque.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You are right. The moronic nature of EU is not in any particular part of it, but in its composition. It's a horrid mosaic made of individual facets that make sense in and by themselves. For example, it's very likely that the magnetic field of the Sun is more complex than was anticipated and that because of that, there are "filaments" of current reaching Earth. Fine. Can there be nucelar fusion in the upper layers of the Sun? Sure there can! Except the much lower density won't allow for enough energy to be produced. Etc etc etc. Combined with the fact that armchair scientists will never be able to create a real model of a star based on there "electrifying" ideas, such model can not be argued against, because there is not basis for comparison. Just like in case of solar neutrino -- until some EU proponent will calculate the projected neutrino rates and compare with experimental data, the continued talk of the EU supremacy remains very, very, very cheap.

Ok, sure. Anytime you and your ilk want to produce observational proof of dark matter, dark energy and black holes, then I'll start to listen to you. Unfortunately for you though, by their very definition, they CANNOT be observed and are figments of your imagination. They DO NOT EXIST.

You might as well call them unicorns.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
But you see, it is the "electric" conconction that does NOT have any mathematical validation (see my example with solar neutrinos). Considering real models of whatever sophistication, on the same basis as a mere claim of "electrical sun", doesn't make a lot of sense to begin with. Once the "electric" model is built and calculations done, then we can talk, but before that, putting in a thread titled "Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics" is really, really grotesque.

Maybe mathematical models could be worked on if the mainstream would start funding plasma cosmology, instead of burning PC scientists at the stake like Halton C. Arp and anyone else that does legitimate science.

Your false paradigm is slowly collapsing.

Keep up the good work ZeuZZ. Your presentation was well put, thoughtfull and informative. And the outright venom and hostility of some of the responses I've read, especially from the so called 'Ivy League' teacher only reinforces and lends credence to the theory you presented.

Originally posted by Riposte
Anytime you and your ilk want to produce observational proof of dark matter, dark energy and black holes, then I'll start to listen to you. Unfortunately for you though, by their very definition, they CANNOT be observed and are figments of your imagination. They DO NOT EXIST.

You might as well call them unicorns.

Thanks for your suggestion. I would like to note, that the electric field cannot be directly observed either (you are not saying you see it, I hope), so please name it "unicorn" as well. It DOES NOT EXIST, according to you.

I am an undergraduate studying physics and currently in the senior electromagnetism course, so I'd like to put in my 2 cents.

First, my opinion of the electric sun vs. nuclear sun: Fusion is obviously happening in the sun, and it is the main source of power. Any electric contribution to the power is unlikely to be considerable. I'm too lazy to check all the data, but it's reasonable to say that electric interactions explain what's being observed at the sun in terms of plasma, solar wind, etc.

Next, my opinion of magnetic fields vs electric fields: Its dissapointing to hear how silly the discussion has got. I always thought that the whole 'magnetic field lines reconnecting' was an oversimplified way of describing what actually happens, which in reality is much different than 'reconnection'. If that's true then these astrophysicists are only being caught using a bad analogy, and not using bad science, but I could be wrong.

My conclusion: I dont feel any need for debate on this.