Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I am an experimentalist by background. And I hate emtpy talk. Look at grand statements like "EU explains every freaking problem"... One of the items is the neutrino rate. Well, if EU doesn't produce ANY number for that at all, how come you can say that it explains ANYTHING?

This has already been answered, many years ago.

www.electric-cosmos.org...

.../snip/...The announcement made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) that “the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are changing their type en route to Earth” is false on its face. There is no way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a transmission channel (that stretches from the Sun’s center to Earth) can reveal changes that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun itself, or near Mercury or Venus).

In this link: whoever wrote this piece of crap did not bother to even read the description of the experimental technique employed in SNO and has no idea about how charged current is different from neutral current in electroweak interaction and what this brings to the table.

Don't you love it when neanderthals start talking about flaws in iPod design?


en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

You may have heard that solar wind contains electrons as well, which make it effectively neutral. There is no net current as far as we know. So the rest of your argument is moot imho.

that's gross. so, one ionic current gets cancelled out by another going in the opposite direction ? pray tell me how to make electrons and protons flow the same way without recombining into hydrogen.

Originally posted by Riposte

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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.

Funny that you said that.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Title:
Backstreaming Electrons Associated With Solar Electron Bursts
Authors:
Skoug, R. M.; Steinberg, J. T.; de Koning, C. A.; Gosling, J. T.; McComas, D. J.
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #SH44C-02
Publication Date:
12/2007


Abstract
Solar electron bursts are frequently observed in the ACE/SWEPAM suprathermal electron measurements at energies below 1.4 keV. A significant fraction of such events show backscattered electrons, beginning after the burst onset and traveling back towards the Sun along the magnetic field direction. Such backscattered particles imply a scattering mechanism beyond the spacecraft location. Some bursts also show backstreaming conic distributions, implying mirroring at magnetic field enhancements beyond the spacecraft. Here we present a study of these backstreaming particles during solar electron events. We examine the occurrence of backstreaming electrons and their relationship to other burst characteristics such as pitch angle width, duration, and energy range. We also investigate the time delay between burst onset and the appearance of backscattered electrons, including energy and pitch-angle dispersion. We examine the pitch angle distribution and energy dependence of backstreaming electrons, and consider possible origins of these electron distributions and their relationship to solar wind structure beyond the spacecraft.

It is even more funny, Riposte, how superficial your ripostes are. Both with regards to the neutrino oscillations and in this one.

You see, you detect a field or other such things via it's interactions with somthing that's observable. Neutrinos cause interactions in the nucleii and are thus detected, or if energy is high they are scattered on a charged particle which once again enable detection. With dark matter, we use interaction via gravity to try and detect its presence and soon will probe the supersymmetry sector in the lab (the LHC).

At first, the new outer planet in the Solar system were detected via the perturbation they caused via their gravity and not via direct observation. According to your caveman logic, astronomers shouldn't have bothered to look for them because they used to be invisible according to then existing observations!

Originally posted by Long Lance
pray tell me how to make electrons and protons flow the same way without recombining into hydrogen.

Rejoice, for your prayer is answert.

Very low density (dozen particle per cubic inch), low cross section, and relative speed of the two particles that still might experience a collision (we are talking keV energy range, and each kind of particle has its own spectrum).

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
[...] photons are capable of holding every type of electromagnetic radiation known to man. The Sun is the primary source of all photons.Photons are the primary source of electromagnetics, and electromagnetics is what creates electrons, and electrons is what create electricity. so, it is already scientificly proven the the Sun is primary consisted of electromagnetic force.

Electric star.

Uh ... wow! Now this is your ... err ... "science". Hmm ....

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone posts a conspiracy theory, an "alternative" scientific model, or some other "non-mainstream" idea on ATS which is so blatantly nonsense that absolutely nobody - not even the most die-hard conspiracy theorists - believes it for a second, the universe will instantly vanish and be replaced by one in which the people are even more gullible and less educated, as to make the existence of said "non-believable CT" an impossibility.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.


Anyway, sorry for the intermission, and back to the scheduled program ...


P.S.: Sorry, Douglas, for hijacking your quote. May you rest in peace!

Originally posted by ThreeNF
I have a Masters in Physics and it's this very topic that has reinvigorated my interest in it. I've actually gone back to my old textbooks and starting brushing up on E&M for fun. I left physics to go into the software development world because, well .. there is more money there

Anyway, one strange idea I had when I was a student was the idea that gravity is just some sort of electro-magnetic force, that we just haven't figured out yet. Maybe it's strange to think that, but since my day job doesn't depend on it, I don't care

I'm glad to hear your interest has been reinvigorated, the more minds that become aware of these ideas the more thoughts and new ideas can be brought to the table. Plasma cosmology is still in its infancy and not many scientists are even aware of it yet, but times are changing with the advent of the internet, so hopefully there will be an acceleration of progress in the coming years.

My interest was peaked in these ideas mainly because of the hostile reaction I got to if from other scientists online, with hardly any of them being able to give any adequate reasons for their hostility towards it. Due mainly to this I brought the book 'the electric sky' by electrical engineer (and now considered plasma cosmologist) Donald Scott, which is a brilliantly written book that address's electric stars along with many other logical interpretations of the cosmos in very easy to understand way, without being too technical.

Often new discoveries in science come from people of completely different disciplines sharing their areas of expertise, and after i read his book i became sure that this was not just another typical mad scientists theory and required serious attention. I dont want to sound like i am advertising for him, but if you want to get a good summary of what EU is it makes a brilliant start. some of the books here are an interesting read too.

There are still many questions to be answered, but i feel from what I have read that EU is heading in the right direction, and seems to be far closer to reality than mainstream cosmology is. Another book i have read in my spare time was 'the big bang never happened' by Eric Lerner, which gives a very convincing refutation of the Big Bang, of which modern cosmology relies so heavily on. There are subtle differences between Plasma cosmology and EU, but they seem to be growing ever nearer each other in their ideas over time. Within Plasma Cosmology is the idea that the true origin of the universe is not entirely within the realm of humanly verifiable knowledge. Because of this the question of how the entire universe began and how it will end can be left in the background whilst the more verifiable questions of what processes are going on right now can be addressed, without the constraints of working backwards from an initial 'Big Bang' that we cant be 100% sure of anyway. The universe is viewed as eternal for all we know, and this view can have an effect on ones understanding of himself within the universal processes that are constantly ongoing. (sorry to start getting philisophical ) Thats why I think i find the idea so appealing, and it radically changed my views on science as a whole.

The documentary 'the cosmology quest' is another good start to familiarise yourself with the main shortcomings of standard astronomy and gives a brief overview of some of the plasma concepts, I think its available to watch on youtube. It certainly made me think about which areas of astronomy you can trust and which to remain skeptical of. Of course, not all of astronomy is wrong, quite to the contrary, many area's are still perfectly valid, but there does seem to be a huge hole missing from lots of their models when it comes to the actual role of charge, electricity and plasma in the cosmos.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Riposte
www.electric-cosmos.org...

In this link: whoever wrote this piece of crap did not bother to even read the description of the experimental technique employed in SNO and has no idea about how charged current is different from neutral current in electroweak interaction and what this brings to the table.

Don't you love it when neanderthals start talking about flaws in iPod design?

Maybe you should contact the person who wrote that article, Donald Scott, and inform him you believe he is a neanderthal, and you know more about electricity and its relevance to this subject than he does. Somehow, I very much doubt it.

Donald has been a lifelong amateur astronomer and he holds a doctorate (Ph.D. degree), Bachelor's & Master's degree in Electrical Engineering.

You should also contact all the highly qualified astronomers who have read his book 'the electric sky' and tell them they are all grossly mistaken and you know better than them.

“I really love this book. It is causing me to rethink a great deal of my own work. I am convinced that The Electric Sky deserves the widest possible readership…. I felt genuine excitement while reading and felt I was delving into a delicious feast of new ideas.”

– Gerrit L. Verschuur, PhD, University of Manchester. A well-known radio astronomer and writer, presently at the Physics Department, University of Memphis. He is the author of "Interstellar matters : essays on curiosity and astronomical discovery", and "The invisible universe – The Story of Radio Astronomy” as well as many other books and scientific papers.


“You don't have to be an astronomer to enjoy this book. It's an exciting story about how a small group of physicists, engineers and other scientists have challenged the ‘establishment’ – the ‘big science’ astronomers who are reluctant to listen to anyone outside their own elite circle.”

– Lewis E. Franks, PhD, Stanford University, Fellow of the IEEE (1977), Professor Emeritus and Head of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts (Retired).


“Gravity was the focus of 20th century astronomy. For the 21st century, it will be electromagnetism and plasmas in addition. This forthcoming scientific revolution is presaged by the rapid pace of discoveries about our own star, the Sun, and its total plasma environment, and discoveries about the nature of the interstellar medium."

– Timothy E. Eastman, PhD, Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups. He is well known for his work on magnetospheric boundary layers and the initial discovery of the Low Latitude Boundary Layer.
www.plasmas.org...


“It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén
enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work.”

– Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to theU.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is the author of Physics of the Plasma Universe and numerous published papers.

for a neanderthal it must be a pretty damn good book.


[edit on 1-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Within Plasma Cosmology is the idea that the true origin of the universe is not entirely within the realm of humanly verifiable knowledge. Because of this the question of how the entire universe began and how it will end can be left in the background whilst the more verifiable questions of what processes are going on right now can be addressed, without the constraints of working backwards from an initial 'Big Bang' that we cant be 100% sure of anyway. The universe is viewed as eternal for all we know, and this view can have an effect on ones understanding of himself within the universal processes that are constantly ongoing. (sorry to start getting philisophical

) Thats why I think i find the idea so appealing, and it radically changed my views on science as a whole.

The documentary 'the cosmology quest' is another good start to familiarise yourself with the main shortcomings of standard astronomy and gives a brief overview of some of the plasma concepts, I think its available to watch on youtube.

Hey, some of that is nearly a direct quote from what I wrote
Haha, I don't mind really, I'm glad you understand it. Even in that Cosmology Quest series Arp and Lerner make statements that they didn't make before interactions with me. I will forever be the nameless contributor to plasma cosmology lol

reply to post by Ionized


yeah, I did take a couple of sentences from you I admit, I should have quoted your whole post really. Your description of the philosophical side to EU from other posts on ATS was very insightful to me and your contributions are much appreciated.

Out of curiousity, have you spoken in person with Arp and others? what is your field of expertise? (apart obviosuly from EU )


[edit on 1-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Out of curiousity, have you spoken in person with Arp and others? what is your field of expertise? (apart obviosuly from EU

)

Not in person, but written communication, email and good old snail-mail. I haven't yet had the pleasure of going to one of the conventions, mostly due to financial reasons. A lot of my thoughts are also on several years worth of talk pages of a very well known publicly accessible website, which they observed and in some cases apparently absorbed.

My expertise? As Buddha caught on to, my expertise lays more within the philosophical/anthropological/historical side as that is the type of thinking I grew up with. I officially studied physics though, but I don't consider myself an expert. Experts know too much about one thing. I was intrigued by non-linear systems theory, non-equilibrium dynamics, the battle between process philosophy and the object oriented world-view, among other things. I actually found the math behind quantum mechanics to be easier than electromagnetism, go figure. Before I decided to move on to more worldly pursuits, I was going to try for a role at the Center for Magnetic Self-Organization. My current expertise though is in electronics manufacturing, as that is where I work now after leaving the physics discipline entirely Designing, troubleshooting, repairing circuits, etc. And my hobby is experimental audio exploration, ie making crazy music that no one would consider music

Originally posted by Ionized
And my hobby is experimental audio exploration, ie making crazy music that no one would consider music

crazy music? sounds good! I too create music using cusbase SX3 in my spare time, some of the virtual instruments you can get now online are really good and its been a hobby of mine since i did music tech A-level.

It never really occured to me that anyone could just contact people like Arp or Lerner in person on the net, I thought they would be tucked away in their labs and too busy, but most of them now openly give out their e-mails. I may do that in the future.

neways, back to the subject at hand...

I've been thinking recently about the role of electricity much nearer to home, on the Earth. we know that theres plenty of electricty in the atmosphere en.wikipedia.org... so I'm going to have a look around for what role electric currents are thought to play inside the Earth over the next week or so, there may be some more interesting material about that online. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the role of this has also been underestimated by science with their typical 'anything but electricity and charge separation' attitude.

And does anyone know anyone who has access to all the IEEE articles? You have to be member i think to view most of their material, you have to be at least a pregraduate in that area also to join, and i think you have to pay. but it would be really helpful if someone could sly a few of their papers to me or someone else privately . I noticed that electric stars seem to be being discussed seriously in a lot of their 2007 papers, and would really like to see what they had to say about it. This paper comes up from a search of electric stars in google, but i cant access it.


[edit on 1-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]

reply to post by ZeuZZ


Well he so totally missed out on the technique used in SNO and his argument against it was so weak that yes, in that case he was a neanderthal. It's just heartbreaking.

a slightly more detailed critique of the neutrino issue can be found here; www.electric-cosmos.org...

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
a slightly more detailed critique of the neutrino issue can be found here; www.electric-cosmos.org...

Well yeah, how convenient is it to not quote the analysis of day-night neutrino spectra produced by SNO? The whole energy spectra thing is swept under the rug by desperate authors of www.electric-cosmos.org, who lost their talking point about how deficient the standard model is.

SNO is a well done measurement and yes, it shows that the neutrinos are coming from the Sun and yes, a fraction of them are electron neutrinos and the other part are other flavors. 'Nuff said.

Forgive me if some of the points are made already, but as someone who have relatively recently been turned on to the Electtric Universe theory, I am somewhat overwhelmed by the amount of evidence presented here, especially by zeuZZ, kudos to you for enlightening us.

However, I canoot help but feel underwhelmed by the untenable position of some of the pseudo-skeptics in this thread who in the very least appear to be uninformed of these new discoveries, and at worst suffer from the Semmelweis reflex(outright unexamined rejection of new paradigm).

Big bang theory(currently widely accepted cosmological paradigm) appears to be such bias of entrenched proportions when none "witnessed it", nor is it duplicated in the laboratory. Fusion theory of the sun is another such bias when it has not been proven in the laboratory even with enormous funds spent and decades of research.

In the very least, new ideas like the Electric Universe theory should be examined(never mind accepted), and it seems to me, anything less is not just pseudo-skeptical, but psedo-religious, in seeking safe haven of certainty. No scientific theory(if history is any indication) is about absolute centainty, but is of probability, proportions, and scale.

Originally posted by NeedToNo
Big bang theory(currently widely accepted cosmological paradigm) appears to be such bias of entrenched proportions when none "witnessed it", nor is it duplicated in the laboratory. Fusion theory of the sun is another such bias when it has not been proven in the laboratory even with enormous funds spent and decades of research.

Thanx NeedToNo.

The Big Bang really is a joke. I became aware of this after reading a letter in New Scientist which was sighned by over 200 top scientists who feel that the Big Bang is largely wrong, and funding should be given to alternatives like plasma cosmology. You can see the letter here; cosmologystatement.org...

And this paper by Eric Lerner, published and peer reviewed in the IEEE transactions on plasma science, just about sums up what is left of the 'Big Bang' theory which modern cosmology is so heavily based on.

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of /sup 4/He, /sup 7/Li, and D are more than 7/spl sigma/ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10/sup -14/. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2/spl sigma/ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by NeedToNo
Big bang theory(currently widely accepted cosmological paradigm) appears to be such bias of entrenched proportions when none "witnessed it", nor is it duplicated in the laboratory.

When Copernicus and others were working out their theories of the Solar system, sure enough they could not "duplicate" the motion of celestial bodies in the lab. The difference in scale is just too humongous for that. It's quite amazing that you made such a non-sensical argument.

I've really enjoyed this thread Zeuzz. As far as the "pseudo-skeptics", for the most part I just ignore them, occasionally musing over their flailing abouts.



I'll have to chew on all this for awhile but for some reason my experience with Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity comes to mind.

One thing in particular was Tesla's belief that there is NO 'energy' in matter other than that received from the "environment".


Anyways, keep up the good work and just ignore the dogmatic naysayer until they decide to actually contribute something.

Way back when there were some folks that thought people who believed the Earth was round were nutjobs. That spirit is alive and well today as is readily apparent.






[edit on 1-2-2008 by ViewFromTheStars]

reply to post by buddhasystem


Fair enough, and Big Bang theory is called a theory, isn't it ? Nobody calls it certainty and sticks to the religious position that you do, regardless of the positions of the high priests of cosmology, Hawking, Sagan, et, al(can you or they possible be proven wrong in say 100 years hence ?. What would compel you to think this cannot possibly be proven wrong, besides irrationality ?

How about commenting on the disputable facts of it as zeuZZ provided ?:

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

[edit on 1-2-2008 by NeedToNo]

Originally posted by NeedToNo
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Fair enough, and Big Bang theory is called a theory, isn't it ? Nobody calls it certainty

That's right. I agree with that.

Closer to the topic of this thread, though, the "Electric Sun" construct suffers from incorrigible defects which make it dead on arrival. Nobody want to explain to me (and other curious minds who have enough knowledge to pose relevant questions) the bogus phenomenon of the electron "anti-wind" that must flow towards the Sun. Nobody can determine the energy source and output according to this "theory". Nobody can explain to me whatr happens with the balance of charge. Claiming that "it's heading in the right direction" is quite preposterous imho. The best I am offered is (which is admitted by one interlocutor, who is quite courteous) - antropology.