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.

 

Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

page: 6
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The funny thing is, that you have no problem accepting the lacks and flaws of your favored "Big Bang" model.

You always say things like "we simply dont know yet", but when an aposing, well documented theory , gives you the same "we simply dont know yet", it suddently makes the theory fall apart?

You are very good at describing lacks and missings in the EU model, while blindly accepting the lacks and missings in the models you see fit.

I'm still awaiting you to show some "evidence" on the questions you have been asked in this thread?

Where is the "dark matter", where is the proof for "inflation", where is the "dark energy"?

and how about this:


Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth, despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger, than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements.
Source

How can this contradiction be accepted?

Cant we keep an open mind about "EU", just like we have for "BB" the past half decade?




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Yes, lack of proof problems with dark matter, dark energy, and inflation are obvious flaws as yet of BB.

Maybe the proponents of BB have hired an army of little Dutch Boys to try to plug the impending collapse of the BB dike. Given the numerous patch jobs to hold it up, perhaps Bill Gates is funding this nonsense..



posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeedToNo

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).



Reminds me of the Catholic Church



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   


www.the-electric-universe.info...

The fantastic development of astronomy shows daily new filamentary bodies but not their model. Recently, the spacecraft Cassini sent frames about the beautiful fountains ejected by Enceladus of Saturn (Fig.1). If the electric model of these fountains will be confirmed, then other filamentary bodies can easier be explained, too.

The Apollo 17-team made more sketches about similar fountains on the Moon already in 1972. These Moon-fountains were ejected also at the terminator (which lies between day and night as here in Fig.1). Apollo 17 even transported a special instrument to measure the electric charge of the ejected dust of the Moon fountains. After this, no mention of this process was found [1]. The spacecraft Cassini can also measure electric charges of dust as low as 10-15 coulombs [2]. Fig. 1 gives the impression of terrestrial volcanic geysers in which water flows into deep hot cavities and is ejected periodically.





[edit on 2-2-2008 by undermind]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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).



sounds benign, but it really isn't, because of a feature called electrostatic attraction, making recombination that much more likely, if not inevitable. Particle density varies with the radius (squared), so, while it's rather low throughout the solar system, near the sun itself, the whole story is quite different.

what i don't get is why taking electric phenomnea in space into account is such a problem to some people.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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).



sounds benign, but it really isn't, because of a feature called electrostatic attraction


No offense, but if you understanding of physics is limited to realization that there is electrostatic attraction, you won't get very far in your understanding of this universe. With a little mental effort, you can think of a situation that an electron is passing a nucleus at 2 feet distance, at a speed of 5000 ft/s. Would they still enter orbital motion around each other.


what i don't get is why taking electric phenomnea in space into account is such a problem to some people.


That fact that you don't get it is the least of your problems. Amazingly, there is a correlation between how many physics problems (including in the area of electromagnetism, the crux of the "theory" you are trying to defend) a person has solved in his life, and how likely they are to have interest in this "theory". And that is a strongly negative correlation, my friend.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The funny thing is, that you have no problem accepting the lacks and flaws of your favored "Big Bang" model.

You always say things like "we simply dont know yet", but when an aposing, well documented theory , gives you the same "we simply dont know yet", it suddently makes the theory fall apart?


I made it very clear that we know already enough to conclude that this pseudo-theory of EU is bunk. It's one thing to not know something, and quite another to know that there are observed phenomena that aren't compatible with the "electric sun".


Where is the "dark matter", where is the proof for "inflation", where is the "dark energy"?


We speculate about dark matter based on the data of the how matter is distributed and how it evolves. There is a good possibility that supersymmetry-sector particles (which we'll be looking for at the LHC) are exactly the content of this proporsed dark matter.


Cant we keep an open mind about "EU", just like we have for "BB" the past half decade?


Sorry but we can't. You see, in the paragraph you quote, there is even a quantitative statement about what energy densities should be etc. The EU is majestically above any quantitative treatment and is more related to anthropology, as one member suggested.

I haven't heard answers to most primitive questions stemming from the "electric star" pseudo-theory.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


No offense, but if you understanding of physics is limited to realization that there is electrostatic attraction..



what is that? mentioning one aspect means that my understanding is limited to it? what's all the talk about solar wind velocities, btw? does it matter unless you can tell me at which velocity the average proton and electron are supposedly ejected, respectively? that said, you will most certainly find out that for electrons, mass is not all that important compared to charge, which in turn means that inertia is not going to play a significant role, but electrostatic attraction is.

which force is going to cancel it out? if you can't name one, you can stop right there and deduce that the observed proton flow is either a result of charge imbalance (not enough electrons for all these protons) or that there's a voltage differential present, which btw, is one aspect of what the electric-everything people claim, but cannot explain, of course.



That fact that you don't get it is the least of your problems. Amazingly, there is a correlation between how many physics problems (including in the area of electromagnetism, the crux of the "theory" you are trying to defend) a person has solved in his life, and how likely they are to have interest in this "theory". And that is a strongly negative correlation, my friend.



as far as i remember, i did not embrace the electric cosmos theory in its current form, so how exactly did i defend it? by stating that comets look nothing like the snowballs? maybe i should go one step further and ask how a few comets grow such a huge halo, even while they're as far away as Saturn's orbit (and receding) like Hale-Bopp? solar radiation? i think not.


it's a pity that even science is reduced to (dual) parties nowadays just like everything else, just taking one page out of the other guy's book is apparently asking too much, no matter how much relevance solving several otherwise unspecified 'physics problems' might have, regarding the subject at hand, i presume Hannes Alfven's example will not upset your statistic correlation either, so why even bother at this point?

[edit on 2.2.2008 by Long Lance]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Buddhasystem

I made it very clear that we know already enough to conclude that this pseudo-theory of EU is bunk. It's one thing to not know something, and quite another to know that there are observed phenomena that aren't compatible with the "electric sun".



Somehow I just don't think the 'we' in the group you speak of has enough evidence to conclude anything entirely about this theory.

Instead of arrogantly assuming/presuming something to suit your ego, why not contribute by outlining these so called observed phenomena in specificity that aren't compatible with the "electric sun" theory and letting us know your angle. When you know how the universe works 100% then you can bleet arrogant flatulence to your hearts content, until then, why not contribute to the discussion. One way to do that is focusing on the things you feel are not getting answered in a constructive way.

In all seriousness, I am curious about these incompatible phenomena. Whats the biggest one from your perspective?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Somehow I just don't think the 'we' in the group you speak of has enough evidence to conclude anything entirely about this theory.


If you read my posts in this and 3 other almost identical threads that Zeuss has spawned, you might just find enough evidence.


Instead of arrogantly assuming/presuming something to suit your ego, why not contribute by outlining these so called observed phenomena in specificity that aren't compatible with the "electric sun" theory and letting us know your angle.


Read the above. I'm not going to re-type the goddamn thing ten times over.


When you know how the universe works 100% then you can bleet arrogant flatulence to your hearts content, until then, why not contribute to the discussion.


I don't have flatulence today, thank you. If you are too lazy to read previous posts in the thread, I can only assume that you were distracted by your own flatulence.


In all seriousness, I am curious about these incompatible phenomena. Whats the biggest one from your perspective?


a) the electron wind blowing towards the Sun according to that "theory" (non-existent in reality)
b) amazingly constant potential of the alleged charged sphere around the Sun, despite all those electrons flowing in
c) the undefined and mysterious source of the electrons that are flowing into the Sun according to that moronic "theory"
d) undefined sources of energy in the Sun, in that "theory"
e) apparently nonexistent jets of current emitted from the poles of the Sun (which should be there according to that laughable concoction)

etc ad nauseam (did I say ad nauseam?)



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I made it very clear that we know already enough to conclude that this pseudo-theory of EU is bunk. It's one thing to not know something, and quite another to know that there are observed phenomena that aren't compatible with the "electric sun". [.....]

I haven't heard answers to most primitive questions stemming from the "electric star" pseudo-theory.


What we seem to have here is either a refusal to look at the evidence i have put forward, or outright denial of it. If I could understand what your reasons are we could discuss it in an open way, but the problem is I dont even know what your issue with it is. From my viewpoint you are rejecting it because you started arguing against it before you knew all of the details about it, and are now just trying to prove a point that you are right and I am wrong.

Maybe the title given to this model is what puts you off? Maybe we should call it the Interstellar connectivity model? the stellar rejuvenation hypothesis? would that make it more acceptable to you as it sounds more professional?

The general ad antiquitam attitude portrayed in each of your posts indicates a great amount of denial about what is being said, and a serious lack of open minded judgement. I have been quite open to your views before, but your level of dogmaitism is beginning to get to me.

In my OP and later posts I have pointed out the following point i feel are a good indication of the ES model;

1) the fact that the suns magnetic field is large and constant implies that the electric currents that generate it are also large and constantly flowing

2) The fact that flares are known to the electrical, and so this raises questions about what extent electricty plays in the rest of the sun, and why the surface seems to be so electrically active

3) Current theories advocate twenty completely different models for various coronal sesmological anomalies, they cant all be right.

4) The violation of the inverse square law for radiation due to the hot corona

5) Why there is a corona at all

6) The origin of the filamentary structure of the corona

7) The fact that the 'magnetic reconnection' theory violates maxwells equations and has never been tested

8) As this is the case, the suns magnetic and electric field should be connected to the surrounding stars fields

9) Particle acceleration observed above the photosphere can be explained by the sun producing an electric field

10) The recent observations of 'backstreaming electrons' travelling the completely opposite direction than the standard model states

11) The fact that this process is known on earth when positive ions are emitted from a surface, which exactly what the ES models says is happening on the suns surface

12) Sunspots are dark and indicate that the inner areas of the sun are not as active as previously thought

13) Nuclear fusion thought to be happening in the sun has never been achieved in any tests

14) Magnetic confinement and Z-pinch fusion has been achieved using high Amp electrical current input

15) Birkelands experiments seem to mirror nearly exactly many characteristics of the sun using an electrically charged anode

16) Supercomputer models carried out by highly competent scientists have perfectly mirrored the morphology of galaxies which are kept in shape by EM connections in space plasma between stars, not gravity.

17) The equations to calculate the current density, the voltages needed, and all the other areas can be easily worked out using standard already existing equations of EM and plasma theory.

18) Electric current filaments have been found in the interstellar medium and published in various journals, implying that there in current flow into and out of the solar system

19) The sun and the ISM produces its own current sheet, also confirmed in various journals

20) Since all planets have millions of amperes of electricity entering their poles, logically you could conclude the same about the sun.


And in response to all this, you largely ignore what i have said, instead saying that because I have no detailed explanation for neutrino yields the whole thing is wrong. A theory that explains the most phenomena and disregards the least evidence is the more powerful theory. Put another way, since the standard model disregards much of these problems and puts them off as small inconsequential problems to be answered in the near future, whilst in contrast the electric model has answers to all of these problems, the electric model is the better theory.

And your main reason for dismissing it doesn't even hold that much water anyway. Neutrino's are not unique to nuclear fusion, they are produced by all manner of particle interactions. Most of the time when a particle annihilates with its anti particle they produce electron neutrino's, pions when they decay emit photons and neutrino's of variable flux for example (i'm sure you remember the good old Feymann diagrams from college). Magnetic confinement is more than capable of producing the small flux we observe and could rise to a large array of flux values, but even that flux is a very small measurement in itself and doesn't really prove much anyway. It was trumpeted much by many solar astronomers as being definitive proof of the nuclear model, but if you actually look at the main ideas involved; en.wikipedia.org... the actual amount of data to support this idea is very small. It seems consistent, but could be explained by various other methods. There is no established experimental method to measure the flux of low energy anti-neutrinos, and only anti-neutrinos with an energy above threshold of 1.8 MeV can be uniquely identified, which severely limits the predictive power of neutrino's in the first place anyway.

Unless you can respond directly to some of the points I have outlined above with genuine scientific reasons to dismiss them, I am going to have to make use of the ignore button on the left of my screen until you make some worthwhile contributions


[edit on 2-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

a) the electron wind blowing towards the Sun according to that "theory" (non-existent in reality)
b) amazingly constant potential of the alleged charged sphere around the Sun, despite all those electrons flowing in
c) the undefined and mysterious source of the electrons that are flowing into the Sun according to that moronic "theory"
d) undefined sources of energy in the Sun, in that "theory"
e) apparently nonexistent jets of current emitted from the poles of the Sun (which should be there according to that laughable concoction)



Thankyou, some information to actually discuss.

a) I am not saying that every electron is streaming into the sun, or every proton away from it. If you were to take an the average direction of all the negative particles in the solar wind they would be travelling towards the sun, and the average direction of the positive away from the sun. The very nature of the solar wind being a plasma allows this to happen, as plasma is defined by this charge separation of the positive and negative charges.

www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu...


Previously in this book the reader has been introduced to the idea of a plasma, and to a solar plasma called the solar wind.

Because both the electrons and ions are free to move in a plasma, a wide variety of waves can exist in the solar wind. These waves are called plasma waves. Since the early days of the discovery of the solar wind it has been thought plasma waves play an important role in controlling dynamical processes in the solar wind.


The plasma frequency is caused by the conduction electrons’ tendency to oscillate around the neighbourhood of positive ions, being detached and able to move freely. This is how the bacstreaming electrons recently observed are possible, as the electrons are detached. This is why you call the solar wind a plasma. Backstreaming Electrons Associated With Solar Electron Bursts - American Geophysical Union - 12/2007

b) This is the part you seem to not get. The flow of charge overall cancels out to retain the voltage of the sun. It is not building up charge, as at any given time the outflow of positive = the inflow of negative. This means that its net charge stays relatively constant

c) The electrons come from the surrounding stars, which emit well over a trillion particles every day (the sun has somewhere in the region of 10^58 particles in it). Those particles have got to end up somewhere, they do not just vanish, and there are a heck of a lot of stars emanating (and receiving) these particles. They are carried on the interstellar currents that scientists have observed in the molecular clouds between stars. Observation of the CIV effect in interstellar clouds: a speculationon the physical mechanism for their existence - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on

d) Magnetic confinement and Z-pinch process's produced by the high amperage current created by the flow of charged particles. Also the magnetic effects of the poles, both on the surface and inside the sun, should be sufficient enough to produce acceleration, particle annihilation and confinement with quite considerable energy output. And general high surface activity created by flares, mass ejections, and electrical currents would seem to be a good contender for energy production too.

e) Very few measurements have been taken at the suns poles, nearly all satellites are in the equatorial plane, and the amount of particles (as i have continually stated) would not need to be very large. The amount of energy released in various fusion techniques does not require large amounts of particles. Only a very meagre amount of particles would have to drift towards the sun to potentially fuel it in its entirety.


[edit on 2-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
What we seem to have here is either a refusal to look at the evidence i have put forward, or outright denial of it.


Fantastic. Where is the freaking evidence you are talking about? Please post links to papers published in peer-reviewed sources, and thank you, I'll be able to digest anything you though at me.



If I could understand what your reasons are we could discuss it in an open way, but the problem is I dont even know what your issue with it is


Oh, I can easily believe that. Please read my post above really carefully and slow, if you so prefer.


From my viewpoint you are rejecting it because you started arguing against it before you knew all of the details about it


Let's skip the details and come right to the idiotic crux of it, whereby we find a giant spherical capacitor around the Sun.


Maybe the title given to this model is what puts you off?


Oh no, you can call it the "Thus spoke Zmorrg" or anything at all. It is the helpless attempts of armchair physicists to make sense, which I find displeasurable.


but your level of dogmaitism is beginning to get to me.


well thank you, because I think I might be just starting to break that calcified shell of decadent credulity that you seem to have built around your perceptions of this Universe.


1) the fact that the suns magnetic field is large and constant implies that the electric currents that generate it are also large and constantly flowing


That's so freaking deep I am about to cry. Field is large, currents are flowing. Amen.


2) The fact that flares are known to the electrical, and so this raises questions about what extent electricty plays in the rest of the sun, and why the surface seems to be so electrically active


Well, currents are everywhere, as you so astutely pointed out. Flares are known to be complex phenomena involving the magnetic field as well. I see that your statement is lacking in substance.


3) Current theories advocate twenty completely different models for various coronal sesmological anomalies, they cant all be right.


That might be, but I wager none of these features as royal a set of impossibilities as the "theory" you are trying so hard to push here.


4) The violation of the inverse square law for radiation due to the hot corona


Well there might be other energy transfer mechanisms, that doesn't bother me a bit.


5) Why there is a corona at all


Sheesh, if you have a superhot object riddled with currents and magnetic fields (all part of "mainstream science" you love to hate), would you not expect matter to be ejected?


6) The origin of the filamentary structure of the corona


Well I think everybody and their grandma knows Sun has magnetic field. Your point?


7) The fact that the 'magnetic reconnection' theory violates maxwells equations and has never been tested


From where I look, you don't seem to have solved the Maxwell's equations very many times, and you don't seem to possess the command of mathematical apparatus needed to qualify statements like that.


8) As this is the case, the suns magnetic and electric field should be connected to the surrounding stars fields



Well I don't think anybody argues with that. Given the infinitesimal magnitude of fields stretching multiple light year distances, I don't see why you get so excited. Here's the kicker: even as we speak, the star known as Sirius is pulling YOU towards it with tis gravity. Please feel free to speculate on how differently your diet coke will bubble in that circumstance.


9) Particle acceleration observed above the photosphere can be explained by the sun producing an electric field


Or a thousand little gnomes pushing them.


10) The recent observations of 'backstreaming electrons' travelling the completely opposite direction than the standard model states


Did you bother to read those papers???


11) The fact that this process is known on earth when positive ions are emitted from a surface, which exactly what the ES models says is happening on the suns surface


Positive ions exist in a battery in your watch, does this mean the Sun is made by Duracell?


13) Nuclear fusion thought to be happening in the sun has never been achieved in any tests


??? The theory of fusion is somewhat well developed and we have working nuclear weapons based on it, as well as experimental studies of fusion in the lab, which of course don't reach unity at this point (don't reproduce energy needed due to inefficiencies in recovery).


14) Magnetic confinement and Z-pinch fusion has been achieved using high Amp electrical current input


Please don't try to impress me with buzzwords here, because you aren't capable of calculating the yields in your "model" of the Sun (which is crap).


15) Birkelands experiments seem to mirror nearly exactly many characteristics of the sun using an electrically charged anode


Well that's just filament structure of the current which is cool but really nothing to write home about.


16) Supercomputer models carried out by highly competent scientists have perfectly mirrored the morphology of galaxies which are kept in shape by EM connections in space plasma between stars, not gravity.


There are many similarities in nature that have nothing to do with whether the underlying theory was right or not. Today, my little daughter decided to throw up (happens in kids) and the spot on the floor I had to clean looked tremendously like a galaxy. I can assure you there is not strong electric fields in our house.



17) The equations to calculate the current density, the voltages needed, and all the other areas can be easily worked out using standard already existing equations of EM and plasma theory.


Don't see content in this one.



18) Electric current filaments have been found in the interstellar medium and published in various journals, implying that there in current flow into and out of the solar system


Again, magnetic focussing of currents is cool but not a new theory of any kind.



20) Since all planets have millions of amperes of electricity entering their poles, logically you could conclude the same about the sun.


????? Planets like Earth are bombarded BY THE SUN. Do you elect to ignore that simple fact?


And in response to all this, you largely ignore what i have said, instead saying that because I have no detailed explanation for neutrino yields the whole thing is wrong. A theory that explains the most phenomena and disregards the least evidence is the more powerful theory. Put another way, since the standard model disregards much of these problems and puts them off as small inconsequential problems to be answered in the near future, whilst in contrast the electric model has answers to all of these problems, the electric model is the better theory.


So far it's not even a theory but a construct pushed by those whose physics horizons were exhausted at approximately the level of high-school EM physics.



And your main reason for dismissing it doesn't even hold that much water anyway. Neutrino's are not unique to nuclear fusion, they are produced by all manner of particle interactions.


Well, duh, and they have different energies in each kind of reaction. A 10 GeV neutrino interacts differently than a 20 MeV one. Did you know this?


Most of the time when a particle annihilates with its anti particle they produce electron neutrino's


What bullshwat. Enough of that hapless meandering on your part... Signing off. You don't know physics and you presume to expostulate a new grand theory? Pathetic.


[edit on 2-2-2008 by buddhasystem]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
This site lists some of the sucessful predictions that EU proponents made that have been confirmed. The list is quite impressive, and i cant remember the last sucessful prediction made by standard astronomy, they seem more surprised at everything they see, ie, comet holmes, the hole discovered in the universe, etc, etc,.

Predictions of the Electrical Universe

Their precitions about comets are the most impressive, and probably deserve another thread in itself.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
In my opinion the Electric Sun Theory is a brilliant concept.

It reminds me of the relationship certain kinds of plants and animals have with each other, where one rewards the other for survival.

The relationship between Flowers and Bees are well known. For example the Bee collects nectar from a flower for food and the flower benefits because the Bee transports the pollen to the female portion of the plant for fertilization.

Bees

Just a side note to think about. Albert Einstein said that mankind would only have four years left to live if the bees disappeared off the surface of the earth.

Disappearing Bees

Without the sun the planets orbiting it would fly in a straight line. If that were to happen, one day the planet would possibly crash into another heavenly body. By being bound to a central star the planet is safe from collision.

There has to be some sort of energy released by the planet's endless journey forward. Add a few more plants running around a star and then the power increases. A by product of that relationship is the light output from the sun, just as the theory states. If all the planets stop rotating around their star then the light output must also come to a halt. If this theory proves true then all stars that are lit up must have planets orbiting them.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's so freaking deep I am about to cry. Field is large, currents are flowing. Amen.


Your point? you have just confirmed my statement, the electric currents in the sun are large, and not consistant with the slowly convecting ball of gas that the sun is currently thought to be that takes particles nearly over a hundred years to travel from the core to the surface.


Well, currents are everywhere, as you so astutely pointed out. Flares are known to be complex phenomena involving the magnetic field as well. I see that your statement is lacking in substance.


Magnetic fields are produced by electrical currents. wheres the lack of substance?


That might be, but I wager none of these features as royal a set of impossibilities as the "theory" you are trying so hard to push here.


Non scientific answer.


Well there might be other energy transfer mechanisms, that doesn't bother me a bit.


It bothers me, as i want to try to explain it.


Sheesh, if you have a superhot object riddled with currents and magnetic fields (all part of "mainstream science" you love to hate), would you not expect matter to be ejected?


Yes, of course. But the specifics of the corona imply electrical currents are the primary cause, and not strange new properties of magnetism.


Well I think everybody and their grandma knows Sun has magnetic field. Your point?


I note your not addressing my point about the filamentary structure of the corona created by the electric currents.


From where I look, you don't seem to have solved the Maxwell's equations very many times, and you don't seem to possess the command of mathematical apparatus needed to qualify statements like that.


well, the IEEE journal of plasma science certainly seems to agree with my opinion on this one. members.cox.net...


Well I don't think anybody argues with that. Given the infinitesimal magnitude of fields stretching multiple light year distances, I don't see why you get so excited. Here's the kicker: even as we speak, the star known as Sirius is pulling YOU towards it with tis gravity. Please feel free to speculate on how differently your diet coke will bubble in that circumstance.


Well, astronomers do argue with that. They say that the magnetic field lines of the sun end on molecular clouds, and do not accept this connectivity between stars.


Or a thousand little gnomes pushing them.


Non scientific explanation, and quite frankly obserd.


Did you bother to read those papers???


did you? backstreaming electrons are observed during energetic solar events? do you dispute this?


Positive ions exist in a battery in your watch, does this mean the Sun is made by Duracell?


That is a Non sequitur responce you know, and highly irrelivant.



??? The theory of fusion is somewhat well developed and we have working nuclear weapons based on it, as well as experimental studies of fusion in the lab, which of course don't reach unity at this point (don't reproduce energy needed due to inefficiencies in recovery).


Nuclear weapons are a quite different process to the continual fusion that has been claimed is happening in the sun. That releases energy instantaneously, and is not a continous reaction. Billions of pounds of investment has been put into trying to achieve this, and not once has it been done.



Please don't try to impress me with buzzwords here, because you aren't capable of calculating the yields in your "model" of the Sun (which is crap).


'buzzwords'? i used the terms magnetic confinement and Z-pinch effect, what makes them 'buzz words'? they are definate tested effects.



Well that's just filament structure of the current which is cool but really nothing to write home about.


He also replicated solar flares, the plasma torus, sunspots, solar prominences, rings similar to saturns, coronal magentic poles and many other aspects. I have to question if you have even looked at his experiments in detail. (link)


There are many similarities in nature that have nothing to do with whether the underlying theory was right or not. Today, my little daughter decided to throw up (happens in kids) and the spot on the floor I had to clean looked tremendously like a galaxy. I can assure you there is not strong electric fields in our house.


Very bad comparison. But we know that there are strong electric fields in space, thats why the scientists at los alamos laboratory included them in their simulations.


Don't see content in this one.


care to ellaborate why there is no content? I see them as highly relevant.


Again, magnetic focussing of currents is cool but not a new theory of any kind.


And just because its old and established means we should dismiss its role? that makes no sense at all.


????? Planets like Earth are bombarded BY THE SUN. Do you elect to ignore that simple fact?


Stars like the sun are bombarded BY THE GALAXY. Do you elect to ignore that simple fact?


What bullshwat. Enough of that hapless meandering on your part... Signing off. You don't know physics and you presume to expostulate a new grand theory? Pathetic.


I'm sorry, are you denying that when some particles annihilate they produce neutrino's? that is basic physics, and i thought you of all people would know that.

[edit on 3-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

b) This is the part you seem to not get. The flow of charge overall cancels out to retain the voltage of the sun. It is not building up charge, as at any given time the outflow of positive = the inflow of negative. This means that its net charge stays relatively constant



no, not at all.

this is the real core problem of the electric star theory, you say that you can balance a lost + charge by adding a - charge, which is wrong on its face. why even bother with the distinction anyway if you could swap them like that ?

in order to keep the proposal viable, they'll now have to find a way to close the electric circuit, otherwise, the star would have to charge up until equilibrium is reached - at which point it goes out.

PS: maybe that's where all the BB theory's 'dark matter' comes from ?


[edit on 3.2.2008 by Long Lance]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
this is the real core problem of the electric star theory, you say that you can balance a lost + charge by adding a - charge, which is wrong on its face. why even bother with the distinction anyway if you could swap them like that ?


hmmm... I do see your point, but I stand by what I said. Of course the charge does not stay 100% constant, you may have an excess of millions of electrons at any one time (that doesnt effect the charge that much in comparison) so that will offset net overall charge towards being more negative. If this is the case then more protons will be atracted to the sun (or rather less will be emitted to retain more +ve charge), restoring value of the charge to what it was before.

The point here is that if the electrons were to build up (for whatever reason), the sun would not become negative overall, it always stays positive, but it could become more negative than usual, making less protons leave it as they are more attracted back to it than usual. If there is more positive charge building up, then there will be more electrons attracted to restore it back to its original voltage. So it should stay roughly at the same potential.

The key to this model is that gravity itself retains this charge on the sun, which gives rise to the net charge and the resulting current flow.



in order to keep the proposal viable, they'll now have to find a way to close the electric circuit, otherwise, the star would have to charge up until equilibrium is reached - at which point it goes out.


Do you mean by equilibrium it has cancelled out all the charge and is now neutral? or it returned to its voltage equilibrium?



PS: maybe that's where all the BB theory's 'dark matter' comes from ?


quite


[edit on 3-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
In my opinion the Electric Sun Theory is a brilliant concept.

It reminds me of the relationship certain kinds of plants and animals have with each other, where one rewards the other for survival.



Just a thought occured to me that why couldnt universe be like living ecosystem here on earth. I could give some kind of an answer to question "where does the energy come from to ES". So when organisms die here on earth they release "fuel" for others to thrive. So it could be the case also in the universe when stars "die" they release energy for others to keep up their radiation.

Again one of these high flying thoughts.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
My earlier questions were in fact directed at you and while you couldn't have known that at the time i hope you will now find the time to help me out...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
or maybe this might be more direct : www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by buddhasystem
You are right. The moronic nature of EU is not in any particular part of it, but in its composition.


Why? Can't we say the same for many of our 'grander' theories that has attempted to combine known 'laws' ?


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.


That's VERY obvious by now so if that's as much evidence as you need to be 'convinced' it speaks volumes for why this discussion is still ongoing.


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.


Says the scientist who have spent tens of billions of dollars trying to create fusion power stations. Isn't it just fascinating how the 'expert' theorist regularly can't implement their 'laws' to make to provide us with new technologies?


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.


They NEVER will? Thanks for letting us know what your hoping for; it's quite revealing.



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.


But as i understand the 'resolution' to the SNP has not been validated with any great certainty? Why maintain a model that was clearly incorrect for more than thirty years? Why did we have to change other 'laws' to make the standard solar model work ?


quite an idiotic statement. Abdus Salam sure was not white, and neither were any of Nobel Prize winners of Chinese descent.


So are you denying the fact that for at least the last century science and the suppression of new ideas were led by western , white european, scientist? How many of the Jewish scientist you are quoting were semitic and how many were of eastern European descent? Do you know what the difference is? Will anyone claim that Chinese scientist drove the science revolutions of the last two centuries? Why are you trying to turn this into a racial discussion when that is but a side note to the fact it's in fact a imperial western 'conspiracy'?


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.


It's not racially loaded, just accurate, anymore than claiming to have 'African American' friends makes you any more or less racist. Please don't go off topic by focusing on a accurate minor point.


Speak for yourlsef, will ya.


Unless you wish to argue that scientist , white or otherwise, are not regular people with ego's far larger than their knowledge base we can leave it at that.


Paranoia.


Paranoid would be the condition if i were wrong. Since the suppression is so obvious ( unless one is well indoctrinated) i am in fact just a bit better informed than you are. I know that it's hard to believe that brilliant people such as yourself are in fact relatively normal, when it comes to ego and defending their interest ,but is that really reason to suggest paranoia in the absence of other explanations for all that suppression?


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


The fact that you consider the claims 'startling' is just a question of your bias and the fact that you are not better informed. I do not feel very important ( especially not with my current day job) and i don't think what i am saying has ANYTHING to do with being smart. I consider myself relatively well informed but that is not something any person with relatively wealth ( time) can't do.


about how science is an evil cabal and how they,


Why do you think people need to be individually evil for a system to be? Is everyone in the US government evil because that government wages terrorist genocidal campaigns against the third world? How many examples would like that shows how a system can select the type of people that would best suit it's interest?


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.


Can't explain ALL the mysteries but i do believe that my reading on various subjects have given me a pretty decent ability ( my opinion) to select some theories over others.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join