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: 7
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

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?



i mean that, without a closed circuit, the entire star system is reduced to a capacitor (that's where Buddhasystem's remarks come from), which can be charged by externally applying a voltage and eventually reaches equilibrium, ie. capacitor and power supply voltage end up the same, no more current flows and it's over.

if you follow the notion that charge can't be destroyed, it immediately follows that, with a continuous net positive current emanating from the sun, it'll either have to stop shining one day or that it's utilising a way to channel these surplus negative charges elsewhere, or to be more exact, to the 'power supply's' opposite pole.

i heard that polar 'jets' visible or invisible are often mentioned in this context. the concept has one glaring shortcoming, namely that the electric field responsible for plasma current flow through space would have to reverse in the area of these hypothetised jets, which sounds extremely strange, but considering the scalability of plasma phenomena, it should be verifiable in lab experiments. i suspect Alfven or Birkeland have tried that already, but i have no data to confirm.




posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:27 PM
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.

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.


That surely provides some deep insights into plasma physics and cosmology, no doubt about it. Flowers and Bees, and Starfish (see, there is "star" in it) are all responsible for fertilizing the galaxy, especially the "female portion" of it. Brilliant.



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.


Is it? But the star itself is moving pretty rapidly in space, and might crash the whole Solar System into something, so fasten your seatbelt. Also, did it occur to you that the Sun due to its gravity pulls a lot of asteroids with it, which have nasty habits of crashing into Earth and wiping out ancient civs (possibly)?


If all the planets stop rotating around their star then the light output must also come to a halt.


It's been a while since I found nonsense amuzing, so thank you.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 



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


Here's what you wrote and you insist this is right. I repeat that this is bullshwat. Electron neutrinos? What about muon neutrinos? What about anti-neutrinos? And how come this happens "most of the time"? Sheesh.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

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


Oh I see. The first thing is that it's not a fact. Second, who is bombarding the galaxy? Who is bombarding clusters of galaxies? How come the galaxy is bombarding the Sun and not directly the planets in the Solar system? Where is the evidence of the tremendous current flowing into the Sun? What part of it? Why would this current then leave the Sun in a different direction?

Laughable.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Forgive me for butting into this most serious discussion of the origin of our universe, i cannot help but to interject my two cheap cents to this issue, as I have been following this thread from the beginning.

Personally, I am more than convinced of the need to pay, in the very least, a serious attention to this emerging EU theory, which makes far more sense than standard astrophysics that I learned in college. Certainly, evidence so far presented here(and elsewhere that I referenced) by the proponents of this theory is very compelling, especially by the most recent data of the comet dust samples that presents a big unavoidable question mark to the "dirty snowball" theory that I learned in school.

It has generally been accepted in social theories that in a roomful of people, it tends to be the most emotional one that will attempt to dominate the others. Given some of the unfortuate and repeated use of highly emotional language(Bullshwat, Sheesh, Laughable, Neanderthal, Nuff said, Goddamn, Freaking, Idiotic, Pathetic, etc, etc) used by a certain individual in this thread, one tends to think such practice is not helpful to the discussion, and belies the knowledge proclaimed. zeuZZ and other open-minded folks here I think have been more than patient, calm, and rationally evidentiary in contrast.

In an attempt to cool down some of the hazy emotional cloud that appears to be an intentional, however ineffective, attempt to transcend the "gravity" of the discussion, I offer the following "stellar" humor as a counterweight:

So Many Parallel Universes, So Little Time...
Black Holes Are Out of Sight
Black Holes Were Created When God Divided By Zero!
Black Holes Really Suck...
Cosmologists Do It With A Big Bang!
The Hubble Works Fine; All That Stuff Really IS Blurry!
Going The Speed Of Light Is Bad For Your Age.
How Many Weeks Are There In A Light Year?
Supernovae Are A Blast!
A Day Without Fusion Is Like A Day Without Sunshine.
Astronomers Do It In Black Holes.
Astronomers Do It All Night.
Astronomers Do It In Clusters.
Astronomers Do It In The Dark.
Astronomers Do It Under The Stars.
Astronomers Do It While Gazing At Uranus.
Astronomers Do It With Mirrors.
Size Does Matter!
Limb Darkening: Early Treatment Saves Lives
Living On Earth May Be Expensive, But It Includes A Free Annual Trip Around The Sun.
It Is Estimated That 3.71 X 10^10 "First-Star-Tonight" Wishes Have Been Wasted On Venus.
Honk If You're From Draco!
Gravity: Not Just A Good Idea...It's The LAW.


I will further add this famous quote from Lord Kelvin:
"Heavier than air flying machines are Impossible".

[spelling edit]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by NeedToNo]



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Try weighing this option... A star's energy are particles accumulating as the obstruction between two spiraling currents +/-. Again, I try to sum this up in my blog:



blog.myspace.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Try weighing this option... A star's energy is the basis behind particles accumulating as an obstruction between two spiraling currents (+/-). Again, I try to sum this up in my blog:



blog.myspace.com...







I'd encourage someone to dispute me almost. I think current science is slightly confused when it comes to the formation of the building blocks of life.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 



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


Here's what you wrote and you insist this is right. I repeat that this is bullshwat. Electron neutrinos? What about muon neutrinos? What about anti-neutrinos? And how come this happens "most of the time"? Sheesh.


Yes indeed, why not tau neutrino's? why not anti tau neurino's? what about the gamma photon released aswell? talk about being pedantic. I'll reword that for you if you want, when most particles annihilate (mainly to conserve lepton number) they release a neutrino, which may be an antiparticle of variable generation, depending on the particles in question. happy?


Originally posted by buddhasystem
who is bombarding the galaxy?


Since plasma is highly scaleable if you scale the solar system model up about four orders of size, you would have a similar process with the galaxy. In which there is a flow of current travelling through the centre, where most of the reactions are seen to be taking place. It is basically a simple homopolar motor, or unipolar inductor, and both of these result in rotational motion arrising from direct current input, and is one of the reasons why filaments twist into Birkeland currents. This could explain why all bodies rotate, something lacking from conventional theories. This model explains excellently the observations of galaxies all lined up, as if attatched by a long string. www.space.com...



Strange Setup: Andromeda's Satellite Galaxies All Lined Up

An unusually high number of galaxies are aligned along a single plane running through the center of the giant Andromeda galaxy. Scientists don't have a theory to explain why.

Galactic cannibalism [ ????? ] or dark matter may be responsible, researchers say. [
]

Using the Hubble Space Telescope, Eva Grebel and Andrew Koch from the University of Basel in Switzerland found that nine out of Andromeda's fourteen dwarf galaxy satellites reside in a single plane. The plane is about 52,000 light-years wide and is aligned perpendicular to Andromeda's own galactic plane, within which the galaxy's stars orbit about the center.

That nearly 80 percent of Andromeda's satellite galaxy mass is located within a single plane is highly unusual and can't be accounted for by traditional theories of galaxy formation, Grebel said.


Distant galaxies line-up in space - BBC

So these structures seem to fit the morphology expected from the ES model quite well, infact these type of structures (along the plane of the centre of the galaxy) would be a direct consequence of the current expected from a homopolar motor mechanism. All sorts of objects in space take this shape, the neutron star at the centre of the crab nebula is a fine example where you can see the current through the centre, with the rotating cloud of plasma around it;



So the process that is happening in the sun is a far smaller with far less input into it than that one. In our solar system the currents only become visible when they are right next to the sun in the corona.


Who is bombarding clusters of galaxies?


From the nearby galaxies. That is likely how clusters form, due to the weak EM forces and the flow of particles between them. The amount of particles inbetween them would be be very small and very diffuse and so not visible until they become more dense nearer the galaxy. This would certainly explain the galaxies being lined up, and the rotational motion that they show;




How come the galaxy is bombarding the Sun and not directly the planets in the Solar system?


But it is, ever heard of cosmic rays?


Where is the evidence of the tremendous current flowing into the Sun? What part of it?


It comes from the electric currents following the magnetic fields into the suns poles, but also from particles attracted to it due to its electrical field, from nearly all directions.


Why would this current then leave the Sun in a different direction?


Because thats how homopolar motors work.



The fact that the corona has a different appearance near the poles indicates that there is something different occuring at the poles than the rest of the sun.


[edit on 5-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Since plasma is highly scaleable if you scale the solar system model up about four orders of size, you would have a similar process with the galaxy. In which there is a flow of current travelling through the centre, where most of the reactions are seen to be taking place. It is basically a simple homopolar motor, or unipolar inductor, and both of these result in rotational motion arrising from direct current input, and is one of the reasons why filaments twist into Birkeland currents. This could explain why all bodies rotate, something lacking from conventional theories.


Thanks for that explanation! You've got me thinking along the 'As Above So Below' holistic idea again...

What you suggest could also be rationalised to the atomic level too, as you illustrate with this point...


This model explains excellently the observations of galaxies all lined up, as if attatched by a long string.


The model you mention could also explain the observations of atoms all lined up as if attached to one another...the equivalent 'micro' Birkeland current filaments tie the atoms together into a particular molecular structure



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
It comes from the electric currents following the magnetic fields into the suns poles, but also from particles attracted to it due to its electrical field, from nearly all directions.


Again, there is no evidence of such electron current. The BACKSCATTERING of electrons off the Earth's magnetic field is not it. Please read it again, it's back-scattering. The electrons were flowing outwards form the Sun before being rescattered elsewhere.


But it is, ever heard of cosmic rays?


Well, since you are asking, I've done a quite few measurements with cosmic rays in college and in industry, while producing the hadronic calorimeter for L3. Have you done any theory or esperiment in that area as well?

Now, the thing is, in the "electric sun" theory, tremendous amounts of cosmic rays are magically concentrated on the Sun, from which they are re-emitted towards Earth. Impossible.



[edit on 5-2-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Again, there is no evidence of such electron current. The BACKSCATTERING of electrons off the Earth's magnetic field is not it. Please read it again, it's back-scattering. The electrons were flowing outwards form the Sun before being rescattered elsewhere.


Wrong.

Once again: adsabs.harvard.edu...

These electrons are just manifesting themselves as current flows inside/through the plasma. They believe that these electrons fly off from the sun and reflect off of something out in the distance, and then fly back at the sun as though they were photons reflecting off various light reflecting surfaces. They don't grasp the fact that electrons flow naturally through plasma, and through the plasmas of our solar system. They seem to think that electrons will act like bouncing photons in plasma.

Not so.



Now, the thing is, in the "electric sun" theory, tremendous amounts of cosmic rays are magically concentrated on the Sun, from which they are re-emitted towards Earth. Impossible.


What source do you have for this? Where does the electric sun theory make this claim?

Are you even aware that the theory is based on galactic Birkeland currents (you and your mainstream ilk are referring to them as magnetic "ropes" now)? And yes, the mainstream admits now that these magnetic "ropes" are streaming towards the Earth from the sun and causing the auroras.

www.nasa.gov...

Have you looked at plasma cosmology at all? These "ropes" were predicted by plasma cosmology, just like many other predictions that have come true -- polar hot spots on Saturn, debunking the "dirty snowball" comet theory, etc.

When was the last time your mainstream theory made a successful prediction? Every single press release is "shocking," "surprising," and makes everyone have to "go back to the drawing board."

I love how you refuse to apply the same standards you use for plasma cosmology to your mainstream fantasies. Magnetic reconnection? Black holes? Dark matter? Dark energy?

You can't do any of that in the lab. None of it. They defy the conservation of energy laws and basic physics. You will never find them, and you know it.





[edit on 5-2-2008 by Riposte]



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now, the thing is, in the "electric sun" theory, tremendous amounts of cosmic rays are magically concentrated on the Sun, from which they are re-emitted towards Earth. Impossible.


Is it really stated anywhere in ES theory that cosmic rays concentrate on the Sun? That would be interesting but I find it hard to believe, both that the exact statement was made as you seem to imply, and that the process would happen like that anyhow. That would be one hell of a field to grab such high speed particles and change their direction to concentrate on the sun. It is pretty obvious that cosmic rays have much less to do with the process than the interstellar/intragalactic circuits, which have been observed in the form of Birkeland type and sheet currents.

OT: BTW, I too worked in cosmic rays, helped to build the worlds largest cosmic ray observatory, the Pierre Auger Observatory, which is based in the Argentine desert. By the time I left for other pursuits it was only half operational, data was just starting to be taken. I slightly infected some of my colleagues who analyze the data to think more openly about the possible origins of cosmic rays, as nearly all of them took the standard view that it was some black hole or supernova process doing the acceleration.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
Is it really stated anywhere in ES theory that cosmic rays concentrate on the Sun? That would be interesting but I find it hard to believe, both that the exact statement was made as you seem to imply, and that the process would happen like that anyhow. That would be one hell of a field to grab such high speed particles and change their direction to concentrate on the sun.


Yup, I subscribe to all that you say. That would take a few impossibilities for this to happen. Why did I mention such concentration? Because the flux of extra-solar particles, as it is measured, is much much smaller than that resulting from solar wind. Please correct me if I am wrong. It would take, therefore, an enormous concentration of the extra-solar flux for subsequent re-distribution into the Solar system, to account for this. One of my questions to Zeuss was, if the Sun is bombarding the Earth and the solar wind is a current, who is bombarding the Sun to provide that current? The answer was that it was "the galaxy". As you pointed out, that's not possible on that scale.


OT: BTW, I too worked in cosmic rays, helped to build the worlds largest cosmic ray observatory, the Pierre Auger Observatory, which is based in the Argentine desert. By the time I left for other pursuits it was only half operational, data was just starting to be taken. I slightly infected some of my colleagues who analyze the data to think more openly about the possible origins of cosmic rays, as nearly all of them took the standard view that it was some black hole or supernova process doing the acceleration.


It's great to have you as a part of this discussion! I think that there is a lot to be learned about the ways particles undergo acceleration in both the Sun and extra-solar sources. It's a different thing, however, to claim that electric currents ARE the leading factor in the physics of the Sun, as so patently stated in the term "Electric Sun" and "Electric Universe".

By the way, what do you think of energy production in the outer layers of the Sun, which is claimed in the ES?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yup, I subscribe to all that you say. That would take a few impossibilities for this to happen. Why did I mention such concentration? Because the flux of extra-solar particles, as it is measured, is much much smaller than that resulting from solar wind. Please correct me if I am wrong. It would take, therefore, an enormous concentration of the extra-solar flux for subsequent re-distribution into the Solar system, to account for this. One of my questions to Zeuss was, if the Sun is bombarding the Earth and the solar wind is a current, who is bombarding the Sun to provide that current? The answer was that it was "the galaxy". As you pointed out, that's not possible on that scale.


Actually you seem to be taking what I said out of context, although I was being specific. All that I was pointing out is that specifically cosmic rays have little if anything to do directly with the input to the solar current system. Cosmic rays are in effect stray particles, whereas what we are looking for is a much more concentrated current, in the form of birkeland filaments or plasma sheets, which is not only possible on that scale, but observed across all scales. It seemed you where implying that someone claimed that concentrated cosmic rays are the source of the current, and I don't see where that was stated anywhere, so I was simply correcting your assumption specifically regarding cosmic rays.

Your question appears to have been answered not only in this thread but the others related. The sun is not some closed system after all. The view of the sun as an object that is separated from outside process is a remnant of the object oriented gravitational paradigm. Yes it is part of a closed circuit in the standard sense of current flow, but it is an open system in the sense that the local process receives energy from the larger scale processes within the galaxy.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's great to have you as a part of this discussion! I think that there is a lot to be learned about the ways particles undergo acceleration in both the Sun and extra-solar sources. It's a different thing, however, to claim that electric currents ARE the leading factor in the physics of the Sun, as so patently stated in the term "Electric Sun" and "Electric Universe".

By the way, what do you think of energy production in the outer layers of the Sun, which is claimed in the ES?


I agree there is a lot to be learned about particle acceleration mechanisms. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks this way. Even within the Auger project, at least during my time there, the analysis taking place seemed to take as basic assumptions gravitationally based acceleration mechanisms centered around massive black holes and supernova. All I could do is seed a few of them with the idea that plasma based process may be at work, and in almost all cases this was met with laughs and disbelief. At the time, these ideas were only just beginning to permeate the field.

Energy production is a touchy subject on all fronts. Energy transfer on the other hand, makes a lot more sense to me. Alfven likened stars to the sink in an electrical circuit, where a transfer from electromagnetic current energy into heat and electromagnetic radiation took place. The transmission lines of birkeland filaments and current sheets emit little to no radiation. The source, movement in space of charges within E-M fields based on far from equilibrium, non-linear, open system processes which have as a feature forms of self-organization. Now THAT is where the physics gets interesting. David Bohm and Ilya Prigogine were pioneers to some extent in the related philosophy. Currently, the Center for Magnetic Self-Organization is taking a role in expounding on these ideas, though it seems to be a conservative institution that has not yet broken out of the old paradigm. Could be some conspiratorial reasons for that.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
Actually you seem to be taking what I said out of context, although I was being specific. All that I was pointing out is that specifically cosmic rays have little if anything to do directly with the input to the solar current system. Cosmic rays are in effect stray particles, whereas what we are looking for is a much more concentrated current, in the form of birkeland filaments or plasma sheets


OK, I admit that I was too quick in my post and quality suffered. But please read further:


The transmission lines of birkeland filaments and current sheets emit little to no radiation.


That probably relates to the part of the current flowing through a rarified space, and not as much to the situation when it hits the atmosphere of some sort. Then it basically would have no choice but to emit. Does that make sense? You have a sphere, a huge current must get it. We don't see that.

Now, you are saying that energy generation is tricky subject. I can't but agree, however, what is being proposed in ES is quite unsatisfactory by any measure. I've heard repeated claims that z-pinch phenomena in outer layers of the Sun result in fusion. If you look at the densities involved, it's impossible to have enough output in that model.


The source, movement in space of charges within E-M fields based on far from equilibrium, non-linear, open system processes which have as a feature forms of self-organization.


Well, yes. There wouldn't be a field of plasma physics if the behavior of plasma was trivial. It serves no useful purpose to trivialize the physics of stars by claiming these is a magic theory (like EU or whatever) that can explain ALL of cosmology with a couple of simple assumptions. Just look at the titles of the threads on this topic. Look at the title of this thread.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
All I can say is Buddhasystem and Ionized, please keep going with this intelligent exchange!! I prefer to listen to both sides of any argument debated with civility and respect.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Greetings all, I'm a new member here. Just wanted to thank those who have posted the info on EU/PC. I have been delving into the subject quite a bit over the last few months and despite a few problems in the theory I feel that we have a winner here. Looking at the universe from the perspective of EU/PC removes the mysticism and takes away the limits on humanity. While perusing these theories, I started to realize a few things. If EU/PC turns out to be correct, then UFO's don't look so impressive afterall. What were once a mystical objects that threw our understanding of physics out the window, suddenly become nothing more than fancy flying Faraday cages. All of that stuff concerning Element 115 and gravity waves and other trekkie vernacular becomes bunk. Further reading on EU/PC also made me think about stealth. More importantly who designed the first public stealth craft (F 117). Lockheed said that this was the first time that an electrical engineer had designed a plane. Is it possible that what we term to be aerodynamic drag is in essence "electromagnetic drag" and by placing the aircraft in phase with this energy flow, it can be reduced if not eliminated? Of course a handy byproduct of this is that radar, being a form of electromagnetism can't see you. This, imo, means that RAM and contouring is more bunk and the truth of stealth is that the US military may see the universe differently(EU/PC) then the mainstream. Sometimes the best place to hide a secret is in plain sight.



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   


Sometimes the best place to hide a secret is in plain sight.


Hear hear!



posted on Feb, 8 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That probably relates to the part of the current flowing through a rarified space, and not as much to the situation when it hits the atmosphere of some sort. Then it basically would have no choice but to emit. Does that make sense? You have a sphere, a huge current must get it. We don't see that.


We don’t see magnetic fields either. No-one has ever seen a magnetic field, does that mean that they don’t exist? Obviously not.


I've heard repeated claims that z-pinch phenomena in outer layers of the Sun result in fusion. If you look at the densities involved, it's impossible to have enough output in that model.


I agree that Z-pinch fusion would be near impossible above the surface of the sun due to the densities involved, however Z-pinch fusion is not the only method to create sufficient energy for the sun. Due to the high strength and chaotic nature of the suns magnetic field inside the sun however it is a main contender for creating some of the internal energy, but other fusion methods such as bubble fusion, sonoluminescence energy, cavitation energy, magnetic confinement fusion, (dare i say it) cold fusion, and many others are possible contenders. And you wouldn't even need a type of fusion to release the energy, particular particle interactions could release this energy when they are accelerated by the suns E-field without fusion being involved at all. Although admittedly particle interactions alone would not be able to account for much of the total energy released by the sun, they could create a significant fraction.

So i second your view that the energy creation question is still not adequately answered. However, the traditional nuclear model has been falsified many times over, so mainstream scientific opinion has no adequate answer for the real fuel source of the sun, just the same as the ES model. Astronomers have not considered any alternative fuel source for the sun since their original proclamation that it simply had to be nuclear fusion over sixty years ago. They said this because it was just after the A-bomb was invented, and so they did not know any other sufficient energy creation methods, and they have not considered any alternatives since, and they certainly have not considered any of the more recent types of fusion.

The main point of this that would be consistent with the ES idea is that some of the other energy creation methods do not need as much pressure as fusion, and so the possibility that the sun creates its energy at the surface, as well as inside itself, is a real possibility.



Well, yes. There wouldn't be a field of plasma physics if the behavior of plasma was trivial. It serves no useful purpose to trivialize the physics of stars by claiming these is a magic theory (like EU or whatever) that can explain ALL of cosmology with a couple of simple assumptions.


Assumption one: Charge can separate and build up in space. (just the same as it does on the earth to create lightning, sprites, etc, etc)

Thats a pretty simple assumption, and unless you can come up a reason to dismiss it, i'm sticking to it. It certainly seems to be able to explain a lot of the problems in astronomy.

From this one assumption the resulting electrical fields, magnetic fields and voltages are all inevitable consequences. And it also seems with this assumption that many other problems in astronomy can be solved, such as the abundance of filamentary structures impossible to explain by gravity, the acceleration of the corona, heating of the corona, the shape of galaxies, double radio sources, etc.



Just look at the titles of the threads on this topic. Look at the title of this thread.


I just pointed out ten incontrovertible problems with solar models, and gave potential solutions to all of them using the electric model. I did not claim that every single aspect of the cosmos can be explained with this theory, I specifically said solar space physics. So claiming that i am saying that EU explains everything about the universe is highly misleading, I was quite specifically talking about the sun and stars.


[edit on 8-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join