Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

And while we're at it, tell me when you guys find some dark matter or dark energy or a black hole. Thanks!

Thought I would revive this thread and just post a few more discoveries that confirm the electric model of stars.

Before, I was only aware of the recent observations of backstreaming electrons heading towards the sun, but I have now found out that there seems to be direct observational evidence for large plasma flows entering into the sun from the surrounding galaxy. These events are often called 'solar inflows', and are considered a complete mystery for conventional science. The ES model however directly predicted that particles could flow into the sun as well as out of it, and so the sun need not consume itself over its lifetime at all, its energy source is likely remote; from the galaxy.


www.onr.navy.mil...

Naval Research: The Sun - Inflows

Astronomers spend a lot of time studying what flows away from the Sun, such as supercharged particles, hot gases, light, heat, and other types of energy. [...] Now scientists believe that by studying material that flows into the Sun, they can better understand what comes out of the Sun.

The inflowing material was not discovered until 1997, when researchers studying images from the Large-Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) onboard the SOHO satellite noticed gas moving toward the Sun at speeds of 31 to 62 miles per second (50 to 100 km/s). The gas was somehow moving against the powerful solar wind, which, at this distance from the Sun carries material outward at 75 miles per second (120 km/s).

www.esa.int...

SOHO’s latest surprise: Gas near the Sun heading the wrong way

Mysterious clouds of gas [NOT gas: they mean Plasma] falling towards the Sun have been spotted with the ESA-NASA SOHO spacecraft. They go against the fast-moving streams of gas [Plasma!] that pour out continuously into space, in the solar wind.

In today’s issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters, the scientists who found them suggest that the inflows are due to frequent local adjustments to the Sun’s magnetic field. The discovery promises a better understanding of the sources of the solar magnetism that envelops the Earth, quarrels with our own planet’s field, and to some extent protects us from cosmic rays coming from the stars.

This comment makes me laugh: "The discovery promises a better understanding of the sources of the solar magnetism" Maybe the same thing that causes all magnetism on Earth?, the flow of charge, ie, electric currents


www.spacetoday.org...

LASCO. The inward flowing gas clouds [“gas clouds”; Not gas; Plasma] have been found in images collected since 1996 by the Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph instrument aboard SOHO. Altogether, some 8,000 inflow events have been logged. Most have been seen since 1998 during a time when the Sun has been at its most active with the highest number of sunspots.

There seems to be a correlation between the amount of inflow events to the sun and the amount of sunspots, which I thought was interesting. My personal thoughts on sunspots is that they are areas where the normal outward travelling solar wind inverts, and you get small currents of particles streaming back into to the sun, against the predominant direction. This may explain the temperature minimum (sunspots are much cooler than the rest of the sun), as the particles are entering from the cooler region just above the photosphere, and their direction would also shield that area from the heat being generated below.

Also adding credence to this idea is the very recent observation of a huge tornado like structure in the shape of a helical Birkeland Current (usually called a host of wrong things by mainstream astronomy, "flux tubes", "aligned fields", "twisting gas", etc) being generated directly above a sunspot;


www.timesonline.co.uk...

Remarkable images of a “solar tsunami” spreading across the face of the Sun have been captured by a pair of spacecraft.

The tsunami of superheated gas [WRONG. ARRGGGHH. I give up! its made of electrically conducting plasma, just like the rest of the sun is made of], caused by a huge explosion known as a coronal mass ejection, took only 35 minutes to cross almost the entire Sun.

I'd say that this is yet again another direct observational confirmation of the ES model that astronomers are no doubt going to hand wave away as mere co-incidence.

Plasma physicist and electric sun advocate Wallace Thornhill wrote a webpage about exactly this; before this event was even detected. Another successful prediction by EU proponents.


Sunspot Mysteries

[...] However, there is another familiar form of atmospheric electric discharge that does scale appropriately and could explain the mysterious dark cores of penumbral filaments. It is the tornado! Tornadoes, like the one pictured here, last for minutes and can have a diameter of the order of one kilometre. Scale those figures up 100 times and we match penumbral filaments very well. And if the circulating cylinder of plasma is radiating heat and light, as we see on the Sun, then the solar 'tornado' will appear, side on, to have a dark core.

The key to understanding tornadoes is that they are the result of rapidly rotating electric charge. Just as electrons are the current carriers in the copper wires we use for power transmission, so they are in the tornado. The BIG difference is that the electrons are moving at many metres per second in the tornado while they take several hours to move one metre in copper wire [...]

The ES model seems to be getting more and more likely by the day with every new discovery in space.

Seems that mainstream astronomy is full of a lot of hot gas at the moment. Quite literally.


[edit on 27-4-2008 by ZeuZZ]

ZeuZZ,
We'd prefer that you

avoid typing in the quoted portion

of your posts.



[edit on 27-4-2008 by Jbird]

Found this brilliant paper online; www.ctr4process.org...

If Ionized is still about on this forum, you in particular will like this publication by Timothy Eastman, as it addresses some of the philisophical points of cosmology, looks at proces philosophy and plasma cosmology, and some other cosmologies too. I like it because its written by someone who is considered a fully 'mainstream' astronomer, yet he seems to talk very favorably of plasma cosmology, despite the fact that most scientists have a sort of inherent religous opposition to it (as i have found out by how angry they get when you mention it on various fora online). Its nice to see plasma cosmology gaining support from other scientists.

Cosmic Agnosticism
Timothy E. Eastman
Cosmology & Process Philosophy in Dialogue, Oct. 5-8, 2006
Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California

No Final Answers in the Final Frontier

Major progress has been achieved in space science in the past half century, especially now with in-situ observations of space plasmas and space-based platforms for solar physics and astrophysics. [....]

However, new and challenging observational results and, for a growing number of scientists, persistent problems with BB hypotheses have encouraged research in alternative cosmological models. Although my own field is space plasma physics, I have taken some time in the past two years to evaluate such claims and counter-claims. My tentative conclusion is that there is no current model in physical cosmology that adequately meets all key observations – thus my “cosmic agnosticism.” This paper calls attention to this ongoing scientific debate without going into details. For those scholars in philosophy and religion who use research results in physical cosmology, I recommend caution and encourage the recognition at least that such debate exists and is part of ongoing research.

And the rest of paper is worth a read for anyone else interested about plasma forces and how they can apply to to cosmos. Mainstream astronomies purely gravitational models are looking more and more dated by the day.

With new observational results coming available, there are possibilities arising for definitive tests and falsification instances for cosmology models. Continuing limitations of modern cosmology include the following:


• Lack of a unified field theory; debates about string theory, loop quantum gravity theory, and other approaches illustrate this continuing debate (see Smolin, 2001).

• The means for experimental test are exceeded by the proliferation of theories of gravity (see “gravitation” and “bimetric theory” entries at Wikipedia); however, new results from NASA’s Gravity Probe B, to be available in 2007, will provide a serious test for many such theories, including Einstein’s; see einstein.stanford.edu...)

• Like geology and unlike particle physics, cosmology is intrinsically an historical science and lacks direct experimental testing for many key hypotheses.

• Data in cosmology are limited to remotely sensed photons; there is no direct, in situ measurement as in space physics or planetary science.

• Most existing cosmology models focus on only one long-range force field (gravity) and ignore potential long-range effects of electromagnetism and plasmas.


These observational results will inevitably be contested by BB proponents. Any reader who knows about any critical problem in the analysis methodology is requested to advise the author of this survey paper; the same request applies to all other research results reported here.

On this last point, it is well known that electromagnetism is very effectively shielded out, which allows gravity to generally dominate over long scale lengths. Nevertheless, electromagnetism and plasmas can still be significant because:

“By definition, plasmas are an interactive mix of charged particles, neutrals, and fields that exhibits collective effects. In plasmas, charged particles are subject to long-range, collective Coulomb interactions with many distant encounters. Although the electrostatic force drops with distance (~1/r2), the combined effect of all charged particles might not decay because the interacting volume increases as r3. Magnetic field effects are often global with their connections reaching to galactic scales and beyond” (Goedbloed and Poedts, 2004).

The potential importance of electromagnetism and plasmas is indicated by the rapidly growing field of plasma astrophysics (see links and references at www.plasmas.org...). As one example of its significance for altering conventional assumptions, Kundt (2005) shows in detail how observed signatures of existing “black-hole” candidates can be more effectively interpreted as neutron star magnetospheres with accretion disks or neutron star binaries. Efforts to assess the potential impact of the new plasma astrophysics on cosmology issues are just beginning (e.g., Peratt, 1995).

Nice to see some scientists seriously considering plasma cosmology as a viable option, and not dismissing off hand like most do.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by ZeuZZ]

I have so far enjoyed your contributions but i must point out that it's quite unfair ( and it's not like i don't make this mistake) to suggest that it's a 'new' field for scientist! There is and always has been a few generally main stream scientist , at least they used to be until they started spending a bit of time questioning main stream conclusions, that looks into alternatives in their attempts to arrive at the truth. Some scientist either never realised that they were supposed to tow the line if they wanted to keep their jobs or just decided that it was worth risking their necks over.

If, obviously, it wasn't for these people few of us lay readers/ investigators would have any scientific leg to stand on given just how specialized and sometimes overwhelming theoretical the modern frontiers of science can be.
So lets just watch for that mistake while we continue to level legitimate criticism at the majority of scientist who either doesn't know any better or hides the truth for their own benefit.


Stellar

Great stuff!

As an electrician, I understand electricity makes the world go round, literally!

If one electron could equal $1b dollars in a computer,

we had better understand it's power.

What if the moon is like an electron, and it was ripped from earth, sorta like what happens to and electron in a generator,
where would it go?

To the nearest next planet, bumping out another moon, and then we would have current in the solar system.

Can we get this thread going again. I just read the entire thing from beginning to end and I was wondering why it has been months since any new updates.

Thank you,

ST

Hey guys... How does electric cosmology address things like cosmic background radiation and nucleosynthesis?

I very much like the ideas proposed in plasma cosmology, but there are a couple things that just entered my head and don't seem to make much sense. Plasma cosmology requires nucleosynthesis. More gamma and X rays would be seen than what we are observing?


Would love to see this discussion start back up again.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by Steven T]

[edit on 4-1-2009 by Steven T]

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Steven T]

reply to post by Steven T


how are Xrays produced in a technological setting? what are people at CERN doing? they are using various kinds of accelerators, don't they? so there's one mechanism.

besides, there is ionizing radiation associated with naturally occuring electric discharges, ie. lightning:

www.livescience.com...


[edit on 2009.1.5 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Steven T
Hey guys... How does electric cosmology address things like cosmic background radiation and nucleosynthesis?

I very much like the ideas proposed in plasma cosmology, but there are a couple things that just entered my head and don't seem to make much sense. Plasma cosmology requires nucleosynthesis. More gamma and X rays would be seen than what we are observing?

Would love to see this discussion start back up again.

Me too.
Lets try.
As far as the so-called "Cosmic Background Radiation" goes, this could possibly the "hum" of the galactic power lines in the vicinity of our solar system.It's a far more likely thing than a Big Bang relic.
When the COBE satellite measured the CBR at 2.7 Kelvin, BB fans immediately announced that this was all "confirmation" of their theory (well, they would - wouldn't they).
What was not mentioned at the time was that there were also predictions by other theorists - who did *not* base their work on the "BB" that were a great deal closer. Let's go through some facts.
1 - The first astronomer to collect observations & calculate a theoretical "Temperature of Space" was Andrew McKellar. in 1941 he announced a temperature of 2.3 Kelvin from radiative excitation of certain molecules.
WWII got in the way though, and his paper was largely ignored.
2 - In 1954, Finlay-Freundlich predicted 1.9K to 6K based on "Tired Light" assumptions.
3 - Tigran Shmaonov estimated 3K in 1955.
4 - in 1896 Charles Guillaume predicted 5.6K from radiant starlight, refined by Arthur Eddington in 1926 to 3K and 2.8K by Eric Reneger in 1933.
The BB proponents had actually made the worst guesses - Robert Dicke predicted 20K in 1946 later revised to 45K and George Gamow gave 50K in 1961.
To get a perspective on just how wrong this is, consider that "temperature" in space is the square root of a square root of energy density. Therefore Gamows estimate was around 12,000 times too high.

As far as Nucleosynthesis goes, please explain exactly what you are asking and I will do my best.