Our Sun is Cold And Inhabited With Life.

Actually this article itself suggests a very easy and relatively cheap way to check this ,hmmm, theory. A simple probe (thermomether and transmiter) can be send toward the sun. It can even carry an umbrella to mess up with morphogenetic fields by creating protecting shade. Then it will safely land inside cool blackspot and bring back message from Solarians, probably. Or not.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
Isn't there laser technology that we could develop and employ to measure heat? I've seen hand held units that fire fighters use. What about a bigger one that could reach the sun?

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
Actually what happens if you climb a high mountain? You are closer to the sun and yet, the higher you climb the colder it gets.

It’s a proven fact that at higher altitudes you are exposed to greater amounts of radiation from the sun. Flight Crews, who spend vast amounts of time at high altitude, often retire with health problems from this added level of solar radiation.

The real reason that it get colder at higher altitude is because gas becomes colder as the air pressure around it lessens. That is why when you open a bottle of compressed air, and expose that air to normal pressure, it feel freezing cold. As the air goes from being in a warmer state at high pressure (low altitude) to lower pressure (high altitude), it loses energy thus releasing heat and becoming cold. That is why things like FirePistons work, by rapidly putting air under high amounts of pressure, you can cause it to heat to such a point as to actually start a piece of tinder on fire.

edit to add:
The biggest proof that we can observe with our naked eyes, which shows this theory is incorrect, are comets. Just in seeing a comets tail, you know that the sun is producing the heat that warms it and generates that tail. Comets lose their tails when they head away from the sun into colder deep space.


[edit on 10/31/2008 by defcon5]

reply to post by deathhasnosound


How are you going to bounce a laser off the sun and actually see the return? And in any case there's no need to. Again, we can measure the temperature of the sun just by observing the peak wavelength of its light.

Kelvin = 2.9 × 10^6 nanometers/lambda peak

The sun's peak lambda is about 483nm.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by deathhasnosound

edit to add:
The biggest proof that we can observe with our naked eyes, which shows this theory is incorrect, are comets. Just in seeing a comets tail, you know that the sun is producing the heat that warms it and generates that tail. Comets lose their tails when they head away from the sun into colder deep space.


[edit on 10/31/2008 by defcon5]

incorrect i must add.. a comets tail always points away from the sun..

The first indication that the sun might be emitting a "wind" came from comet tails, observed to point away from the Sun, whether the comet was approaching the Sun or whether it was moving away. Kepler in the early 1600s guessed that those tails were driven by the pressure of sunlight, and his guess still holds true for the many comet tails which consist of dust.

tail points away from the sun

reply to post by daz__



I don’t see how the direction of the tail makes anything I said incorrect? I did not mention the direction, and the direction always facing away from the sun only serves to reinforce the idea that I was initially expressing, which is that the sun generates the tail.

I also like how you pick only part of the article to state it is not the heat, when it is explained in the same article that pressure alone cannot account for the tail in its entirety:

Sunlight pressure cannot explain such behavior, but in 1943 Cuno Hoffmeister in Germany, and later Ludwig Biermann, proposed that apart from sunlight, the Sun also emitted a steady stream of particles, a "solar corpuscular radiation" which pushed the ions. Variations in the speed of the particles would explain the accelerations, and the tail did not point straight away from the Sun because the flow velocity of the particles was not too many times larger than the velocity of the comet itself.

What do you think that “radiation” is?
Its heat radiating from the sun as energy.


[edit on 10/31/2008 by defcon5]

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by deathhasnosound

 

How are you going to bounce a laser off the sun and actually see the return? And in any case there's no need to. Again, we can measure the temperature of the sun just by observing the peak wavelength of its light.

Kelvin = 2.9 × 10^6 nanometers/lambda peak

The sun's peak lambda is about 483nm.

I was suggesting that the technology needs to be improved on,, it already exist.
And the article states that the way scientist measure the heat of the sun by observing peak wavelength is faulty. It is ok when measuring a red ot bar of iron but you canot use the same logic to measure the sun's heat.

You really should read the entire article prior to posting. jmho

OK, solarians are a new one, but I'll keep and open mind, anything's possible.

This has basically turned into an 'electric sun model' vs 'the standard model'. Standard model dictates that the sun is a giant nuclear reactor, the reaction starts within, and propogates outwards. This would essentially mean that the sun is hotter inside, that it is outside, the further you get away, the less heat.

However, the Electric sun theory states that the sun is a huge 'dynamo' recieving energy from outside and discipating this energy outwards. Myself, I believe in the ES theory, makes sense to me, explaining 'unknown' phenomenom aswell as some simple observations and suppositions.

For instance, the Sun is hotter in it's 'photosphere', than it is on the surface. It goes on too claim that the 'black spots' are actually a 'peak' into the Sun yet this is still questionable, as too whether the 'black spots' we see on the Sun are where 'the temperature drops dramatically out of range' or intense magnetic fields are generated by the Sun, preventing measurement.

Another is the comet Venus (I think), NASA expected a nice, soft landing, plasma cosmologist's theorized there would be intense reaction, from the EM field of the comet, and the field given off by the lander. When it 'landed' there was a great 'flash', a serious reaction (If I remember correctly, it was estimated to be the same as a quarter of a kiloton blast).

There are many more but I am not saying it holds all the answers, I see it more of a 'step in the right direction', could be wrong though.

A good website, 'Thunderbolt of the Gods' home page, aswell as this one:

www.electric-cosmos.org...

Thanks,

EMM

Edit: Just found something interesting:

"The electric currents in the Sun generate a complex magnetic field with extends out into interplanetary space to form the interplanetary magnetic field. As the Sun's magnetic field is carried out through the solar system by the solar wind, the Sun is rotating. Its rotation winds up the magnetic field into a large rotating spiral, known as the Parker spiral, named after the scientist who first described it."

Apparently from NASA itself eh? Where as it doesn't say that the sun is powered by electricity, it does accept that electricity, plays a large part in it's function.

source: www.thunderbolts.info...

I'll add the NASA link too:

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...



[edit on 31-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
I was suggesting that the technology needs to be improved on,, it already exist.

You failed to explain how it could work with the sun. Improve it all you want, it won't bounce off the sun detectably.

And the article states that the way scientist measure the heat of the sun by observing peak wavelength is faulty. It is ok when measuring a red ot bar of iron but you canot use the same logic to measure the sun's heat.

You haven't explained why it's faulty. The formula works because the sun is a black body emitter. There is no reason to believe otherwise. This is confirmed by getting the same answer by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the sun's temperature.
Ts = Te/Sqrt(rs/2a0)

You really should read the entire article prior to posting. jmho

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Another is the comet Venus (I think), NASA expected a nice, soft landing, plasma cosmologist's theorized there would be intense reaction, from the EM field of the comet, and the field given off by the lander. When it 'landed' there was a great 'flash', a serious reaction (If I remember correctly, it was estimated to be the same as a quarter of a kiloton blast).

What?! Venus isn't a comet! It's a planet! What lander are you talking about? NASA never landed anything on Venus!

Apparently from NASA itself eh? Where as it doesn't say that the sun is powered by electricity, it does accept that electricity, plays a large part in it's function.

Right, hidden electrons are managing to sneak all the way to the sun slowly without being detected, without being buffeted away by electrostatic forces of the solar wind, without being diverted by the sun's magnetic field and somehow magically provide enough power to produce a massive amount of light across the spectrum AND send electons and protons hurtling away from the sun with enegies far greater than the electrons coming in...

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter



Actually, yes… We have landed on Venus:
Venera-9
like in 1975…

What?! Venus isn't a comet! It's a planet! What lander are you talking about? NASA never landed anything on Venus!

Thats what I get for not doing my own research to refresh my memory! It was comet Tempel one, apologies....again for quick research and lack of follow up.

Right, hidden electrons are managing to sneak all the way to the sun slowly without being detected, without being buffeted away by electrostatic forces of the solar wind, without being diverted by the sun's magnetic field and somehow magically provide enough power to produce a massive amount of light across the spectrum AND send electons and protons hurtling away from the sun with enegies far greater than the electrons coming in...

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ngchunter]

Yup, straight form the horses mouth, only they stipulate that the electricity is created internally, the ES model states that it is recieved externally.

The way I understand it, space is a charged 'field', we can call it a vacuum if you would like, although we both know, there is no such thing as a true vacuum, I refer to it as a plenuum. The Sun is an Anode, electrons are drawn toward the Anode, and protons are accelerated away, this suggests that space, is itself, charged to a degree, as a proton wouldn't accelerate otherwise.

but hey, I'm only a curious by stander.

EMM

Edit: For anyone interested, this is the 'Parker Spiral':



Anyone else imagine the planets nestled in between the waves?

Ok, now I'm seriously confused, NASA has something else up on their website that (I wouldn't say verifies) points 'again' too their seemingly new direction:

Magnetic portals connect Sun and Earth:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."

I bring this up, as in the ES model, the Sun could deliver 'energy' directly to bodies, Saturns 'hexagonal' storm at it's pole is an indicator to me yet NASA revealed this!

Heres another thread, alot of good information, realted to this topic, form NASA again!!

New discoveries are confirming the Electric Sun model:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 31-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

Originally posted by ngchunter
You haven't explained why it's faulty. The formula works because the sun is a black body emitter. There is no reason to believe otherwise. This is confirmed by getting the same answer by using the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the sun's temperature.

look genious, i didn't write the article i just posted it. take it or leave it i dont care either way, but don't get nasty with me because it threatens your opinion of reality.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by deathhasnosound]

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Actually, yes… We have landed on Venus:
Venera-9
like in 1975…

That was a Soviet probe, not a NASA probe.

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Thats what I get for not doing my own research to refresh my memory! It was comet Holmes, apologies.

Comet 17/P Holmes has never been visited by any probe from any nation. It brightened suddenly last year, but it has not been visited.

The Sun is an Anode, electrons are drawn toward the Anode, and protons are accelerated away,

The sun is neutral - electrons AND protons are accelerated away in varying, but on the whole, equal numbers. Those protons and electrons moving away from the sun account for most of what you find in the vacuum of space.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by daz__

 

I don’t see how the direction of the tail makes anything I said incorrect? I did not mention the direction, and the direction always facing away from the sun only serves to reinforce the idea that I was initially expressing, which is that the sun generates the tail.

well direction of the tail to me is very important..
as the comet approaches the sun the tail is millions of miles behind it. this gives a casual observer the idea that something is coming off the comet.. you said the heat coming from the sun is exciting the comet forcing all this debris off the comet and out about 40 million miles into space..
ok
now the comet reaches perhelion (closest point to sun) and passes by the sun the tail changes direction.. the tail is now in front of the comet.. is the comet flying through the tail..

I also like how you pick only part of the article to state it is not the heat, when it is explained in the same article that pressure alone cannot account for the tail in its entirety:

i picked the part of your statement that i thought didn't add up..
i did not say anything about your theory of heat..
i picked the part you said where the comet is going away from the sun and the tail dissapears coz it's getting colder..

What do you think that “radiation” is?
Its heat radiating from the sun as energy.


[edit on 10/31/2008 by defcon5]

i don't know exactly.. all i know is you have a stream of posative protons coming from the sun.. this creates an x ray spike and as i understand the electric comet model you get a stream of negative ions coming in from the far side to neutralise the charging body.. correct me if i'm wrong.. i'm sure you will.. this stream of negative ions are what i understand to be the tail..

peace

daz__

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
Actually what happens if you climb a high mountain? You are closer to the sun and yet, the higher you climb the colder it gets.

As previously stated, "heat" is essentially excited particles moving very quickly,rubbing together, and creating friction/heat... in higher altitudes, the air is thinner, and winds are higher, which both work to seperate excited particles. Also, the thinner air also allows light to pass through it more easily, trapping less heat in doing so.

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
look genious, i didn't write the article i just posted it. take it or leave it i dont care either way, but don't get nasty with me because it threatens your opinion of reality.

I don't think it's "nasty" to ask you to explain how the theory you posted criticizes well-established science. At the moment the only scientific support I see behind it is that william herschel said so. If there's more to it then that then I'm asking you to explain, but I don't think that's nasty.

Originally posted by daz__
ok
now the comet reaches perhelion (closest point to sun) and passes by the sun the tail changes direction.. the tail is now in front of the comet.. is the comet flying through the tail..

No, the sun's radiation imparts a greater delta-V to the particles in the tail than the nucleus of the comet. The particles are headed away from the comet regardless of orientation to the sun.

i don't know exactly.. all i know is you have a stream of posative protons coming from the sun..

Wrong, you have electrons and protons streaming from the sun in equal amounts.

this stream of negative ions are what i understand to be the tail..

Then why did Stardust return a bunch of physical comet grains from the tail? If EU was right it should have come back empty-handed.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ngchunter]

I have a scientific theory, too!

The sun, space, and other planets are merely a holographic representation- nothing more. We live in a huge shell that is no bigger than the last rocks tumbling around outside of our solar system. Reason we have comets and the odd asteroid- the rocks occasionally hit the side of the shell, and bounce back inwards. Those Hubble pics? A team of artists who are trained since childhood made those. As computers became mainstream, the images went from detailed paintings on a special canvas to the monitor as a canvas. The sun? The sun is nothing more than a giant heat lamp suspended on a huge gantry inside this shell we live in. Pictures of the sun? See above. Mars is far away, but it's actually lush and green. All the photos are fake- and all the landers were sent to remote deserts on Mars. Venus is a tropical paradise, but the puppets in power have to convince us otherwise. .

I could go on......

Anyone with a BS in BS can come up with a plausible scientific theory....