Is NASA lying to us about the sun?

In school we are taught that the sun is a big ball of dense gas. Most of us do not question this theory because that is what the “experts” tell us. What if I told you there is an alternative model of the sun, if true (I believe it is), can simplify its replication therefore making unlimited power generation a possibility. Do I have your attention? Do you believe NASA / Government would want anyone to have this knowledge?

Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun:

arxiv.org...

www.thermalphysics.org...

query.nytimes.com...

1. Successful fusion experiments involving liquid plasma (w/ overunity):

www.rexresearch.com...

jlnlabs.online.fr...

www.wired.com...

blog.wired.com...


2. Successful fusion experiments involving gas (w/ overunity): 0

On the subject of UFOs; you are probably wondering where they fit in to the equation. Would it be safe to assume that UFOs already understand stellar processes that involve liquid plasma fusion ?

I urge the reader to look into the Falcon Lake UFO case, and any other cases that hint at the use of liquid plasma fusion technology. Cases involving water collection by UFOs are also relevant since deuterium can be extracted from water. Here is a link with many such cases:

www.ufocasebook.com...







[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikolat23]

No. Nasa is not lying to you about that. Relax. The Sun is just a big ball of hydrogen. But what they are lying to you about, or, better shall I say, is that they are not telling you the full truth about what the Sun can do to the Earth with its sunspots that could literally make Earth unlivable in. But, no, Nasa is not lying to you about this, relax.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


No? proof?

Not to say you are wrong.. but unless you can back up your statements.. I wouldn't be so "sure". Now of you said "I don't think they are falsifying information".. that would be different.

Not saying you are wrong or not, but don't be so sure without undeniable proof.

For an alternate theory, check out plasma cosmology. The sun is entirely different in that it isn't nuclear fusion at the core that lights it up. It's electromagnetic in nature, at least according to that view.

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


Yes, I can prove it.

The sun is basically a giant ball of hydrogen and helium gases. In the sun's core, hydrogen atoms combine to form helium atoms. This process—called fusion—gives off radiant energy.

This radiant energy sustains life on earth. It gives us light and makes plants grow. It makes the wind blow and rain fall. It is stored as chemical energy in fossil fuels. Most of the energy we use today came from the sun's radiant energy.

www.eia.doe.gov...


And as for sunspots..

Sunspots, Solar Flares, Coronal Mass Ejections and their influence on Earth: Coronal Mass Ejections (shown left) and solar flares are extremely large explosions on the photosphere. In just a few minutes, the flares heat to several million degrees F. and release as much energy as a billion megatons of TNT. They occur near sunspots, usually at the dividing line between areas of oppositely directed magnetic fields. Hot matter called plasma interacts with the magnetic field sending a burst of plasma up and away from the Sun in the form of a flare. Solar flares emit x-rays and magnetic fields which bombard the Earth as geomagnetic storms. If sunspots are active, more solar flares will result creating an increase in geomagnetic storm activity for the Earth. Therefore during sunspot maximums, the Earth will see an increase in the Northern and Southern Lights and a disruption in power grids and radio transmissions. The storms can even change polarity in satellites which can damage sophisticated electronics.

But the jury is still out on how much sunspots can (or do) affect the Earth's climate. Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth's atmosphere. From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth's climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth's climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina? Increased volcanic eruptions can also affect the Earth's climate by cooling the planet. And what about the burning of fossil fuels and clear cutting rain forests? One thing is more certain, sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth. More study will be conducted in the future on relating sunspot activity and our Earth's climate.

www.crh.noaa.gov...

reply to post by Frankidealist35



So in the same post you say they are not "telling you the full truth"....

Then, to try to back up your statements, you link to what NASA tells you.. not helping your case much there.

Its either A. they are being truthful or B. they are not being truthful.

You have to stick to a side there friend.

reply to post by TwiTcHomatic


I was responding to the OP when he talked about them lying to him about the sun and what he was learning in school. I was mainly saying that NASA is keeping the truth from school children about the sun when they are studying the Sun and the Stars. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


I don't mean to be rude here but the thread, based on it's title, is implying that NASA is possibly covering something up. Since NASA is a .government organization, the links you provided are links to another .government organization, which is most likely referencing data provided by NASA itself.

Never trust a .government website, if another .government organization is suspected of "covering something up".

Originally posted by TwiTcHomatic
reply to post by Frankidealist35

 

So in the same post you say they are not "telling you the full truth"....

Then, to try to back up your statements, you link to what NASA tells you.. not helping your case much there.

Its either A. they are being truthful or B. they are not being truthful.

You have to stick to a side there friend.

life is not black and white like that.

In school we are taught a simple model of the Sun and stars. In College and University the model grows in complexity. NASA aren't lying to you or anyone else about the composition and structure of the Sun.

The science behind what makes up the Sun existed before NASA were even conceived. An excellent and illustrated explanation of our Sun is here. Plasma is ionized gas, so your school was just keeping it simple rather than dishonest.

reply to post by Unmask The Deception

NASA and the environmental agency are both two very honest agencies. It's at the top are the people who are the liars. I figure I can link to the source material they have on their websites if it's common knowledge and I just wanted the most comprehensible link I could find so I just linked to that.

What is the deal with some people on here and NASA. I'm not huge on the government, but NASA is one of the few agencies that's actually accomplished things and paid back (in technology and subsequent economic benefits) more than was ever invested in it. Not everything is a conspiracy.

The Sun, as everybody but a few damfool conspiracy theorists knows, is a flaming orange a few miles above our heads.

Do try to keep up, there's a good OP.

reply to post by heyo


Life is not black and white like that? Have you been over to the Israel/Gaza thread lately? Seems pretty black and white over there.

NASA has never been upfront about alot of things and has been caught many times giving out fabricated information. And now that other nations are going to go out there and find the truth themselves, it has NASA all up in arms and racing to either tell the truth, or to try to work some kind of deal with these other nations so that the truth paddle doesnt hurt too much in their rear when these other nations come home with the real deal board of education.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Unmask The Deception

 

NASA and the environmental agency are both two very honest agencies. It's at the top are the people who are the liars. I figure I can link to the source material they have on their websites if it's common knowledge and I just wanted the most comprehensible link I could find so I just linked to that.

There are good apples and bad apples in the case. It is the good apples we need to support and stand behind. The bad apples however, are the ones that need to be thrown out.

Other nations going into space will put up a good challenge to NASA to either start telling the full truth, or be prepared to become the laughing stock of the rest of the world when these nations bring back the data.

I tend to beleive that NASA will get off its "nothing to see move along" game and start being a real agency like it once was.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by watcher1960
What is the deal with some people on here and NASA. I'm not huge on the government, but NASA is one of the few agencies that's actually accomplished things and paid back (in technology and subsequent economic benefits) more than was ever invested in it. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Beyond the conspiracy issue there are big gaping holes in the gaseous sun model. Properties such as blackbody radiation and it slow rotation rate does not fit the gas model but can be explained with the liquid-plasma theory. The 'Electric Universe' video briefly discusses some of the inconsistencies.

Does anyone have those amazing closeup pictures of sunspots? I think the pics prove that the main fusion reaction originates from the "surface" (consistent with liquid-plasma) rather than the core (gas model).

The Electric Universe:








[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikolat23]

Here are some relevant ATS threads for anyone interested in this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikolat23]

NASA would never lie.. its more like.. bending the truth
..

I\'ve found this quite an interesting thread. The idea that NASA are lying about the Sun is quite an assertion and one that can be tested. As I mentioned earlier, hard astronomy predates NASA by some decades. Universities and observatories across the continents support and fund astronomers without a cent from NASA.

I\'m not an astronomer. I find interesting subjects and then look at all the sides. The Liquid Plasma Model was new to me. I researched it. Only one person is associated with the idea, Pierre-Marie Robitaille. One of his reports is here. Not being an astronomer, I naturally need to find \'lighter\' accounts that I can digest. I thought it strange that he\'s the only person associated with the Liquid Plasma Model. His abstract was easier to read.

Science is considered by some to be a static world, where any new ideas are dismissed or condemned \'through fear.\' People believe that, rather than accepting change, these old scientists prefer to hide from the truth. They couldn\'t be more wrong. Science is a bloody battleground and nothing is beyond challenge. New ideas have pe

I've found this quite an interesting thread. The idea that NASA are lying about the Sun is quite an assertion and one that can be tested. As I mentioned earlier, hard astronomy predates NASA by some decades. Universities and observatories across the continents support and fund astronomers without a cent from NASA.

I'm not an astronomer. I find interesting subjects and then look at all the sides. The Liquid Plasma Model was new to me. I researched it. Only one person is associated with the idea, Pierre-Marie Robitaille. One of his reports is here. Not being an astronomer, I naturally need to find 'lighter' accounts that I can digest. I thought it strange that he's the only person associated with the Liquid Plasma Model. His abstract was easier to read.

Science is considered by some to be a static world, where any new ideas are dismissed or condemned 'through fear.' People believe that, rather than accepting change, these old scientists prefer to hide from the truth. They couldn't be more wrong. Science is a bloody battleground and nothing is beyond challenge. New ideas have people queuing up to fight them. It's called 'peer review' and PM Robitaille has quite a name here.

His paper has never been peer reviewed and is regarded as basically flawed.

Pierre-Marie Robitaille is a radiologists who spent $125,000 to take out a full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times arguing for his peculiar theories of the universe which he claims peer reviewed journals will not touch because his ideas “are simply too opposed to current thought.”

Source

The NY Times link covers a lot of the discussion and raises questions that Robitaille was pushing a Creationist/ID theory of the Big Bang and the Sun.

My PC network adapter is cfuked