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.

 

The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

page: 10
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
So, you're saying the corona reaches temperatures of millions of degrees, while the surface of the Sun stays at a relatively cool 6000 degrees, because magnetic arcs exist on the surface of the Sun?

Interesting.

I was unaware that heat could be transfered through magnetic arcs - and that magnetic arcs could exist at all without a flow of charged particles (something engineers like to call an electric current).

Your claims fall short of describing how the corona could be so hot while the surface is so cool. Even standard cosmologists accept this. You're not going to find a single published paper accounting for all the heat generated in the corona by a standard cosmologist. They don't have any answers.




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So, you're saying the corona reaches temperatures of millions of degrees, while the surface of the Sun stays at a relatively cool 6000 degrees, because magnetic arcs exist on the surface of the Sun?

Interesting.

I was unaware that heat could be transfered through magnetic arcs - and that magnetic arcs could exist at all without a flow of charged particles (something engineers like to call an electric current).

Your claims fall short of describing how the corona could be so hot while the surface is so cool. Even standard cosmologists accept this. You're not going to find a single published paper accounting for all the heat generated in the corona by a standard cosmologist. They don't have any answers.



Arcs reach all the way to the corona.

I am saying the current originates from the Sun's iron core and travels through the arcs. Arcs get thinner due to gravity thereby creating conditions conducive to high energy discharge. X-rays and gamma rays have been observed. This is not standard cosmology, my previous posts in this thread do not support the standard model.

Here are scientific sources that support such discharges:

Z-machine achieves 3 billion degrees kelvin:
focusfusion.org...

NASA's official explanation(notice how they ignore metallic content):
www.nasa.gov...

University of Maryland www.astro.umd.edu...





[edit on 18-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by platoslab

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So, you're saying the corona reaches temperatures of millions of degrees, while the surface of the Sun stays at a relatively cool 6000 degrees, because magnetic arcs exist on the surface of the Sun?

Interesting.

I was unaware that heat could be transfered through magnetic arcs - and that magnetic arcs could exist at all without a flow of charged particles (something engineers like to call an electric current).

Your claims fall short of describing how the corona could be so hot while the surface is so cool. Even standard cosmologists accept this. You're not going to find a single published paper accounting for all the heat generated in the corona by a standard cosmologist. They don't have any answers.



The arcs reach all the way to the corona.

I am saying the current originates from the Sun's iron core and travels through the arcs. Arcs get thinner due to gravity thereby creating conditions conducive to high energy discharge. X-rays and gamma rays have been observed. This is not standard cosmology, my previous posts in this thread do not support the standard model.

Here are scientific sources that support such discharges:

Z-machine acheives 2 billion degrees kelvin:
focusfusion.org...

NASA's official explanation(notice how they ignore metallic content):
www.nasa.gov...

University of Maryland www.astro.umd.edu...



[edit on 18-12-2009 by platoslab]



You're quoting me pages from the focus fusion society.

You do realize that Eric Lerner runs that site and he is a plasma cosmologist that agrees with me right?

This is his cosmology site.

www.bigbangneverhappened.org...

While the Sun's core may indeed be iron, it certainly isn't generating its heat from an internal ball of fusion reactions radiating out into space. It is a physical impossibility for the Sun's surface to be 6000k while the corona is 2 million K and to have that heat originate at a point internal to the Sun.


[edit on 18-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




It is a physical impossibility for the Sun's surface to be 6000k while the corona is 2 million K and to have that heat originate at a point internal to the Sun.


Please, at least read about the Z-machine before claiming it as an impossibility. 3 billion degrees K was recreated in a lab. I am not spouting theory.

The same principle applies. We take an enormous source of electrical power (capacitors or Sun) and force huge currents down a thin wire (arcs, coronal loops). What do we get? X-rays and high energy discharge capable of extreme heat!



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by platoslab
 


Do you just ignore everything I write?

Did you happen to miss the several posts I made claiming the Sun is nothing more than a z-pinch from currents of plasma?

Where do you think Lerner came up with the idea for focus fusion?

He got it from studying electric cosmology.


[edit on 18-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Just to clarify, my previous argument is to simply explain the extreme heat in the corona. As for the actual power supplying the iron core; I believe fusion & currents from space are involved.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by platoslab
 


As Thornhill explains, the reason the corona is so hot is due to electron acceleration along the Sun's plasma sheath.


>> The Sun’s plasma sheath. The white curve shows how the voltage changes within the solar plasma as we move outward from the body of the Sun. Positively charged protons will tend to “roll down the hills.” So the photospheric tuft plasma acts as a barrier to limit the Sun’s power output. The plateau between (b) and (c) and beyond (e) defines a normal quasi-neutral plasma. The chromosphere has a strong electric field which flattens out but remains non-zero throughout the solar system. As protons accelerate down the chromospheric slope, heading to the right, they encounter turbulence at (e), which heats the solar corona to millions of degrees. The small, but relatively constant, accelerating voltage gradient beyond the corona is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the Sun. Credit: W. Thornhill (after W. Allis & R. Juergens), The Electric Universe.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
BTW, For Americans following this the 6000 K at the Suns surface to equal to 10340.3 degrees Fahrenheit and the 2 Million K at the corona is equal to 3599540.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

This may help some Americans visualize better what these good folks are discussing.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by platoslab
 


Do you just ignore everything I write?

Did you happen to miss the several posts I made claiming the Sun is nothing more than a z-pinch from currents of plasma?

[edit on 18-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


I have read your posts but there was nothing regarding composition. If I understand you correctly, you are crediting the plasma alone for supplying energy for high heat.

Do we agree on an iron core? If so, the plasma field that surrounds the core will have a much lower power density. You'll find iron/nickel is a better medium for energy distribution and storage. Chances are, plasma was created and is sustained by the charged molten core and not vice-versa.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by platoslab
 


The Sun may have an iron core, in fact its highly likely as Marklund convection would move heavy elements created in the fusion taking place near the stars surface to the center of the star.

However the ultimate source of the heat is from external currents of charged plasma being focused in a pinch effect, not from any internal burning of hydrogen.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
A catchy little tune:

%"The Sun is a mass, of incandescent gas,
A gigantic nuclear fur-nace

Where Hydrogen is built into He-li-um
At a temperature of millions of degrees."


"Yo ho it's hot, the Sun is not
A place where we could live

But here on Earth there'd be no life
Without the light it gives"
%

(chorus)

%"We need its light, we need its heat
The sun light that we seek
The sun light comes from our own sun's
A-to-mic en-er-gy"
%



Buuuuuu dum dee dee dum, ba dah dah, dah dah, dum, (etc...)

Why Does The Sun Shine?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
Now wrt electric sun. I don't need to investigate this since it fails the common sense test. If the sun was powered externally then all of the apparent power(energy) of the sun has to be external and that is a fricking lot of energy, electrical or not. With that amount of electrical energy flowing in I think it would have been notice even by the satellite makers as their equipment was fried! The source is either concentrated/funnelled in or spread out. If the former then there is a huge glow somewhere?!?! If the latter then the shaded side of earth would be bombarded with electrical energy and those satellites would be suffering. Finally where is the source of the electrical energy?


This is the type of logic that even laypeople should use in realizing that the electric sun model just doesn't make sense in the absence of any observations that it's getting HUGE inflows from outside. GOOD JOB!!


The hydrogen fusion model on the other hand makes perfect sense. And just because we don't understand completely the temperature transfer process around the sun, it's a lot easier to swallow that we just need to keep studying that to figure out why it does what it does. But frankly I don't see why it has to be a direct heat transfer process, maybe that's what you're stuck on mnemeth1.

For example, look at how a microwave oven works. It emits electromagnetic radiation, but the oven stays pretty cool, even though you can boil water inside it. There is NO direct heat transfer.

There doesn't have to be direct heat transfer around the sun either, why can't there be electromagnetic radiation from the sun (there is electromagentic radiation from the microwave), and why can't the stuff that EM radiation hits get hotter than the EM source? Wait a minute, there IS EM radiation from the sun, and lots of it!

We know it can happen with a microwave, why not the sun? I'm not saying the EM frequencies match a microwave, just that a somewhat analogous EM effect is probably the cause. The latest research is pointing in this direction, though we still have more to learn.

But the idea the sun can "cook" surrounding plasma to temperatures hotter than the photosphere seems no more magical to me than how a microwave operates.

Now the sun putting out more energy than the earth can use in a year every fraction of a second, with no apparent source for the energy, that would be magical.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think the common sense test is failed when scientists declare the sun is a big ball of burning hydrogen, yet its surface is over 300 times colder than its atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Various cold fusion experiments have proven nuclear reactions do occur when metal absorbs hydrogen gas. Since our Sun is much more energetic than their tabletop devices I estimate there should be massive nuclear products including elemental transmutations within the core. Lighter elements such as Helium are likely to be ejected and end up in the plasma atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The same type of argument can be made for evolution through cooperation rather than competition.

We have been told what is "real" over and over again. At some point, it becomes difficult to fight this bombardment of the senses, but this is all based on the belief in evolution and the worship of the sun that is promoted by the Mystery Schools of Babylon.

Here is a link to William Coopers 1st part of a ten part series concerning sun worship and humanism.

part one Bill Cooper's mystery babylon series

I am not completely familiar with the Electric Sun theory, but I am grateful for the post and I will review it.

Star for you along with a thanks.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Weedwacker, you have posted nothing that proves the standard thory correct, and can not explain the question(s) that I and others have asked. No one can post positive evidence that the standard "accepted" model holds water any more. The electric model can sufficiantly explain the very same things that the standard model can't. The truth is staring you in the face and still you side with ignorance. It's maddening.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Although does anybody have an explanation for why satellites don't get fried when floating through space? That is a pretty good question one that we might not know the answer too.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Although does anybody have an explanation for why satellites don't get fried when floating through space? That is a pretty good question one that we might not know the answer too.


Satellite circuits are hardened against radiation and equipped to handle stray electrical surges. I remember a design they used that involved a very dense material that can absorb lots of electricity. It acted as a "ground". This material would be ejected out into space when it reached full capacity.

Space is full of electricity. There is no doubt about it. Even astronauts describe a metallic smell after spacewalks. Metallic smell is a characteristic of ionization. The real question should be; How much of it actually contributes to the Sun?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think the common sense test is failed when scientists declare the sun is a big ball of burning hydrogen, yet its surface is over 300 times colder than its atmosphere.


Based on that logic I can't heat a cup of coffee in my microwave oven.

OK keep putting your coffee in your old conventional oven if you really think that's the only way you can heat it



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by platoslab
 


Okay that's right, I just wanted to be sure. I remember now NASA has this patented gel called Aerogel that they use to shield the electronics from radiation too I do believe I know they used it on the Mars rover. It's only 3 times heavier than air, I think, but has amazing insulation properties, one of the demos they have crayons sitting on top of this stuff with a butane torch directly underneath and the crayons don't melt.

I think that is a good question too.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join