It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

page: 11
55
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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

What?

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:26 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1

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

What?
Just as the Sun's surface is much colder than the surrounding matter heated by it's electromagnetic radiation, so too is a microwave oven much colder than the surrounding matter heated by it's electromagnetic radiation.

So if it's impossible for the sun to heat up it's atmosphere to temperatures warmer than itself, your logic proves it's impossible for me to heat coffee in my microwave oven. My microwave oven stays cold, so there's no way it can heat up my coffee to temperatures higher than itself, right?

Yet somehow it does just that.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Just as the Sun's surface is much colder than the surrounding matter heated by it's electromagnetic radiation, so too is a microwave oven much colder than the surrounding matter heated by it's electromagnetic radiation.

So if it's impossible for the sun to heat up it's atmosphere to temperatures warmer than itself, your logic proves it's impossible for me to heat coffee in my microwave oven. My microwave oven stays cold, so there's no way it can heat up my coffee to temperatures higher than itself, right?

Yet somehow it does just that.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

So you're comparing an exposed nuclear fusion reaction to a microwave oven.

LOL

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHLDKJFLSKDJFLSKDJ

Oh, btw, the microwave oven comparison is actually very similar to EU theory. Charged particles arrive from an external source to heat an object. In fact you can use a microwave to induce plasma balls.

In essence, you're actually claiming the Sun is externally powered and agreeing with me.

Glad to see you're coming around.

The ultimate facts are though, it is impossible for the Sun to be nuclear fusion furnace while its surface is 300 times colder than its atmosphere.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So you're comparing an exposed nuclear fusion reaction to a microwave oven.

Oh, btw, the microwave oven comparison is actually very similar to EU theory. Charged particles arrive from an external source to heat an object. In fact you can use a microwave to induce plasma balls.

In essence, you're actually claiming the Sun is externally powered and agreeing with me.

Glad to see you're coming around.

I too am glad to see we are in agreement on at least some things.

So you agree that electromagnetic radiation can heat up matter to temperatures hotter than the source of the electromagnetic radiation, right? Like the microwave.

So why does the source of heating the sun's atmosphere have to be external? We're not in agreement on that part. Everything I see points to an internal source rather than an external source, and you yourself admit there's no evidence for an external source.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
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.

Weird rubbish.

No-one on ATS has to post proof of the standard theory being correct. Why do you think they should?

The 'proof'--evidence would be a far better word--for the sun being powered by nuclear fusion is widely and freely available. If you don't know it already, you are not competent to post an opinion on this thread. This applies to everybody, by the way.

Why is that? It is because an uninformed opinion is a fool's opinion, and worthless.

mnemeth1 is making a bizarre, extraordinary claim, so it is his business to provide the 'proof'--again, evidence would be a far better word.

The fact that he is refusing to do this, and attempting to pick holes in the standard theory instead, proves first that he has no evidence with which to back up his opinions, apart from magical correspondences and 'as above, so below'...

...and worse...

...that he doesn't understand the standard theory either, which means he is not competent to post an opinion on his own thread.

Strange but true.

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:05 AM

The 'proof'--evidence would be a far better word--for the sun being powered by nuclear fusion is widely and freely available. If you don't know it already, you are not competent to post an opinion on this thread. This applies to everybody, by the way.

1.) There are fissures on the surface. -Impossible with the standard model

thesurfaceofthesun.com...

2.) There are temporary solid structures. - Impossible with a plasma core.

thesurfaceofthesun.com...

3.) Propagating waves have been observed on the surface. - Impossible with the standard model.

thesurfaceofthesun.com...

4.) Iron has been detected high up in the corona and are responsible for coronal heating. NASA will ignore this observation and tell you it is all gas! They have a pattern of ignoring metallic content. This is also an indication that iron abundance is much higher in the core. Hydrogen fusion (as described in the standard model) cannot exist in an iron rich core..

http://thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm

5.) There are oscillations spread throughout the Sun which result in uniform patterns on its surface. This is not a signature of a violent plasma and this further supports the contention of a molten core. A sphere of water suspended in 0 gravity should act the same way when exposed to frequencies. You'll get some very interesting patterns.

6.)Surface features like Sunspots and arcs move uniformly as the Sun rotates. This is an indication that the supporting structure is very stable unlike violent plasma.

Observations above obliterate the standard model. There are nuclear reactions present but not as your model explains. My assertions are based on recent satellite observations and scientific discoveries. If you want to refute any of my points, go ahead.

The standard model needs to be updated.

Reference:

www.thesurfaceofthesun.com...
thesunisiron.com...
www.space.com...

[edit on 19-12-2009 by platoslab]

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by platoslab
2.) There are temporary solid structures. - Impossible with a plasma core.

thesurfaceofthesun.com...

In a recent email from Dr. Kosovichev, he explained these features in the following quote:

"The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.

No solid structures and your own source even points that out. The extremely poor quality of evidence such as this is embarrassing.

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

So why does the source of heating the sun's atmosphere have to be external?

Well, it has to be external because the laws of thermodynamics and entropy require radiant heat from the supposed internal core fusion reaction of the Sun to first heat the surface of the Sun, then radiate heat outward to the corona, which should be cooler than the surface if the source of the heat is coming from the core.

Unless you want to throw the known laws of thermodynamics out the window, the only plausible explanation for the fact the corona is 300 times hotter than the photosphere is that the energy to heat the corona must be arriving from outside the Sun.

Show me ONE - just ONE - published paper by any mainstream physicist that fully accounts for the heat of the corona originating from an internal fusion reaction of the Sun.

There are none.

It is impossible.

All the laws of physics must be broken in order for the source of the corona's heat to be the interior of the Sun.

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 02:42 PM

That's very interesting. Just a quick note - the reason most of the exoplanets we've discovered are large planets orbiting close to their sun is down to the method we use to detect exoplanets - either a dip in luminosity of the sun as the planet travels past it (which is greater for a large planet), or the gravitational tug of the planet on the sun (which, again, is greater for a more massive planet).

Oh, and Alfvén waves explain why the corona can be hotter than the surface of the sun.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by davesidious]

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:54 PM

So let me see if I understand this bizarre argument. Your argument seems to be:

-Electromagnetic radiation can heat the sun's plasma as long as it comes from any direction other than the sun

-If the electromagnetic radiation is coming from the sun then from that direction ONLY it is incapable of heating the sun's atmosphere.

-The laws of thermodynamics are the ONLY applicable laws of physics in the direction of the sun, because we must ignore electromagnetic radiation coming from the sun even though it's an "electric universe" theory.

-We must ignore that particular source of electromagnetic radiation (the sun) and claim only the laws of thermodynamics can apply. But as long as the electromagnetic radiation is coming from anywhere BUT the sun, it can heat the sun's atmosphere.

What a selective application of the laws of physics you have, it seems like you'll distort them to any degree to fit your bizarre interpretation. I don't see any violation of the laws of physics and you haven't explained why you do either. Nobody is claiming thermodynamics are heating the sun's atmosphere yet for some reason you are claiming that's the only cause the standard model allows for.

Did it ever occur to you that if no scientist has written a paper proving the sun is heating its own atmosphere, there might be a reason?

I've seen you debate this issue with scientists in the BAUT forum and none of them seem to take this invisible, mysterious, unproven alternate source with no manifestations in the visible or non-visible wavelengths seriously. I can propose a hypothesis that the sun's atmosphere isn't heated by the sun, or by electricity, but by Santa Claus.

I wouldn't feel offended if they don't write a paper to dispel the "Santa Claus is heating the Sun's atmosphere" fantasy and you shouldn't feel offended they haven't written one to dispel your fantasy either (or Don Scott's, or whoever came up with this bizarre fantasy).

It's your job to provide evidence for your bizarre claims yet the only evidence you offer is

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment

The fact that you think electromagnetism can affect the sun's atmosphere as long as it comes from any direction OTHER than the sun is twisted and shows more about your ignorance or misapplication of the laws of physics, than it says about any violation of them.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by W3RLIED2
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.

Weird rubbish.

No-one on ATS has to post proof of the standard theory being correct. Why do you think they should?

The 'proof'--evidence would be a far better word--for the sun being powered by nuclear fusion is widely and freely available. If you don't know it already, you are not competent to post an opinion on this thread. This applies to everybody, by the way.

Why is that? It is because an uninformed opinion is a fool's opinion, and worthless.

mnemeth1 is making a bizarre, extraordinary claim, so it is his business to provide the 'proof'--again, evidence would be a far better word.

The fact that he is refusing to do this, and attempting to pick holes in the standard theory instead, proves first that he has no evidence with which to back up his opinions, apart from magical correspondences and 'as above, so below'...

...and worse...

...that he doesn't understand the standard theory either, which means he is not competent to post an opinion on his own thread.

Strange but true.

I'm not the one saying the Sun is a gigantic fusion reaction that violates all known laws of physics.

The standard model of the Sun is what requires proof, not a model of the Sun that relies on known laws of physics. Occam's razor makes it clear the simpler explanation is what is to be accepted.

Magnetic reconnection is a violation of conservation laws.

Alfven waves in question are supposedly caused by a dynamo action, again, totally hypothetical, ridiculous, and violates conservation laws.

Alfven himself said the standard model of the Sun is a joke and wrote the book on the electric Sun model.

It is the standard theorists that need to show how these violations are possible. Further, they also have to show how their theories are simpler than the electric Sun model, which accounts for ALL observations of the Sun's behavior - something their models fail to do.

Bizarre is believing the Sun is a gigantic fusion reaction radiating heat from its core while its surface is 300 times colder than its atmosphere.

Oh, btw - I have posted links to the published electric Sun models in question several times over. So this "lack of proof" claim is baseless. The models speak for themselves.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 10:37 PM
reply to posts by mnemeth1, post by platoslab

Are you gentlemen being deliberately dense?

Read my post again. Or, if you prefer, my lips:

1. The validity of the standard model of stellar fusion is not the topic.

2. Proof or disproof of the standard model is not the topic.

3. The topic is whether or not certain criticisms of the electric sun model are valid.

You two can ramble on about the standard model all you like. It's all irrelevant, all off topic. What we're waiting for is your evidence--genuine, scientific, physically consistent evidence--that criticism of your electric 'model' is invalid. The consistency of the standard model is most certainly not the issue.

Do you get it now? Do you finally get it?

It was abundantly clear, two pages into the thread, that criticism of the electric-sun theory was very much alive and well. Even the OP could see it, which is why the ten or eleven pages since have contained nothing but his criticisms of the standard theory.

Never mind the physics, at least get the English language right, for heaven's sake.

[edit on 19/12/09 by Astyanax]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:11 AM
Alright, so I think after another six or seven pages I've got this EU figured out...

The suns corona is hot because of an external electromagnetic heat source which cools(?) as it nears the suns surface but heats up again when you approach the core(?).

BUT, the idea of the microwave relation is completely irrelevant because of thermodynamics.

I'm sure you're well aware but if I remember correctly, ANY element can be gas, even iron...which may explain to some of us why we can find iron in or above the corona. I vaguely remember some discussion I'd heard about a super hot exoplanet which was believed to regularly have molten iron rain from the sky. So if Titan can have methane lakes, why can't another large planet-like object hovering super close to its star have iron clouds?

They way I understand the current model is that the sun is so incredibly hot because of the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms (1+1=2 on the periodic chart!), where much like the splitting of atoms creates an incredible amount of heat, radiation AND electromagnetism, the fusion of atoms creats something very similiar...or does it?

This particular thread may be well above most ATS readers (as someone put it), but that doesn't mean we don't have a thirst for knowledge and understanding of the discussion.

I would like to see some more explanation from the contemporary crowd (standard model) on why things are the way they are, it would enlighten the debate to a wider audience as opposed to one side (EU)giving loads of information on why they think it's wrong and whatever evidence they may claim to have to support their theory whereas their opponents (SM) simply dismiss their claim and offer no evidence (wikipedia is awesome for evidence) to refute claims.

Educate me. I almost bought into EU because he was supporting a stronger argument than, 'Our theory is accepted widely, so there!'

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:51 AM

Educate me. I almost bought into EU because he was supporting a stronger argument than, 'Our theory is accepted widely, so there!'

However I think Astyanax had a point. The title of this thread is "The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed" so based on that title can we say the topic of this thread is the electric sun model, and not the standard model.

So just an idea that popped into my head, what about creating a thread where such posts about the standard model would be on topic?

Maybe call it something like "Fusion Powered Sun- The best explanation?" Or pick your own title.

Then at least the title would sound like the fusion powered sun model is the subject.
But still you can't expect to get any in-depth understanding from reading a few posts in a thread. Serious knowledge of chemistry, physics, electrical engineering, and thermodynamics, just to name a few topics, are needed to even grasp the arguments on both sides in context. So if you don't have that foundation you might want to secure that knowledge first.

BUT, the idea of the microwave relation is completely irrelevant because of thermodynamics.

The microwave example was just a layperson analogy to show that thermodynamics is not the only mechanism for transferring heat. The frequencies of the sun's EM radiation are higher than microwaves (meaning also that it's more energetic than microwaves). If you want more accurate descriptions of the energies involved read this post:

Originally posted by Phage

SOHO has been teaching us something about a mechanism which can account for coronal heating with a model involving localized magnetic activity. Magnetic reconnection, the same process which drives a lot of activity in our own magnetosphere.

Observations with high spatial resolution show that the surface of the Sun is covered by the weak magnetic fields concentrated in small patches of opposite polarity (magnet carpet). These magnetic concentrations are believed to be a footpoints of individual magnetic flux tubes carrying electric currents.

Recent observations of this "magnetic carpet" show a very dynamical evolution: photospheric magnetic fields constantly move around, interact with each other, dissipate and emerge on very short period of time. Magnetic reconnection between magnetic field of opposite polarity may change topology of the field and release magnetic energy. The reconnection process will also result the dissipation of electric currents which will transform electric energy into the heat.

solar-center.stanford.edu...

So the whole point is, it's NOT a thermodynamic heat transfer mechanism, so any claims that the laws of thermodynamics are violated somehow are false. Rather, there are electromagnetic forces involved.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:46 AM
What he's trying to say is that standard theory doesn't think the sun is hot because it's a big burning ball of hydrogen, it's hot because the big bon fire in the sky has a magic dynamo genie inside of it that excites charged particles in the photosphere wich are then magically deposited in the corona where they are excellerated by more magic and hokus pocus.

Litterally, that's what they are claiming.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:46 AM
What he's trying to say is that standard theory doesn't think the sun is hot because it's a big burning ball of hydrogen, it's hot because the big bon fire in the sky has a magic dynamo genie inside of it that excites charged particles in the photosphere wich are then magically deposited in the corona where they are excellerated by more magic and hokus pocus.

Litterally, that's what they are claiming.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:05 AM

I was fully willing to go back on topic, whatever that was other than a statement of theory, but it's comments like the one above that just beg for debate and proof. Stating why the standard model works is refuting the claims that mnemeth1 makes.

It seems to me to be completely acceptable to offer theory and evidence in contrary to that which was originally posted. The OP left himself open to debate by posting the topic, in debating an idea it would be unfair to the anti side to have to open a whole new thread when the topic is completely relevant in the current.

That said, over the decades of research we, as a species, have done on the sun perhaps it's a dogmatic approach that I take with the electric sun theory and to be critical initially.

As Arbitrageur has in his signature, "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out" -Carl Sagan

So my reaction to the OP's claim on this topic is that there is sufficient evidence to show how the sun drives its engine using multiple realms of physics as evidenced by (A), (B), and (C).

...on a side note, I would've happily created another thread but I don't have 20 posts yet.

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 03:09 AM

That's hocus. Rhymes with focus.

Just for laughs, let's say that the radiation pressure in the chromosphere is strong enough to reflect the radiation from the surface back into itself, wouldn't it appear cooler than the chromosphere from the outside?

And of course it can do this because fusion takes place in the prominences. Did not SOHO say so? I have a paper somewhere showing an abundance of He resulting from the flares.

Curiously though, we do have Birkeland currents, but even though they may contribute, I doubt they power the whole ball-o-fire. In fact it is still a mystery to me what happens below the surface. No one knows, theories regardless.

edit to add here's an abstract. The numbers and email addresses are old though so I doubt you can still reach these people. But caltech ain't no bad astronomy forum material.

[edit on 12/20/2009 by Matyas]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:03 AM

It seems to me to be completely acceptable to offer theory and evidence in contrary to that which was originally posted. The OP left himself open to debate by posting the topic, in debating an idea it would be unfair to the anti side to have to open a whole new thread when the topic is completely relevant in the current.

OK on that basis here is a simplified explanation of the standard model but you should refer to technical papers for more detail and scientific accuracy:
The Sun-Standard Model

The upper half of the sun consists of three major areas: the core, the radiati­ve zone and the convective zone.

Core
The core starts from the center and extends to 25 percent of the sun's radius. Here, gravity pulls all of the mass inward and creates an intense pressure. The pressure is high enough to force atoms of hydrogen to come together in nuclear fusion reactions. Two atoms of hydrogen are combined to create helium-4 and energy in several steps:

1. Two protons combine to form a deuterium (hydrogen atom with one neutron), a positron (similar to electron, but with a positive charge) and a neutrino
2. A proton and a deuterium atom combine to form a helium-3 atom (two protons with one neutron) and a gamma ray.
3. Two helium-3 atoms combine to form a helium-4 (two protons and two neutrons) and two protons.

These reactions account for 85 percent of the sun's energy. The remaining 15 percent comes from the following reactions:

1. A helium-3 and a helium-4 combine to form a beryllium-7 (four protons and three neutrons) and a gamma ray.
2. A beryllium-7 captures an electron to become lithium-7 (three protons and four neutrons) and a neutrino.
3. The lithium-7 combines with a proton to form two helium-4 atoms.

Did someone say magic? It looks more like nuclear physics. Now how that energy gets from the core to the surface of the sun is actually quite amazing, where something traveling at the speed of light can take thousands of years to go a few miles. That's because the photons are absorbed and re-emitted so many times.

The radiative zone extends 55 percent of the sun's radius from the core. In this zone, the energy from the core is carried outward by photons. As one photon is made, it travels about 1 micron (1 millionth of a meter) before being absorbed by a gas molecule. Upon absorption, the gas molecule is heated and re-emits another photon of the same wavelength. The re-emitted photon travels another micron before being absorbed by another gas molecule and the cycle repeats itself; each interaction between photon and gas molecule takes time. Approximately 1025 absorptions and re-emissions take place in this zone before a photon reaches the surface, so there is a significant time delay between a photon made in the core and one that reaches the surface.

And the convective zone I think of as roughly analogous to a boiling pot of water where the bubbles of water vapor start at the bottom of the pot and rise up to the surface of the water.

Convective Zone
The convective zone, which is the final 30 percent of the sun's radius, is dominated by convection currents that carry the energy outward to the surface. These convection currents are rising movements of hot gas next to falling movements of cool gas, much like what you can see if you placed glitter in a simmering pot of water. The convection currents carry photons outward to the surface faster than the radiative transfer that occurs in the core and radiative zone. With so many interactions occurring between photons and gas molecules in the radiative and convection zones, it takes a photon approximately 100,000 to 200,000 years to reach the surface!

So those three layers cover the solid part of the sun, then the next three layers cover the sun's atmosphere:

Sun's Atmosphere
A­bove the surface of the sun is its atmosphere, which consists of three parts as sh­own in the lower half of Figure 1:

* Photosphere
* Chromosphere
* Corona - extremely hot outermost layer extending outward from the chromosphere several million miles or kilometers

­We will see that all of the major features of the sun can be explained by the nuclear reactions that make its energy, the magnetic fields that are caused by the movements of the gas, and the immense gravity.

Photosphere
The photosphere is the lowest region of the sun's atmosphere and is the region that can be seen from Earth. It is 180-240 miles or 300-400 km wide and has an average temperature of 5,800 degrees Kelvin. It appears bubbly or granulated, much like the surface of a simmering pot of water. The bumps are the upper surfaces of the convection current cells beneath and each granulation can be 600 miles (1,000 km) wide. As we pass up through the photosphere, the temperature drops and the gases, because they are cooler, do not emit as much light energy. Therefore, the outer edge of the photosphere looks dark, an effect called limb darkening that accounts for the clear crisp edge of the sun's surface.

Chromosphere
The chromosphere lies above the photosphere to about 1,200 miles or 2,000 km. The temperature rises across the chromosphere from 4,500 degrees Kelvin to about 10,000 degrees Kelvin. The chromosphere is thought to be heated by convection within the underlying photosphere. As gases churn in the photosphere, they produce shock waves that heat the surrounding gas and send it piercing through the chromosphere in millions of tiny spikes of hot gas called spicules. Each spicule rises to approximately 3,000 miles or 5,000 km above the photosphere and lasts only a few minutes. Spicules may also follow along magnetic field lines of the sun, which are made by the movements of gases inside the sun.

Corona
The corona is the final layer of the sun and extends several million miles or kilometers outward from the photosphere. It can be seen best during a solar eclipse and in X-ray images of the sun. The temperature of the corona averages 2 million degrees Kelvin

So the fusion releases energy at the core and that energy works its way ip through the sun's layers. The fusion can release energy based on the E=mc^2 equation.

the Sun releases energy at the matter–energy conversion rate of 4.26 million metric tons per second, 383 yottawatts (3.83×1026 W)

The standard model has a clear source for the sun's energy. You simply can't funnel that kind of energy into the sun for it to be re-emitted as EU proponents claim without that energy leaving a signature, and there is no evidence of inflows as mnemeth1 has said. The alternate EU model doesn't even reach the starting gate in showing an alternate energy source.

Now what mnemeth likes to do instead of providing any proof of the EU theory is to try to say the standard model isn't completely understood. Well, there are aspects of it that aren't completely understood. But that just means we don't understand those aspects, they aren't serious enough problems to make us want to abandon the obvious internal fusion source for some external source theory which has no evidence.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by Arbitrageur]

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 04:22 AM
I've provided the EU models and they are based on solar observations.

That's the same amount of 'proof' the standard model supplys.

Then I went further and provided links to laboratory experiments that support the EU models.

There's nothing that has been observered that disproves EU theory, while at the same time there has been plenty observed that disproves the standard theory.

I bet it must irritate the standard theorists to no end that their papers are littered with the name of a man that called them out on their BS.

Alfven waves, are of course, named after Hannes Alfven, the father of EU cosmology.

Alfven was also responsible for creating MHD modeling, yet another widely abused learning tool by standard cosmologists.

new topics

55