The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I've posted links to Jurgen's model...

Originally posted by Astyanax
Comprehensively debunked in another forum. You didn't provide a rebuttal there, so I think it's a bit rich to post it here as if it were unquestionably valid. I'm sorry, but pictures and comparisons prove nothing. 'As above, so below' is just magic.

"As above" is the Macrocosm while the "So below" is the microcosm. Is a very real thing, You can see the orbits of the planets around our main Star which is our Solar Sun. Lets not forget it is in fact a Star. Even though most of you worship it with a name that in which being the Sun, The Solar Sun which has ability to give you Solar energy through transmission of energy! This is the Macrocosm, Their language is before your time of arguments in the supposed & greatest book of earth, that being the "internet" yet you're ables to invent what language & names to do what with? You're the grand masters of what? Oh yes the "So below" that models off of the "As above" is the Atomic Structure and Subatomic Particles, You know a Proton & a neutron & a electron all with a orbit, Clearly you can see this is a representation of "As above, So Below." that being the planets with their orbit... Also The emerald tablet is just 1 page of hundreds! guess you missed the memo.

And then we could talk about faster than light which is "Tachyon" but the only reason it's faster than light is because the only light you know to judge is that of the Sun, I mean a Star! wait ya the sun which is a Star, with the limited sciences of Earth? That you're allowed to have? because you only go on 1 page of research to kick on?

I mean magic is either one of 2 possible things the perversion of science on a degenerated scale. Or it's one of the greatest advances of science that can not be fathomed by the masses, Yet it can only be looked at as magic, Because mer mortal minds can't comprehend the advanced understandings? I'm sure Albert Einstein appeared like a great magician/wizard to many people who preformed mighty magic in his day as well. And understands this all to well. As did Sir isaac newton & Oh my Dear goodness Galileo Galilei surely understood this as many other scientist that was thought to be witches with their advanced sciences of their day. Even today their are scientist who are going to appear as witches just as those gentlemen because they are to advanced for ya! some things never change do they? This is what happens to minds that are firmly closed they burn people at the stake, history has proven this definitively. Talk about the dark ages being broadcasted in modern times?

reply to post by Project2501

You know, you've got me there. Your lucid conflation by magical correspondence of Edwardian physics and Blavatskian cosmology has me dumbfounded, discombobulated, flummoxed, flabbergasted, gobsmacked, googolperplexed and generally (as you can see) at a loss for words. Clearly a new paradigm is called for, but the twentieth century is still young and besides, the holiday spirit forbids paradigmatizing without brandy.

Nothing for it, then, but to wish you, too, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, not just upon this lowly corse of Earth but--in the immortal words of a dirty old man--before, behind, between, above, below.

[edit on 21/12/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax

What you have to do--according to the thread title--is show us that all criticism of the electric sun 'model' has been answered. This you have not done, because you haven't answered those pesky questions. Where's the circuit? Where are the other components? Where is the evidence of current flow? 'Not exhibiting inflows at this moment', eh? How then does the Sun maintain its charge? Where is the evidence for that charge? If the sun is an anode how come it's emitting both electrons and protons? The answers provided to these questions by your authorities are unconvincing to say the least.

I've answered those questions a dozen times over.

Refusing to accept the answers doesn't mean they haven't been answered.

But to humor you, I'll answer them yet again.... and again and again and again until you get it.


Where's the circuit? Where are the other components?

Electrons flow in to the Sun, transported along Birkeland currents, from the galaxy, then follow this circuit.

The analogy is that the body of the Sun serves as the emitter of a pnp junction transistor. The photosphere serves as the base, and the lower corona serves as the collector.

The "emitter" action is that of a very high voltage positive anode within the surrounding galactic medium. This is a circuit. Familiarize yourself with the functions of a plasma discharge for more understanding.

When we consider the Sun, however, a spherical geometry exists - with the sun at the center. The cross-section becomes an imaginary sphere. Assume a constant total electron drift moving from all directions toward the Sun and a constant total radial flow of +ions outward. Imagine a spherical surface of large radius through which this total current passes. As we approach the Sun from deep space, this spherical surface has an ever decreasing area. Therefore, for a fixed total current, the current density (A/m^2) increases as we move inward toward the Sun.

Where is the evidence of current flow?

Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical plasma laboratories for decades. Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma experiments, such as anode tufting. The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts (plasma in the arc mode).

Positive ions stream outward from the Sun's surface and accelerate away, through the corona, for as far as we have been able to measure. It is thought that these particles eventually make up a portion of the cosmic ray flux that permeates the cosmos. The 'wind' varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation? The ES model proposes a simple explanation and suggests a mechanism that creates fluctuations in this flow. The standard model provides no such explanation or mechanism.

If the sun is an anode how come it's emitting both electrons and protons?

The solar wind is composed of protons, positively charged particles that continuously accelerate away from the Sun, a clear indicator of an electric field presence.

The ACE/SWEPAM mission detected electron depletion in the solar wind due to “backstreaming electrons” flowing into the Sun from the surrounding space.

That's proof of a net charge imbalance, hence proof of an electric current.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

The ACE mission provides us a boat load of humor.

Everything ACE finds seems to be at odds with the standard model and in support of the electric model.

www.srl.caltech.edu...

In a recent series of papers using Wind data Podesta et al. (JGR2006, ApJ2007) showed that the power spectral index for solar wind velocity fluctuations in the inertial range at 1 AU is approximately -3/2. The inertial range is the part of the spectrum where energy is transported without dissipation to smaller scales where it heats the background plasma. That transport dynamic dictates the rate of in situ heating of the plasma. The Podesta result stands in contrast to numerous magnetic field results showing -5/3 spectral indices and suggests significant changes in the theories that describe energy transport in the inertial range. Although there exists a broad range of predictions and simulations addressing the multi-dimensional nature and spectral form of turbulent magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) power spectra, there are no predictions at present that embrace this dichotomy. To make matters worse, there are several theories that predict either of the two different spectral indices, but those predictions always apply to both magnetic and velocity spectra uniformly. Spectra may vary as a function of length scale or orientation relative to the mean interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), but there is no established theory of turbulence that predicts different spectra for the two fields.

www.srl.caltech.edu...

The term "B" represents the magnetic field (which is caused by moving charge)

The one-sided aspect of the fluctuations is a natural consequence of the transverse nature of Alfvénic fluctuations in which |B| is ~ constant. If one considers the simple case of an underlying radial field directed outward from (inward toward) the Sun, fluctuations in either or both of the transverse field components necessarily force Br to become less positive (less negative) so as to keep |B| ~ constant...

This one-sided aspect of Alfvénic fluctuations in the solar wind suggests that conclusions derived from statistical analyses of the fluctuations, including determinations of the field direction underlying them, that assume the fluctuations in all field components are relative to average values need to be re-examined.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by Astyanax


Actually nuclear weapon are a fission reaction not a fusion reaction.

Now you answered my question exactly how I was expecting. You are attempting to debunk the EU theory by comparing it to the standard model. So in reality you aren't debunking anything you are just spouting what is accepted as "mainstream physics". That consequently relies on a bunch of theoretical stuff that probably doesn't even exist.

The reason why I am starting to lean towards the EU model is because they can actually design experiments that test what they are observing for the most part, and also because their predictions are way more accurate then the astrophysics people.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
But to humor you, I'll answer them yet again.... and again and again and again until you get it.

Lovely. Now let's see...

Electrons flow in to the Sun, transported along Birkeland currents, from the galaxy, then follow this circuit.

'From the galaxy'? Great. Where in the galaxy? Where's the cathode? Where are the other circuit components? Identify them. Point them out.

As for 'this circuit', the link is to a PDF file several pages long. Stop spamming us with this garbage. Show us a circuit diagram. Make sure all the components are identified and the connexions between them clearly drawn.

The analogy is that the body of the Sun serves as the emitter of a pnp junction... the "emitter" action is that of a very high voltage positive anode within the surrounding galactic medium. This is a circuit.

This is not a circuit. It's not even a diagram of a transistor. If the Sun is an emitter, where is the collector and where is the base that controls the current? What is the function of the base? How is its action inferred from observation?

Maybe it would be better if we talked vacuum tubes. They're easier to understand, no holes involved. So what you're talking about is analogous to glow discharge as seen in, say, a diode. Well then, where's the cathode?

And where is the connexion between cathode and anode that has to be there to complete the circuit? Where is the evidence for such a connexion?

How is the supposed electron flow back to the anode insulated from the 'galactic medium' to which you have rather hilariously assigned the function of cathode? Wondrous magnetic fields keeping them apart in space? Where are these fields? What generates them? How are they sustained?

Answers in your own words, please. Nobody is going to read pages and pages of electric-sun blether from some third-party source. If you understand this 'theory' well enough to believe it, you should be able to explain it yourself.

When we consider the Sun, however, a spherical geometry exists - with the sun at the center. The cross-section becomes an imaginary sphere... Imagine a spherical surface of large radius...

Imaginary this, imaginary that. Where's the real sphere that has to be there--the cathode?

Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun.

Except it's 'not exhibiting inflow at this moment'. And never has. Your ACE-based aspirations are futile; see below.

...a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical plasma laboratories for decades.

As above, so below. Stop it, you're scaring us.

The solar wind is composed of protons, positively charged particles that continuously accelerate away from the Sun, a clear indicator of an electric field presence.

The solar wind is composed of protons and electrons.

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun. It consists mostly of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 eV. Source

If the sun is emitting electrons, how can it possibly be an anode?

Finally,

The ACE/SWEPAM mission detected electron depletion in the solar wind due to “backstreaming electrons”...

Yes.

...flowing into the Sun from the surrounding space.

No.

From your source (a legitimate one, for a change):

(1) the one-sided strahl* consists of solar electrons that are focused into a field-aligned beam as they propagate outward from the Sun, (2) beyond the peak in the field enhancement scattering from the strahl and/or heating (for example, by a shock) produces a more tenuous, sunward-directed population of electrons... that is isotropic over the sunward facing hemisphere along the field line, and (3) adiabatic motion governs the subsequent evolution of the halo population.

'Scattering from the strahl and/or heating' is thought by the authors to cause electron backscatter. They are not saying, nor do their observations in any way suggest, a positively charged Sun clawing back the electrons it has itself just discharged. This could be because they are scientists, and don't believe in magic.

'Isotropic over the sunward-facing hemisphere' means there is no concentration towards the Solar poles as one would expect to observe, even from an equatorial vantage, if there was any truth in the EU model.

'Adiabatic motion', is motion due to changes in gas pressure, not electron motion towards a nonexistent anode.

So no, that's not

proof of a net charge imbalance, hence proof of an electric current.

It is only proof that electric-universe enthusiasts will grasp at any passing straw in the hope of keeping their 'theory' afloat.

*Fancy name given to the more powerful of the solar wind's two kinds of electron emission.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Actually nuclear weapon are a fission reaction not a fusion reaction.

Fusion bombs

Also known as thermonuclear bombs, hydrogen bombs or simply as H-bombs. Never heard of them?

You are attempting to debunk the EU theory by comparing it to the standard model... just spouting what is accepted as "mainstream physics"... theoretical stuff that probably doesn't even exist.

You're right, it's all a fairytale, just like I said before. Obviously any attempt to explain physical phenomena in terms of physics is illegitimate of its very nature. Only magical explanations can possibly be valid.

The reason why I am starting to lean towards the EU model is because they can actually design experiments that test what they are observing for the most part, and also because their predictions are way more accurate then the astrophysics people.

Yes, and their web pages are so much more colourful, too.

reply to post by Astyanax

You're right, it's all a fairytale, just like I said before. Obviously any attempt to explain physical phenomena in terms of physics is illegitimate of its very nature. Only magical explanations can possibly be valid.

The current standard model of physics relies upon stuff that is theoretical that many scientist over years and billions of dollars have not been able to reproduce or observe.

What you are doing it trying to debunk something because you see as fact with no verifiable evidence, that is what is considered faith, not science.

Edit to add -

It's just what I thought too, Little Boy was fission bomb not a fusion bomb.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

Originally posted by Maslo

well, this reminds me about the invisible dark matter, it can't be seen, scientists say: we have no evidence, yet 99% mainstream scientists believe the fantasy...

Its not true that we have no evidence. We have - its gravitational influence.
They dont believe the fantasy, they are still searching for proof.

And the search has paid of. The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search team reported this weekend simultaneously at Fermilab in Batavia, IL and at SLAC in California that their detectors had recorded 2 WIMP (that's Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) events. So much for "fantasy."

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Actually nuclear weapon are a fission reaction not a fusion reaction.

Actually there are some of both. The weapon dropped on Hiroshima was a uranium gun type fission device. The one used on Nagasaki was a plutonium implosion device. Both were fission devices. Soon thereafter, fusion devices were invented. These are usually called thermonuclear bombs. Or H bombs, instead of the earlier A bomb.

Originally posted by Astyanax
'From the galaxy'? Great. Where in the galaxy? Where's the cathode? Where are the other circuit components? Identify them. Point them out.

As for 'this circuit', the link is to a PDF file several pages long. Stop spamming us with this garbage. Show us a circuit diagram. Make sure all the components are identified and the connexions between them clearly drawn.

Heliospheric current circuit:


Solar transformer:


Galactic current:


"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory... Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object." - Hannes Alfven

further, quoting Thornhill:

NASA's IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun’s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly.

The Z-pinch model offers a simple explanation for the "giant ribbon" found wrapped around the heliosphere. The Z-pinch is naturally aligned with the interstellar magnetic field. Solar "wind" ions are scattered and neutralized by electrons from the Birkeland current filaments to form ENA's coming from the Z-pinch ring, a giant ring about the solar system and orthogonal to the interstellar magnetic field.

The Sun's heliospheric circuit is connected to the galaxy via the central column and the disk of charged particles. The current path is traced by magnetic fields. The "open" helical magnetic fields discovered high above the Sun's poles by the Ulysses spacecraft are supportive of Alfvén's stellar circuit model. And the solar "wind" would seem to connect to the broader disk of charged particles about the heliosphere.

-more on the direct connection of the heliospheric current to the galactic current can be found at the link provided.

This is not a circuit. It's not even a diagram of a transistor. If the Sun is an emitter, where is the collector and where is the base that controls the current? What is the function of the base? How is its action inferred from observation?

The pnp transistor like mechanism is self-regulating. The paper details how it is inferred from observation and how it self regulates. The number of observations in agreement with the electrical model are too numerous to list them all here.

I specifically told you already what constitutes the collector and the base, you must have missed this:

"The analogy is that the body of the Sun serves as the emitter of a pnp junction transistor. The photosphere serves as the base, and the lower corona serves as the collector."

Maybe it would be better if we talked vacuum tubes. They're easier to understand, no holes involved. So what you're talking about is analogous to glow discharge as seen in, say, a diode. Well then, where's the cathode?

And where is the connexion between cathode and anode that has to be there to complete the circuit? Where is the evidence for such a connexion?

See above.

How is the supposed electron flow back to the anode insulated from the 'galactic medium' to which you have rather hilariously assigned the function of cathode? Wondrous magnetic fields keeping them apart in space? Where are these fields? What generates them? How are they sustained? Imaginary this, imaginary that. Where's the real sphere that has to be there--the cathode?

Answers in your own words, please. Nobody is going to read pages and pages of electric-sun blether from some third-party source. If you understand this 'theory' well enough to believe it, you should be able to explain it yourself.

I have explained it. If you're not going to take the time to read the papers, I'm not sure what you want me to do about that. I'm sure there are a lot of people here who will take the time to read the papers other than yourself.

Except it's 'not exhibiting inflow at this moment'. And never has. Your ACE-based aspirations are futile; see below.

It is exhibiting this inflow.

We have clear evidence of backstreaming electrons.

If the sun is emitting electrons, how can it possibly be an anode?

The Sun emitting a netural solar wind does not mean the Sun does not have a net positive charge.

To quote Scott "Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random) motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky."

'Scattering from the strahl and/or heating' is thought by the authors to cause electron backscatter. They are not saying, nor do their observations in any way suggest, a positively charged Sun clawing back the electrons it has itself just discharged. This could be because they are scientists, and don't believe in magic.

'Isotropic over the sunward-facing hemisphere' means there is no concentration towards the Solar poles as one would expect to observe, even from an equatorial vantage, if there was any truth in the EU model.

'Adiabatic motion', is motion due to changes in gas pressure, not electron motion towards a nonexistent anode.

The fact remains there is electron depletion and backstreaming electrons observed. They make various assumptions about why this is occurring, however this is expected in the electric model and unexpected in the standard model.

Scott detailed why we haven't seen the electron inflows, we haven't looked for them yet:

"He should be aware that the maximum solar latitude attained by the Ulysses probe was 80.2 degrees. So to imply Ulysses sought out the electric current (or magnetic field strength) directly over the Sun’s poles is inaccurate. Also such currents may be field-aligned and not produce toroidal magnetic structures. Alfvén stated that the exact location of current paths and structure was yet to be determined."




[edit on 22-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
And the search has paid of. The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search team reported this weekend simultaneously at Fermilab in Batavia, IL and at SLAC in California that their detectors had recorded 2 WIMP (that's Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) events. So much for "fantasy."

news.nationalgeographic.com

There is a one-in-four chance, however, that the particles detected are not dark matter but ordinary subatomic particles such as neutrons, the team cautions.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Actually nuclear weapon are a fission reaction not a fusion reaction.

Actually there are some of both. The weapon dropped on Hiroshima was a uranium gun type fission device. The one used on Nagasaki was a plutonium implosion device. Both were fission devices. Soon thereafter, fusion devices were invented. These are usually called thermonuclear bombs. Or H bombs, instead of the earlier A bomb.

The wonderful or not so wonderful? thing about "Little Boy" proved that the world can have nuclear warfare without the supposed 10,000 year fallout! By designing it as is the surface of the sun instead of the interior of the sun as the "Tsar." Just think of the fun we could have if we used HAARP to weaken the ozone & let in damaging Solar winds on directed areas!

reply to post by mnemeth1


Hasn't anyone convinced you yet?

This "electric universe" concept model is flawed beyond belief...it is obvious that it can't account for gravity, it doesn't even begin to address the nature and life cycles of OTHER stars besides our little main sequence G-type.

This 'EU' junk is just an attempt to 'dumb down' and escape from the hard learning that would involve math and stuff like that in order to properly study cosmology.

In fact, the very nature of the science of cosmology demands too many different disciplines be understood, so there has to be a specialization undertaken, and then the people in their particular fields collaborate and share their expertise.

Not unlike the science of medicine.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

This "electric universe" concept model is flawed beyond belief...it is obvious that it can't account for gravity, it doesn't even begin to address the nature and life cycles of OTHER stars besides our little main sequence G-type.

Gravity comes from Hydrogen, The lightest and most abundant chemical element, constituting roughly 75% of the Universe's elemental mass. This is why I said water is a magnetic fluid in my other "post"

btw nice quote! My Karma ran over your Dogma.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hasn't anyone convinced you yet?

This "electric universe" concept model is flawed beyond belief...

thank you for your input, now give us some proof that mainstream version is less flawed...

(but do not include invisible and not proven dark matter, black holes, etc, or use faulty equations with infinity in your argument...)

oh, and btw, did you know that your computer wouldn't function without electricity?

... also how come the scientists must use humongous amounts of electrical energy to recreate Big Bang conditions in LHC? Why don't they use just the gravity?



[edit on 23-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]

[edit on 23-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Heliospheric current circuit:


Solar transformer:


Galactic current:

Well, that was a load of old rubbish.

Electrons flowing from the Sun to nowhere and coming back to the Sun from nowhere. No circuit components. No cathode. Nothing to indicate potential differences. That's not a circuit, mate.

As for your 'solar transformer', it is step-up or step-down? What does it transform? And could you explain, please, how that diagram shows a transformer at all? And why are you suddenly bringing in a transformer anyway? I never asked you about transformers, I asked you about transistors.

The 'galactic inductor' was the most hilarious of all. More circles from nowhere to nowhere. Not a mark or label. Do you remember asking me for circuit diagrams with all connexions clearly drawn and all components labelled?

And, for the umpteenth time of asking,

where is the cathode?

Silence answers where!

"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer... Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object." - Hannes Alfven

Gibberish. Double layers of what? Has anyone observed these new kinds of celestial object? And what is the relevance of this quote anyway, except to sow confusion and muddy the waters?

further, quoting Thornhill:

NASA's IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun’s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space...

More grasping at straws. Every time a new, unexpected phenomenon is discovered in the course of our explorations (and such phenomena will always be found), EU apologists rush into print to tell us how their 'theory' predicts it perfectly. But all they have is analogies and visual correspondences--'as above, so below'--no facts, no maths.

Meanwhile, real scientists labour away at the data for years, and eventually come up with the correct explanation--or, as the case might be, with no explanation, or with several competing but falsifiable ones. It takes longer, but it gets at the truth in the end. Good old science. Not at all like magic.

As I have now said several times, analogies and pictorial correspondences are proof of nothing, though the less educated members of this board may be impressed by them.

The pnp transistor like mechanism is self-regulating. The paper details how it is inferred from observation and how it self regulates. The number of observations in agreement with the electrical model are too numerous to list them all here.

Why don't you just say you don't know what a transistor is or what it does? That would be so much simpler.

you must have missed this: "The analogy is that the body of the Sun serves as the emitter of a pnp junction transistor. The photosphere serves as the base, and the lower corona serves as the collector."

Where is the bias current that is input to the base and what is its function? It should be to regulate and modulate the current passing from emitter to collector--or else to switch it. Which is it, and what is the source of the bias current?

b]And where is the rest of the circuit? (Sorry, your pictures won't fly.)

If you're not going to take the time to read the papers, I'm not sure what you want me to do about that.

Explain it in your own words. After all, you claim to understand it. So explain it. Why do you have to keep spamming us with other people's verbiage unless you don't really understand the subject yourself--or because there is really nothing about it that makes any sense?

We have clear evidence of backstreaming electrons.

Yes, a 'tenuous' (I quote from the paper), meaning thin and weak, cloud of electrons, drifting backwards--a backscatter, not a backstreaming at all--from the vast, powerful flood of electrons pouring out of the Sun, and that's your evidence? A vague drift of electrons caused by adiabatic gas movements?

That straw's too small to support a proton. Anyone not blinded by wishful thinking can see at once that the electron flow you need to show to prove your case cannot look anything like this. You should be able to show an electron inflow of equal strength to the outflow. That's basic circuit theory.

The Sun emitting a netural solar wind does not mean the Sun does not have a net positive charge. To quote Scott "Juergens’ model implies...

Juergens's model was fully debunked in that other forum. I've called you on this twice now. Why are you still bringing up a discredited explanation? You sound like a creationist, still doggedly parroting 'the evolution of the eye is impossible!' after he's been shown a dozen times over that it isn't.

I repeat: if the sun is an anode (as you said it was), how the devil can it be emitting electrons?

Sorry, lad. Your answers are wrong. You failed the test. And in doing so, you have demonstrated beyond all doubt that criticism of the electric sun 'theory' is not only alive and well, but unanswerable in several key points.

Better luck on another thread. Ta-ta for now.

[edit on 23/12/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by donhuangenaro
now give us some proof that mainstream version is less flawed...

If you had been paying a little attention, you would be aware that the topic of the thread is criticism of electric-sun theories. Your question is off topic and meaningless--not to mention so vague as to be unanswerable.

But you did mention one specific:

how come the scientists must use humongous amounts of electrical energy to recreate Big Bang conditions in LHC? Why don't they use just the gravity?

So what does the Big Bang have to do with gravity?

I think you mean black holes.

In which case, the answer would be: of course they would, if only they could lay their hands on as much matter as is contained in a small star. That is to say, several times the mass of Jupiter. How do you suggest they go about that?

Are you sure you're competent to post on this thread?

Originally posted by Astyanax
So what does the Big Bang have to do with gravity?

Are you sure you're competent to post on this thread?

Well, gravity is a consequence of the Big Bang, don't you know?



... maybe I am not competent, but neither are you, since your posts show very close minded biased view...

you are repeating your obsolete dogma like a religious fanatic

It is amusing to watch the defenders of the standard model try to explain their imaginary objects. The entire standard model (MD) is built brick by brick on certain assumptions and if any of them are wrong, the entire model is wrong. Hence, you won't see them defending their dark matter fairy dust but they will come out against anything that might disagree with their funding. So many SM objects are unproved, unobserved and purely fiction that it is incredible that so many have drunk the koolaid. What does make sense, is that if the funding organizations will only fund research dealing with the SM, then by golly it must be correct, or they won't get their next grant.

The EU model is pretty elegant, is inclusive, and explains just about everything. It may not be completely correct either. With a little more input it might fill the gaps in it's theory. So far it has done pretty well, for example the comet stuff. If it is right about the comets, then the SM is wrong and the entire creation theory of the Solar System would have to be revised. Ooops. "Don't you dare take away my grant money on that one, I've spent too much time researching how slushy snowballs were created in the beginning and I won't accept rocky asteroids now, no matter what the evidence says." That is the thinking we have to deal with.

When one part of the theory comes down, so does the rest. Hence, the electric sun now becomes a viable alternative. Is it completely correct? I'm not sure, but it is more correct than the bogus picture someone posted showing the layers of the sun. I'm sure they landed someone, they drilled into the sun and now have proof of the different layers. What a crock. More unproven crap put out as fact. These are the the flat earthers, the conservatives who wouldn't believe in sepsis, those who wouldn't believe in continental drift. Try Thunderbolts.info if you really want to learn about EU. Those who don't, won't. It's sort of like, if you won't make the effort to learn about it, then you can't talk about it, as so many here have talked about it who have no knowledge about EU that I can discern. Which are you?