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: 14
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
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?


but they can't, so you can live in your fantasies, I don't care...





posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   

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

And therefore you need gravity to create one. Stands to reason, eh?

Merry Christmas, or whatever New Age equivalent you celebrate.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orygun
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


exactly...!



I bet someone here will call you incompetent too!




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

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

And therefore you need gravity to create one. Stands to reason, eh?

Merry Christmas, or whatever New Age equivalent you celebrate.


Thank you, Merry Something to you too...



well, I didn't say that gravity does not exist, but I am saying that mainstream science with standard model is making an epic fail excluding one of the most important element from their equations:

electricity...

and that's all

I am also not saying EU is perfect and flawless, it has holes, but those holes are smaller than in standard model...




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   


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!


That "load of rubbish" was put together by Hannes Alfven himself.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

see page 27 and 28 of "Double layers in astrophysics"

You know, the guy that won the Nobel prize in physics for MHD theory, double layers, etc.. etc..

By demanding to know where the "cathode" is, I'm assuming you mean the ultimate source of the electrons. Our position is one of a person looking at a river. We know its flowing. We can see it flowing. We can see the effects of its moving water. But we can't see the ultimate source of where that river comes from.

In Jurgen's model, he states:


The primary purpose of this paper is to suggest that the Sun is powered by a cathodeless discharge. But other examples are well known.

Transmission lines carrying high-voltage direct current - electric trolley wires, for example - discharge almost continuously to the surrounding air. In the case of a positive (anode) wire electrons ever present in the Earth's atmosphere drift toward the wire, attracted by its positive charge. As they penetrate the increasingly intense electric field close to the wire, the electrons gain energy from the field and are accelerated to energies great enough to initiate electron avalanches as they collide with and ionize air molecules. The avalanching electrons, in turn, intensify the ionization immediately surrounding the wire. Positive ions, formed in the process, drift away from the wire in the electric field. In this way, a more or less steady discharge is maintained, although there is no tangible object other than the surrounding air that can be considered a cathode.

Such a discharge is classed as a corona discharge. The region of intense activity close to the wire is referred to as the coronal envelope. And since so few "cathode" electrons are involved, and since they move so quickly through the outer region of the discharge, most of the current in this outer region is carried by the positive ions.





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?


Your ignorance of double layers and their properties doesn't mean they don't exist.

to quote Alfven again:

"If an electric discharge is produced between a cathode and an anode (Fig. 2) there is a double layer, called a cathode sheath, produced near the cathode that accelerates electrons which carry a current through the plasma. A positive space charge separates the cathode sheath from the plasma. Similarly, a double layer is set up near the anode, protecting the plasma from this electrode. Again, a space charge constitutes the border between the double layer and the plasma. All these double layers carry electric currents."




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.



LOL

Talk about apologists, EU theory has a LONG train of predictions. The people who make things up as they go are standard cosmologists.

See: dark matter, dark flows, multiple dimensions, black holes, neutronium, magnetars, and all other manner of pixies and fairy dust.

EU theory is the one that rejects hypothetical physics.





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

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.


That's not "basic circuit" theory. Alfven's paper shows us the current flow.

Unless you want to reject Maxwell's equations, all magnetic fields require an input of electrical current in order to sustain them for any length of time and that the fields themselves are infinite and never "open".

Maxwell's laws are clear, you must have current in order to have a magnetic field in a plasma.


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]


Jurgen's model was not throughly refuted in that thread, which is the entire point of this thread.




[edit on 23-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
That "load of rubbish" was put together by Hannes Alfven himself. You know, the guy that won the Nobel prize in physics for MHD theory, double layers, etc.. etc..

Yeah, we know he won the Nobel Prize. That paragraph is still gibberish, though, in the context you posted it. If you disagree, explain--in your own words--how it is appropriate.

Nothing downloads from your last link, by the way.


By demanding to know where the "cathode" is, I'm assuming you mean the ultimate source of the electrons. Our position is one of a person looking at a river. We know its flowing... but we can't see the ultimate source of where that river comes from.

Lovely analogy, except that in this case we don't even see a river.

And you didn't mark the circuit, so basically you just posted a geometric drawing. Pretty, but devoid of any information.


In Jurgen's model, he states...

Except that there is no atmosphere in space. Sure, it isn't--strictly speaking--empty, but even inside a nebula it is still a lot emptier than the hardest vacuum we can achieve on Earth. Anyway--and for the third time--Jürgens's model is debunked. You're flogging a dead horse.




Astyanax: 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?

mnemeth1: Your ignorance of double layers and their properties doesn't mean they don't exist. to quote Alfven again:


If an electric discharge is produced between a cathode and an anode (Fig. 2) there is a double layer, called a cathode sheath, produced near the cathode that accelerates electrons which carry a current through the plasma. A positive space charge separates the cathode sheath from the plasma.

Yes, this arises from his work in magnetohydrodynamics. But the question I asked was:


Astyanax: Double layers of what? Has anyone observed these new kinds of celestial object?

Where are these 'double layers' in space? Where are these invisible, impalpable celestial objects?

- You don't show a cathode.

- Yet you assume a cathode sheath.

- Then you try to make the cathode sheath into the cathode itself.

- And you're doing all this to try to persuade us that the Sun is an anode.

- But your 'anode' is emitting electrons!

There aren't enough LOL smileys in the world to express the derision that deserves.




Astyanax: You should be able to show an electron inflow of equal strength to the outflow. That's basic circuit theory.

That's not "basic circuit" theory. Alfven's paper shows us the current flow.

Oh, what priceless nonsense. Have you ever held a soldering iron? Have you ever actually put together an electric or electronic circuit? Do you think us all ignoramuses?

Go and read up on the basics first, then maybe you'll actually understand what your precious Alfven is saying. Jürgens is debunked, the electric-sun fantasy remains thoroughly vulnerable to criticism, and you, I am very sorry to say, don't appear to understand the simplest fundamentals of the fields in which you pretend to expertise.

What a sad little sham it all is.

[edit on 25/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Methinks, the terms cathode and anode is more of a descriptive viewpoint. If I am sitting in a flow of electrons, where I see them coming from I call the cathode and where I see them departing to I call the anode. If I shift my position in the circuit, those both immediately change.

Furthermore, a circuit need not be continuous, or complete, to carry a potential. The electrical potential races at the surface of a conductor at the speed of light until it reaches the open, at which point it is reflected back along the same path. Even though work is not done, it does not mean potential is not flowing. In fact, potential is always in motion and the descriptive term static is a misnomer.

Do not forget that said electron flow is accompanied by a magnetic component which is just as important in shaping the field at right angles to itself. If there exists an electron flow into stars, there should be a magnetic field also. But this could support both side of the argument.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas

Furthermore, a circuit need not be continuous, or complete, to carry a potential.


If you're talking about a van deGraff generator that may be true, but the topic of this thread is EU/Electric sun, and potential isn't enough to explain 383 yottawatts of energy output from the sun. If the source of the sun's power is electric as EU theory proponents claim, it will take current, and a lot of it, flowing into the sun to create that much power. And it is the current which we would see signs of if it existed, but don't see it (actually we see electrons flowing the opposite direction from what EU folks claim, away from the sun rather than toward it.)



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you're talking about a van deGraff generator that may be true, but the topic of this thread is EU/Electric sun, and potential isn't enough to explain 383 yottawatts of energy output from the sun. If the source of the sun's power is electric as EU theory proponents claim, it will take current, and a lot of it, flowing into the sun to create that much power. And it is the current which we would see signs of if it existed, but don't see it (actually we see electrons flowing the opposite direction from what EU folks claim, away from the sun rather than toward it.)


Please don't take me for being that dense.


First of all I never suspected that 383 YW was due solely to electric current. But I do suspect that an electric current is responsible for fusion taking place within solar flares.

Electricity behaves universally the way I have described, not only with spherical capacitors. And even though I am an EU proponent, I certainly do not claim the source of the Sun's power is electric. Never have. Search my posts.

In fact, whether a short or an open, there is still a reflection, even though both the magnetic and electric components are inverse to each other. Even if electricity plays a major role as electrodynamics asserts, there is a breakdown point where the strong nuclear force emerges, and that is responsible for fusion. Electromagnetic power can get us there, but strong nuclear finishes the job.

Of course I have been wrong before, but I doubt it this time. That is my disclaimer, for the ever diminishing possibility I am wrong. Meet the incredible shrinking doubt.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


Is there evidence for fusion occurring in solar flares?



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

When confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the Sun is powered externally ......
[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]


I would agree that the Sun is charged by an external source, however, I disagree as to your choice of sources.

In fact, I have been told by those who should know, that the Sun is charged via the energies of the auras of the sentient entities in this universe. In fact, there is no "Sun" as we know it and would, if you could see the Sun in its "natural state" it would be crescent-shaped and in and of itself has no significant mass. The Sun's mass is provided by another mechanism that creates very high gravity in a very small package...



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by seircram
 


This is the "Science & Technology" forum - please take discussion of Auras to "Paranormal Studies", as there is no "Paranormal Guesswork" board. Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case, I salute you



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Great refutation.

Lots of facts.

You don't happen to work for the CRU do you?


if your theory cannot stand up to peer review...then it cannot stand period. you are trying to refute hundreds of already established tests that have taken place over decades of peer-reviewed science...that's how it works. and it's tough if you do not like it, but you need to prove your supposed facts to other people in the field. extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
If I am sitting in a flow of electrons, where I see them coming from I call the cathode and where I see them departing to I call the anode. If I shift my position in the circuit, those both immediately change.

Right on, Matyas, though, as you know, electrons emitted from a cathode needn't necessarily reach an anode. Forget the anode; we should always see something we can call a cathode.

And here we are on Earth, sitting in a tsunami of electrons pouring out of the Sun, shouldn't we be calling the Sun a cathode? Why are our electrically overstimulated chums trying to sell us this line that it's an anode?

(As if we don't know why...)


Furthermore, a circuit need not be continuous, or complete, to carry a potential.

If it is not complete or continuous, it is not a circuit and there is no current flow. This has some bearing on the following:


The electrical potential races at the surface of a conductor at the speed of light until it reaches the open, at which point it is reflected back along the same path. Even though work is not done, it does not mean potential is not flowing. In fact, potential is always in motion and the descriptive term static is a misnomer.

I'm not a specialist in this field, but it sounds to me as if you are mixing electric (or electrostatic) potential, a scalar quantity, with an electric field or potential gradient, a vector.

Potential does not flow. Current 'flows'. Electrons flow. Potential is only equalized.

Compliments of the season, by the way; hope you had a properly merry Christmas.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



If the source of the sun's power is electric as EU theory proponents claim, it will take current, and a lot of it, flowing into the sun to create that much power. And it is the current which we would see signs of if it existed, but don't see it (actually we see electrons flowing the opposite direction from what EU folks claim, away from the sun rather than toward it.)


There are many likely sources of energy:

1.) Energy from a supernova core
2.) Nuclear reactions:

Neutron emission:
—> 1n + 10 MeV
Neutron decay:
1n —> 1H + 0.8 MeV
Hydrogen fusion:
4 1H + 2 e- —> 4He + 2 v + 27 MeV

3.) Low energy nuclear reactions from hydrogen absorption within the metallic lattice.

4.) Induction

External source of energy does not need a single point of entry. If we are dealing with a huge mass of molten iron/nickel some induction from space radiation should be expected.

I can show you an interesting circuit with an iron ferrite core, has super conductive properties, and a weird habit of reversing current flow. You would find it very difficult to locate any single source of power since it is supplied by thousands of small thermocouples linked together surrounding its core. This was a military funded project for a portable power generator.

There is no reason why the same principle should not apply especially since an iron/nickel core can store huge amounts of electrical energy.(See the Eddison (Nickel-Iron) battery for example: en.wikipedia.org...) The Sun should have MANY vulnerable points in its magnetic field that are susceptible to space radiation.

Here are some satellite videos to ponder over for the plasma core proponents.





[edit on 27-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I've read most of these pages and the one question I keep seeing is "if the sun is electric, where is the inflow coming from?" I think I might have a jumping off point for the answer to this (mind you, I don't think it's the complete answer):

Nikola Tesla once created a car that brought in electricity to power an electric moter from an antenna. Except for that antenna, there was NO visible proof that the car was getting electricity, yet it was powered. How did he do this? Resonance.

If the sun is getting electricity without any visible input points, and without frying any man-made/alien-made devices out there, it simply could be resonating at a frequency that the stellar electricy field is and thus getting power. The other devices wouldn't be resonating at that frequency because the one person who knew it is long dead. If we knew that frequency, technology on earth would change...but that's a different discussion. You could look-up "wireless electricity transmission" for more information.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AstyanaxForget the anode; we should always see something we can call a cathode.


Correct. No sink is visible without a source.


Why are our electrically overstimulated chums trying to sell us this line that it's an anode?


I am beginning to wonder about that. I have tried pointing out a series of mistaken assumptions and errors leading to the current state of affairs, such as improperly viewing the edge on cross sections of stellar plasma rings as if they are inflows. And then there is laboratory evidence of fusion by em confinement, Z-Pinch is a good example.


(As if we don't know why...)


Well we do, it is (such that) we don't know why extreme detractors show up to sabotage new theories...



If it is not complete or continuous, it is not a circuit and there is no current flow.


Perhaps I should take my words out into the light of day for close scrutiny before choosing them. You are correct. I mean oscillate instead of circuit.


This has some bearing on the following:


Which may or may not be fully bared


So let's use your bright monochromatic light to fully illuminate my meaning.


I'm not a specialist in this field, but it sounds to me as if you are mixing electric (or electrostatic) potential, a scalar quantity, with an electric field or potential gradient, a vector.


First of all we are among equals, and as such a clear understanding is all that is needed, no mandatory specialization or degrees.

Scalar and vector potentials are different but can exist on the same wave. The scalar component lies along the axis of an em wave, this is the radiation pressure I refer to. The vector is the changing gradient of the electric or magnetic potential of the wave.


Potential does not flow. Current 'flows'. Electrons flow. Potential is only equalized.


Ah. Herein is the rub. Potential (electrical) does not flow in a circuit, it oscillates as a wave. Current does not flow, but we can surmise energy does. Electrons are a wave, they do not flow. Potential is expanded in its struggle for equilibrium as no system is perfectly closed.

Now even though ibid. makes me an official EU member complete with opposing viewpoints to your worldview, it does not make me a partaker of abolishing the weak and strong nuclear forces in favor of ED as the UFT. However I do believe ED can account for gravitation. So although I may be considered nutty by your lot, I am not in the same league as the OP. The problem with the SM as far as I can tell is its skewed interpretation of em and subsequent weak interpretation for gravitation. I have not yet found fault with the wnf and snf, but that is because I have not studied them in depth. I even have suspicions about the wnf.


Compliments of the season, by the way; hope you had a properly merry Christmas.


Thank you, and I wish all the same for you.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Certainly, and it is not from EU theory.

Surface fusion

I have come across other papers, one describing an abundance of He in solar flares, another describing cosmic ray tracks appearing in SOHO's shots of solar flares. My claim is that the cause of the high heat disparity between the photosphere and corona is due to the suspension of the inverse square law within the curve of the flares. Just as a parabolic reflector focuses radiation to a point, the curve of the flares reflects and transmits radiation back into the corona. There may be other contributing factors, but this concept is based on known physical laws of optics.

Edit to add I did not realize it till just now, the abundance of 3He on Mercury, Luna, and Ceres is entirely due to surface fusion occurring within solar flares. Looks as if there is much more going on there. It appears as if the transmission of charged particles in the solar wind is significantly resulting from fusion reactions within the flares.

[edit on 12/27/2009 by Matyas]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by digifanatic


If the sun is getting electricity without any visible input points, and without frying any man-made/alien-made devices out there, it simply could be resonating at a frequency that the stellar electricy field is and thus getting power. The other devices wouldn't be resonating at that frequency because the one person who knew it is long dead. If we knew that frequency, technology on earth would change...but that's a different discussion. You could look-up "wireless electricity transmission" for more information.


There are global oscillations in the Sun that result in very consistent patterns among its surface. No matter how they try to fit the standard model with the seismic data, only a homogeneous core can explain the observations. This basically rules out the theoretical inner layers of the standard model since they lack consistency. There goes the violent nuclear core, convective and radiative zone theory.

In addition, there is an absence of appreciable neutrino flux and no abundance of beryllium and lithium present in the atmosphere.



[edit on 27-12-2009 by platoslab]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Great refutation.

Lots of facts.

You don't happen to work for the CRU do you?


if your theory cannot stand up to peer review...then it cannot stand period. you are trying to refute hundreds of already established tests that have taken place over decades of peer-reviewed science...that's how it works. and it's tough if you do not like it, but you need to prove your supposed facts to other people in the field. extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof.


You mean like climate science that has turned out to be a massive scam?

FYI everything I've posted in here has come from scientific peer reviewed journals.

In fact the guy proposing the electric sun theory won a nobel prize in plasma physics.

The statist think its impossible and that there is no evidence, this is obviously not true. There's plenty of evidence. The problem is none of them understand electrical plasma physics to be able to accurately interpret the papers. They don't read them, they just dismiss them.

There is a huge disconnect between the statist cosmologist and the electrical engineers and physicists that study plasma cosmology.

btw, " extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof" is my motto when it comes to black holes, dark matter, dark flows, neutronium, strange matter, WIMPS, MACHOS, the Higg's God Particle, multiple dimensions, etc.. etc.. etc..

No "proof" what-so-ever for any of those. Just people looking through telescopes telling us what they imagine they see.

What a great thing a "black hole" is. You can't see it, can't touch it, can't test for it, can't make one in a lab. Einstein himself thought they were a bunch of utter rubbish.

more on black holes here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






[edit on 28-12-2009 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join