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.
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?
Originally posted by donhuangenaro
Well, gravity is a consequence of the Big Bang, don't you know?
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
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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 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..
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.
In Jurgen's model, he states...
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.
Astyanax: Double layers of what? Has anyone observed these new kinds of celestial object?
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.
Originally posted by Matyas
Furthermore, a circuit need not be continuous, or complete, to carry a potential.
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.)
Originally posted by mnemeth1
When confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the Sun is powered externally ......
[edit on 16-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
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?
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.
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.
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.)
Originally posted by AstyanaxForget the anode; we should always see something we can call 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...)
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:
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.
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.
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.