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: 15
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

How (sigh) about answering those pesky questions, and proving your claim that electric-sun criticism has been destroyed (big cheer) before returning to standard let's-all-slag-Big-Science mode?

Also, FYI: meaning of statist and statism.




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

That sums up modern science in a nut shell, except its not the 'State', its a bunch of tyrannical scientific oligarchs paid by the State.

I did answer the questions, you just don't like the responses.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I already took the liberty of addressing energy input in a previous post. It is based on known laws of physics and require no hocus pocus like your beloved standard model.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Are you saying this electric Sun is just the Sun, or do you believe the whole Electric Universe theory?

I have recently seen this video and it makes a lot of since to me.
Thunderbolts of the gods video.google.com...#


An electric sun necessarily means an electric universe.

You can't have one without the other.



Yeah this stuff makes perfect sense here too but I may be "biased" cause I'm an old electronics guy...

I have a Q for the OP - one that I was not happy with the answers i did not find on google...

Do you have an estimate of the average, minimum and peak amplitude of the polar eddy currents that go into and out of the earths poles ( that give us the Auroras..)

Id like to know what the Power IN is, into the earth's hot molten core...

Id take an answer in watts, horsepower, ergs, VA, watthours, anything.

-----------

Comment added after reviewing half of this thread...

Donald E. Scott LINK worked for General Electric (LSTG) in Schenectady, NY, and
Pittsfield, MA (Lightning Arrester Div.).

I don't care so much what physicists, (and I am a Feynman fan) and supposed cosmologists posit, I too have learned that very important lesson, that above JUST 40,000 volts, whatever you are dealing with, when there is a discharge you have just been X-rayed... and above 500Kv things get really bizarre...as you are now at cyclotron ( one of the early "atom smasher voltage levels) and electrons start following paths that the physics I know said were not there to be followed..I believe this "bizarreness' is THE limitation on the transmission of power on Extreme high voltage power lines. And there is plenty that is not known...'cause it is so difficult to replicate those voltages and if you do, then to study them...and live....all while in a hard insulating vacuum..... (heh) And it always gets my attention when I start to power up and I feel the hairs on my head start to move...

and those filimant prominences in those videos.. I have seen those before, using a plasma arc welder that I converted to direct current and then used a magnet near the arc to push the arc deeper into a crack that needed mending...

And have you seen images of those iron meteorites? The ones with the melted holes in them. Those solid iron meteorites.. are pieces of the suns conductive iron surface...ejecta...if you will.. artifacts of extraordinary solar eruptions.

And then there is this tidbit...in lighting strikes, usually... electrons are flowing from the earth going up... I wonder if there is lightning at the poles...

[edit on 11-3-2010 by seataka]



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by seataka
Yeah this stuff makes perfect sense here too but I may be "biased" cause I'm an old electronics guy...
........
Donald E. Scott LINK worked for General Electric (LSTG) in Schenectady, NY, and
Pittsfield, MA (Lightning Arrester Div.).
.......
And have you seen images of those iron meteorites? The ones with the melted holes in them. Those solid iron meteorites.. are pieces of the suns conductive iron surface...ejecta...if you will.. artifacts of extraordinary solar eruptions.


Don Scott also said something along the lines that since his tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails, except of course his tool is electrical engineering. And just because you have a hammer and everything starts to look like a nail, doesn't mean it IS a nail.

Yes I've seen iron meteorites with holes in them. Have you got a source you can post a link to so I can read more about how they were determined to be ejecta from the sun?



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by seataka
Yeah this stuff makes perfect sense here too but I may be "biased" cause I'm an old electronics guy...
........
Donald E. Scott LINK worked for General Electric (LSTG) in Schenectady, NY, and
Pittsfield, MA (Lightning Arrester Div.).
.......
And have you seen images of those iron meteorites? The ones with the melted holes in them. Those solid iron meteorites.. are pieces of the suns conductive iron surface...ejecta...if you will.. artifacts of extraordinary solar eruptions.


Don Scott also said something along the lines that since his tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like nails, except of course his tool is electrical engineering. And just because you have a hammer and everything starts to look like a nail, doesn't mean it IS a nail.

Yes I've seen iron meteorites with holes in them. Have you got a source you can post a link to so I can read more about how they were determined to be ejecta from the sun?


understood re nails, the wife is the psychologist...
and re ejecta from the sun? I don't have cite, Perhaps I should add the word perhaps to that line..



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
This thread has been quiet for a while but the debate isn't over. As more and more evidence from different observations come in, the Big Bang theory seems to take a beating and the EU theory seems to keep getting stronger. Is the EU theory all fleshed out and fully ready? No. Is it ready for more direct experimental evidence? Yes.

Black holes, dark energy and dark matter all seem to be unobserved fairy tales that the Big Bang Theory requires. There are more fantasy objects in their theory but those three are the main ones. The EU doesn't require such religious belief.

One such fairy tale is how fusion powers the sun. The sun would have burnt out long ago if that was the fact. To explain away this uncomfortable fact, BB theorists say that gravitic compression has kept the sun alive and burning. While the fuel may be gone, the pressure of the gravity falling inward has kept us all safe. You see, they sent a man there, he dug a deep hole and found out all this information from his mining. Ha.

At some point, reasonable people will start looking at alternatives. It is time to dump the Big Bang Theory and look at alternatives. The EU is a good one. It may not be entirely correct, but so far it has done a pretty good job. For those who aren't sure, I strongly suggest bookmarking the TPOD at Thunderbolts to see what they have to say. If you don't, then you may fall off the edge of the Earth as it is flat you know.

www.thunderbolts.info...



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orygun
This thread has been quiet for a while but the debate isn't over. As more and more evidence from different observations come in, the Big Bang theory seems to take a beating and the EU theory seems to keep getting stronger. Is the EU theory all fleshed out and fully ready? No. Is it ready for more direct experimental evidence? Yes.

Black holes, dark energy and dark matter all seem to be unobserved fairy tales that the Big Bang Theory requires. There are more fantasy objects in their theory but those three are the main ones. The EU doesn't require such religious belief.

One such fairy tale is how fusion powers the sun. The sun would have burnt out long ago if that was the fact. To explain away this uncomfortable fact, BB theorists say that gravitic compression has kept the sun alive and burning. While the fuel may be gone, the pressure of the gravity falling inward has kept us all safe. You see, they sent a man there, he dug a deep hole and found out all this information from his mining. Ha.

At some point, reasonable people will start looking at alternatives. It is time to dump the Big Bang Theory and look at alternatives. The EU is a good one. It may not be entirely correct, but so far it has done a pretty good job. For those who aren't sure, I strongly suggest bookmarking the TPOD at Thunderbolts to see what they have to say. If you don't, then you may fall off the edge of the Earth as it is flat you know.

www.thunderbolts.info...


seems to me the only people saying Big Bang Theory takes a beating is the EU guys. . . Coincidence. . . . ? Maybe.

That is the halmark of a good theory is one that can take a beating and still work. Big Bang theory and the standard model explain alot of things. Is it complete no but is it the best we've got? Absolutely. There are of course anomolies but most of then have worked themselves out in time.

Everyone wants an answer to the dark problems now or the theory is wrong. . . Sorry but it doesn't work that way. Remember the hunt for neutrino's? That was thought of as crazy, impossible standard model mumbo jumbo for years before it was validated.

Science takes time and eventually we'll work out the problems. Will big bang continue to cut the mustard? I cannot say for sure but enough of it has already been validated to know that we're not "completely" wrong as you EU proponents like to say.

EU theory says all particles interact with electromagnetic feilds. . . What about neutrinos? They can only interact witha anything through the weak force.


If you were an electron, moving through intergalactic space towards the sun, what would you see? What would happen as you approach the sun? The first significant indication of the sun's presence that you would encounter is the sun's gravity. A slow moving electron could get caught up by that gravity, and become part of the "halo" that includes the Oort cloud, and probably extends about 1.5 light years from the sun. But a typical interstellar electron will be moving at about 20 km/sec with respect to the sun, well in excess of escape velocity, unless the electron finds its way to the inner solar system, so it's more likely that you would just cruise by and not notice. Of course, an electric sun hypothesizer would hypothesize that you would feel an attraction from the sun's excess positive charge, but we've already shown that to be unreasonable; if an electron at the orbit of the Earth feels no such force, how could one that is a light year away?

But if you are going in the right direction, you would encounter the sun's rather prodigious magnetic field. One of the first things a new physics student learns about electricity & magnetism is the "Lorentz Force", F = qE + V X B, which tells us that the vector force (F) on a charged particle is equal to the charge (Q) times the vector electric field (E) plus the vector cross product (X) of the particles velocity (V) relative to the magnetic field (B). A vector cross product has the peculiar property that it is perpendicular to the plane that includes the two vectors, in accordance to the right hand rule (in the case of V X B, curl the fingers of your right hand in the direction from V to B, through the smaller angle; your thumb points in the direction of the resultant vector). Hence, the force felt by the electron is perpendicular to its velocity V. So if you were an electron heading towards the sun, you would feel a force pushing you away from the sun, at right angles. In fact this is observed to happen where the solar wind encounters the Earth's magnetic field, and other planetary magnetic fields.

In order to bolster the argument, Scott quotes from Earl Milton's review of the notes left behind by the late civil engineer Raplh Juergens, purporting to show that there are enough electrons to power the sun as postulated. Juergen's assumed an extremely unrealistic velocity of about 105 meters per second (about 0.1 km/sec), when the real velocity is more like 20 km/sec, and he didn't consider dynamics, so he missed the escape velocity problem altogether. His assumption of 50,000 free electrons per cubic meter is not too far off from the more realistic 30,000. But his assumption of random velocity is entirely wrong, the electrons stream past the sun as the sun moves through the interstellar medium with its own peculiar relative velocity.

So even if the total number of electrons seems like enough for an electric sun, getting them to the sun is quite a chore, since they move in excess of escape velocity, and are pushed off by the magnetic field. But even if those electrons made it past the magnetic field, and pointed right at the sun so they wouldn't zip on by, they would still have to plow through the increasingly dense flow of the solar wind on its way out. And since the solar wind is made of charged particles, the incoming electrons would be buffeted by the electric fields of the protons and electrons of the solar wind, as well as the relativistic magnetic fields caused by the relative motion between the incoming electrons and the outgoing solar wind plasma, as well as the solar magnetic field that is embedded in the solar wind plasma, and moves outward at the same velocity.

All of these difficulties from plain physics, coupled with the fact that the alleged incoming electrons certainly appear to be not there, leave one to wonder why this is such a hot idea.


www.tim-thompson.com...


It may not be entirely correct, but so far it has done a pretty good job. For those who aren't sure, I strongly suggest bookmarking the TPOD at Thunderbolts to see what they have to say.


A pretty good job of what? Making predictions? No. Standing up to critisism with data? No. Providing new usable data? No. Attempting to surplant rigorous, working, reliable, refined, robust, theory with a cobbled together pseudo-theory with no base in observation or astronomical experiment? Yes.

Just explain why you cant find an influx of electrons moving into the sun.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
From the OP, this article really makes my day:

Dust in space does not "gravitate" together and form planets.

Such a hypothesis is ridiculous on its face.

FURTHER - dust in space is not always neutral in charge as the commissars of Einsteinian science tell us.

Here's a paper by KTH highlighting the fact that the dust in Saturn's rings contains electric charge and is interacting with Saturn's plasma torus.

Its blatantly obvious that Saturn's rings are not a function of gravity, they are a function of Saturn's electric (magnetic) fields.




[edit on 29-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
The best part of this thread was the kid who thought the 'Electric Sun' model meant all suns in the universe are powered by aliens, like they're plugged in! That was hilarious.

As for the rest of it? I personally believe in the Electric Sun model, or at least I believe it is the next step to take to progress. We can learn much more from our failures than our success' and I think it merits more investigation. Neither argument is perfect, but we don't hope to travel our journey in a footstep do we?

People coming on and whining that it is pseudo-science and 'hocus pocus' and doing nothing to disprove or argue against it are totally redundant, we have no need for you. Also to note that the OP's hostile manner and tone didn't do much to help things, although I doubt taking the 'high road' would have done much to most of these people.

I thought the discovery of THEMIS about the Sun pumping 650,000 Amps of energy into the magnetospheres northern pole may have made a few people question our perception of cosmology and astrophysics but apparently not. If we have only just discovered an action like this right above our own heads, then we may see evidence of a similar system on the Sun in the years to come, especially with SDO up and running.

www.nasa.gov...

That article in itself lends credence to the Sun powering Earth's weather, although that could be a biased perception on my part.


Also,


Our sun's sphere of influence, according to a series of papers published in Science on Oct. 16 detailing the initial results from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) satellite, seems instead to be a bubble that is cinched at the waist by a vast ribbon as seen by energetic neutral atoms — atoms that are not electrically charged, but are moving very fast through space — that are glowing 10 times more brightly than anyone had expected from anything in this region called the heliosphere. The textbook descriptions of the heliosphere, according to Science's accompanying news story, will have to be entirely rewritten.



IBEX provides "the first all-sky view of this region, and no one was expecting what we've seen," Crew says. Oddly enough, the energetic ribbon that circles the whole sky doesn't seem to follow the ecliptic (the plane in which all of the planets orbit). Nor does it follow the plane of the galaxy we inhabit, the Milky Way. "Who ordered this?" Crew exclaims. "It doesn't line up with anything!"


web.mit.edu...

I'm not asking you to whole heartedly believe any of this, but at least just consider the possibility rather than outright attacking it for no other reason than that it doesn't agree with your perception of things.

And a nice healthy debate where we don't start calling each other names would be great too, although this has gone on for quite some time, I suppose it's a bit late to ask for that now.


EMM



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Hi

Thank you for all the info.

Question :
Can anyone give me an easy to understand explanation on how it's possible for the Sun with its finite resources to burn and even encreases this burning for 10 billion years and why a star much more massive then our sun can burn everything within millions of years.

The explanation I learned was because of its fight with gravity is lost much more quickly because it burns more rapidly.

What's burning anyway ?
The star collapses on itself when its out of fuel do to gravity.

Isn't gravity related to mass ? and isn't this mass burned ? Therefore reducing gravity.

It's burning and emmiting something yet it's gravity gets the best of it eventualy. I don't get it ?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 

Nothing is burning. Burning is a chemical process. The Sun is driven by nuclear processes.

Hydrogen is converted into helium (and deuterium). Energy is released and relatively small amounts of matter are ejected from the surface of the Sun but most of the products of these nuclear reactions are held in the Sun and are still contributing to the total mass (and therefore gravity) of the Sun.

The Sun has a lot of hydrogen. But it will run out...in 5 billion years or so.


[edit on 4/29/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


What "Phage" said.

And, class is in session:

Life Cycle of a Star

Good learnin' there. Be ready for a pop quiz, at any time.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks.


So the only thing its emitting is the energy that is realeased when it's hydrogen fuses into a heavier element that actualy isn't going anywhere ?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 

No, matter is also lost via the solar wind. But compared to the entire mass, not hardly noticeable.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Will you at least wait until I've watched it ?

Thank you for the link.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok. So that would explain the solar particles that can actualy be retrieved like they did a few years ago.

Anyway, it makes a lot more sense then before. thanks.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Don Scott has refuted the bogus claims of Thompson. If you bothered to actually click the links in the OP, you'd see all of the formal refutations posted already, as well as links to competing models.

Don Scott's rejoinder to Tim Thompson
www.electric-cosmos.org...

Don Scott's reply to Tom Bridgman
www.thunderbolts.info...

Don Scott's rejoinder to BAUT (formulas not displayed correctly on this page):
www.thunderbolts.info...

models:
sites.google.com...

[edit on 29-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You skipped "constantwonder"s question:


Originally posted by constantwonder
Just explain why you cant find an influx of electrons moving into the sun.


Does, or does not electromagnetism require ELECTRONS?

At least, in areas and items made of matter.

In a nutshell, is this just a question of the "TOE", and the search for the "Unified Theory" as well?

What is happening here seems to be a misunderstanding about the fact we really, as yet, do not know exactly what 'light' is. ALL forms of radiation, that we collectively call the "EM Spectrum".

Not even sure WHAT an electron is. Lots of theories, stemming from observation, CERN, etc. We can describe it, the basic makeup, so far it is thought to be an "elementary" particle. BUT, it is still hard to pin down (literally). It is undeniably a fundamental component of matter, though. Still, although we know how to utilize it, observe it, have some limited control over it....it is still an enigma.


NOW....the question of just HOW light (or any other EM radiation) actually propagates through space? Another level of theoritical physics still being investigated.

Quantum theory. String theory. Branes. Just a few.

Oh...and a handful of extreme fringe types who came up with THIS 'electric universe' notion that fails in every logical and reasonable way imaginable. And doesn't ever rise to the level of a theory. Not sure if it qualifies even as a hypothesis. Hypotheses MUST have some sort of foundation behind them.....

It's just about the equivalent of saying the Moon is made of green cheese, and about as scientific.

Even as a layperson, with a lack of the details...I am able to watch and read about science, and learn a little....



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You skipped "constantwonder"s question:


Originally posted by constantwonder
Just explain why you cant find an influx of electrons moving into the sun.


Does, or does not electromagnetism require ELECTRONS?

At least, in areas and items made of matter.

In a nutshell, is this just a question of the "TOE", and the search for the "Unified Theory" as well?

What is happening here seems to be a misunderstanding about the fact we really, as yet, do not know exactly what 'light' is. ALL forms of radiation, that we collectively call the "EM Spectrum".

Not even sure WHAT an electron is. Lots of theories, stemming from observation, CERN, etc. We can describe it, the basic makeup, so far it is thought to be an "elementary" particle. BUT, it is still hard to pin down (literally). It is undeniably a fundamental component of matter, though. Still, although we know how to utilize it, observe it, have some limited control over it....it is still an enigma.


NOW....the question of just HOW light (or any other EM radiation) actually propagates through space? Another level of theoritical physics still being investigated.

Quantum theory. String theory. Branes. Just a few.

Oh...and a handful of extreme fringe types who came up with THIS 'electric universe' notion that fails in every logical and reasonable way imaginable. And doesn't ever rise to the level of a theory. Not sure if it qualifies even as a hypothesis. Hypotheses MUST have some sort of foundation behind them.....

It's just about the equivalent of saying the Moon is made of green cheese, and about as scientific.

Even as a layperson, with a lack of the details...I am able to watch and read about science, and learn a little....


The "extreme fringe" scientist that came up with the electric sun hypothesis won the Nobel prize in plasma physics for coming up with MHD theory.

His protégé, Anthony Peratt, is a plasma physicist for the Los Alamos National Laboratory and formulated the working models for the electric universe on their super-computers.

As you readily admit, after 100 years of research we still don't have a fundamental understanding of what constitutes matter and light. Given this fact, it seems quite logical that plasma theory and its accompanying steady state universe are still within the realm of possibility.

As for the constant demands of "where electrons come from to power the sun," one first has to understand how quasi-neutrality in plasma is maintained and how double layers function around discharging anodes.

Standard theorists do not understand this even today because they are relying on MHD models that don't include currents! Alfven himself said this was a gross misuse of his models.

Once one understands these things, the concept of why we don't clearly see electrons flowing into the sun becomes apparent. The plasma field between the corona and the heliopause WILL BE NEUTRAL in appearance as only a small subset of the electrons sucked up by the heliopause will be moving toward charge equalization.

The arguments made by Scott clarify this if you bother to read them.

This is why we don't see all electrons flowing into the Sun. This does not occur in the laboratory, so its ridiculous to think it would occur in space.



[edit on 29-4-2010 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join