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: 17
55
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Just watched the video below and figured there must be a thread on this and found this one. The video is excellent and explains how the Electrical model of the sun and universe answers all the questions the standard model of gravity and fusion model of the sun cannot answer. It is actually quite succinct. I read some of the arguments on the thread trying to debunk however it appears none of the ones I read really watched the video as they never brought up any specific claim of the video and dealt with it. They just keep repeating standard theory and refuse to answer any question as to why the standard theory can't account for certain phenomena such as sun spots etc.


Google Video Link




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Videos and books for the public are good and all, but if the authors of the electric universe want their theory to be taken seriosly, why aren't they presenting their findings and calculations to the scientific communty for review?
uk.answers.yahoo.com...

As someone said, "show me the math and then we can talk about it".

There's a term: woo-science. It's when someone tries to woo the general public with cleverly written websites, book, videos, lectures, but does not risk a proper review by the scientific community.

If the electric universe model is so good, why isn't there any serious research being conducted? Why many people who read a lot about science haven't even heard of it?

Just my 2 cents. (and no, I didn't watch all of the video.)
edit on 5-3-2011 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Just watched the video below and figured there must be a thread on this and found this one. The video is excellent and explains how the Electrical model of the sun and universe answers all the questions the standard model of gravity and fusion model of the sun cannot answer.


I watched a few (many) parts of this very long video and I never saw once how the math beyond the standard model doesn't yield this or that result, versus the "Electrical Model", which supposedly does. In the face of this, I call your post essentially a lie.

How well do you know the Standard Model? How many problems in particle scattering or anything related to cross-sections have you solved? Why the heck do you think you are 0.0001% qualified to make statements like "standard model of gravity doesn't solve this and that"? Pushing this cr@p is an exercise in stupidity, and that's not an emotional statement but a statement of fact. Show me the equations whereby the so called "Electrical Model" explains jack. If you can't do this, you have no business posting statements like you did post, unfortunately for ATS.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Because it's far easier to play armchair physicist by getting your understanding from pop science articles aimed at the layman than it is to actually understand the real science behind the articles. People think that doing a bit of googling here and there and reading a few laymen books/articles qualifies them as a physicist. This in turn leads people to all sorts of crazy cargo cult "theories" where in actual fact they literally do not have a clue what they are talking about. They should implement a curse filter in this forum that changes the word "theory" to "wild speculation"



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by hawkiye
Just watched the video below and figured there must be a thread on this and found this one. The video is excellent and explains how the Electrical model of the sun and universe answers all the questions the standard model of gravity and fusion model of the sun cannot answer.


I watched a few (many) parts of this very long video and I never saw once how the math beyond the standard model doesn't yield this or that result, versus the "Electrical Model", which supposedly does. In the face of this, I call your post essentially a lie.

How well do you know the Standard Model? How many problems in particle scattering or anything related to cross-sections have you solved? Why the heck do you think you are 0.0001% qualified to make statements like "standard model of gravity doesn't solve this and that"? Pushing this cr@p is an exercise in stupidity, and that's not an emotional statement but a statement of fact. Show me the equations whereby the so called "Electrical Model" explains jack. If you can't do this, you have no business posting statements like you did post, unfortunately for ATS.


I have read several of your posts in this thread and they all follow the same tactic as you use here. You claim to have watched the video and that it is crap but never once have you taken any premise in the video specifically and refuted it. Take for instance sun spots. The fusion reactor model cannot account for cool spots nearer to the core in fact if the sun was a giant fusion reaction sun spots would be impossible because it would be hotter near the core... However with the electrical model it fits perfectly, maybe you can start with that and cease with calling everything a lie without providing any substance.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Videos and books for the public are good and all, but if the authors of the electric universe want their theory to be taken seriosly, why aren't they presenting their findings and calculations to the scientific communty for review?

As someone said, "show me the math and then we can talk about it".

There's a term: woo-science. It's when someone tries to woo the general public with cleverly written websites, book, videos, lectures, but does not risk a proper review by the scientific community.

If the electric universe model is so good, why isn't there any serious research being conducted? Why many people who read a lot about science haven't even heard of it?

Just my 2 cents. (and no, I didn't watch all of the video.)
edit on 5-3-2011 by wildespace because: (no reason given)


Obviously you haven't watched the video because they have done these things and there is ongoing research. Why don't you and all the armchair know it alls take something specific in the video and prove it wrong instead of opining without any substance. The video is not the be all end all of thier work it is getting the word out, or an introduction, however it touches on some specific poignant points that surely if it was all crap the arm chair know it alls could easily refute.
edit on 6-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 

reply to post by buddhasystem
 

reply to post by john_bmth
 

I was doing some research on this and ran across something I found interesting. Two big EU proponents were Wal Thornhill and Ralph Juergens. Both were inspired by Velikovsky who had a lot of non-mainstream ideas.


Juergens retired in 1960 and moved from the Midwest to Hightstown, near Princeton, to pursue and become involved with the work of Immanuel Velikovsky.[6]. Shortly after, Velikovsky recommended to writer Alfred de Grazia, that Juergens become science editor on the book they planned of Velikovsky's story...
Inspired by Velikovsky's work, "The Foundation for Studies of Modern Science" was inaugurated on June 2, 1968 by de Grazia, Richard P. Kramer, Stecchini, and Juergens,...

In 1972 Juergens first published in the magazine Pensée, an article "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism" in which he highlights the idea that:

".. the interplanetary medium suggest not only that the sun and the planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic electric discharge -- the probable source of all its radiant energy."[9]

However, Velikovsky never accepted Juergens' theory, because the thermonuclear theory seemed sound to him.
Velikovsky had no fears about bucking the mainstream, as plenty of his ideas did that. And even though it was Velikovsky who inspired Juergens, even Velikovsky could see the evidence for fusion in the sun was too strong to abandon it in favor of Juergens' "electric sun".

One way of looking at this is, even the guy who supposedly "inspired" electric sun theory didn't believe it!

www.velikovsky.info...


The Electric Sun is often attributed to a 1972 article by Ralph Juergens,[1] who acknowledges priority to a 1958 Melvin Cook monograph, and inspiration from Immanuel Velikovsky's 1946 monograph, Cosmos Without Gravitation (though Velikovsky himself did not endorse it, see below)...

Alfred de Grazia reports that Velikovsky never accepted Juergens' theory, because the thermonuclear theory seemed sound to him.[16] de Grazia writes that he:

"asked Velikovsky, more than once, whether he could accept Juergens' theory, he would reply with a definite negative. He adhered to internal thermo-nuclear fusion as the secret of the Sun's radiation".
That's a pretty big lack of endorsement of electric sun theory from the guy who was somehow partially credited with inspiring the idea, isn't it?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Your post still does not deal with a single theory of the electrical sun. It just says so and so did not believe it (without any substance I might add) therefore it must be false...



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Your post still does not deal with a single theory of the electrical sun.
That's because there is no coherent theory and no evidence. If you ask to see a circuit diagram of the electric sun you get nonsense, there is no circuit diagram. It's an incoherent theory. And even electric sun adherents admit that the current needed to generate the sun's energy has never been measured. Since that current forms the basis for the theory, no respectable scientist will ever accept the electric sun theory until that current is measured.

And here's why I'm pretty confident no such current will ever be measured:

www.electricuniverse.info...

"Thus, the electric star model originated with an erroneous conception of what turbulence and chaos entail and, despite an impressive argument by analogy with electric discharges, it fails, as will be explained, because of a feature of solar structure discovered through observations from Skylab in 1973, but which was never discussed by either Juergens or Milton - the coronal hole [..]

"Yes, the Sun could theoretically be powered by an influx of relativistic electrons; but if the Sun were fueled by incoming electrons, why are none observed at the places where they would be expected to be most numerous? Until the theory is reconciled with this observation, the electric star model can be given no credence
What's the response to that? I don't know of any credible counter-argument. And there's this problem too:


if the first "major property" of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. That's what the third "major property" says is happening, but we see that reality is somewhat different. The observation of electrons & protons both being "repelled" by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun's excess charge. But we don't see that. "


What's the response to that?

Don Scott has replied that "Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics."
So?

You can use any model you want and it won't change the fact that observations show electrons are moving in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION of what the electric sun model claims!
edit on 6-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: inserted missing ex-text



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
How does Electric Universe explain time dilation (both gravitational and relativistic)?

By what mechanism would the Sun be positively charged and the outer solar system be negatively charged? What caused this separation, and what's keeping it? Is the inner solar system (including us) lacking in electons?
edit on 6-3-2011 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 



As someone said, "show me the math and then we can talk about it".



The mathematics is all there, in the appropriate books and papers to which EU theorists frequently refer. Physics of a Plasma Universe by Anthony L. Peratt, Cosmical Electrodynamics and Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfvén, Gaseous Conductors by J.D. Cobine and many more besides. www.thunderbolts.info...


The math has been used in the laboratory to successfully simulate the formation of galaxies. The same cannot be said for the standard gravitational model this is a good site to visit:


Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.
The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]

In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament.[3]

The simulation began with two spherical clouds of plasma trapped in parallel magnetic filaments, each carrying a current of around 1018 amperes. The clouds spin around each other until a spiral shape emerges. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulation appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes, and posited a morphological sequence that corresponded to Halton Arp's ideas that galaxies formed out of quasars ejected from AGN.[4] Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves.

Simulation characteristics
Peratt further notes that:[3] "When scaled to cosmic dimensions the simulations show:

1.a burst of synchrotron radiation of luminosity ~1037 W lasting 107-108 years as the interaction began;
2.isophotal topologies of double radio galaxies and quasars, including juxtapositioned "hot spots" in the radio lobes (cross sections of the interacting Birkeland currents);
3.the formation of "dust lane" peculiar and elliptical galaxies at the geometric center of quasars and radio galaxies (due to plasma trapped and compressed within the elliptical magnetic separatrix);
4.a spatially varying power law along the major axis of the simulated double radio galaxies in agreement with observations;
5.alternating beams of betatron-pumped synchrotron-emitting electrons on either side of the elliptical center (these have the morphologies (i.e., "knots" or vortices) and polarization properties of jets); and
6.a "superluminosity" and fading of jets as the betatron-induced acceleration field sweeps over and ignites previously confined plasma."

Peratt continues: "The simulation time frame of this investigation lasted some 108-109 years. The lifetime and evolution of quasars and double radio sources, the so-called end problem of double radio galaxies, was addressed in this paper (Paper II) by continuing the simulation run ~1-5 x 109 years farther in time. This extension of the simulation showed:

1.the transition of double radio galaxies to radioquasars to radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert galaxies, finally ending in spiral galaxies;
2.the formation of irregular and dust lane galaxies, as well as more flattened E and S0 galaxies within the magnetic separatrix;
3.barred and normal spiral galaxies resulting from the inflow of plasma from the outer Birkeland currents onto the the elliptical galactic center; the characteristic rotational velocities of spiral galaxies including the fine-detail vortex cotangent structure on the "flat" portions of the spiral-arm velocity components;
4.replications of the morphologies of multiple interacting galaxies;
5."horseshoe" like regions of nearly neutral Hi gas in spiral galaxies resulting from the convection and neutralization of plasma into regions of strong galactic magnetic fields; and
6.toroidal and poloidal components of the galactic magnetic field with field strengths reaching 2 x 10-4 G at the galactic center (fields as high as 10-2 G can occur in concentrated regions). These results were reported prior to their observation in the Galaxy"
www.plasma-universe.com...



How does Electric Universe explain time dilation (both gravitational and relativistic)?


Well Einstein himself was not fully satisfied with relativity and continued to look for answers it could not explain late into his life


Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers
April 9, 2010 by Lisa Zyga... Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same.
www.physorg.com...



By what mechanism would the Sun be positively charged and the outer solar system be negatively charged? What caused this separation, and what's keeping it? Is the inner solar system (including us) lacking in electons?


I am no plasma physicist however one must remember you cannot have a magnetic field without an electrical current. This is something the standard model fails to address and also actually defies the laws of physics by saying the charge in space is relatively neutral. The below answers your question though.


electrical events in space don't depend on simplistic "electrostatic" forces, but upon the dynamic behavior of plasma. Charged bodies in plasma form double-layer (Langmuir) sheaths that effectively shield them from each other unless the sheaths touch. Further, it is electric currents in space, following the direction of ambient magnetic fields, that provide the essential circuitry. The electric current density required, though immeasurably small throughout the vast volume of the heliosphere, is easily sufficient, when focused down, to light the Sun. But how does Sheaffer propose to answer the question without addressing any of the defining features of the Sun -- the very features that have endlessly troubled solar physicists, but are predictable under the electric model? 

EU proponents generally think of all bodies in the solar system as "positively-charged," while other bodies are simply less positively-charged than the Sun. The insulating plasma wall, or "double layer," of the heliosphere, at the outer reaches of the Sun's electrical influence, is what separates the more positively charged region of the Sun from the more negatively charged region of interstellar space. There is no "grandiose theorizing" in such principles, just well-documented plasma science.

But can we be confident that subtle electric currents flow across cosmic distances? The answer is clear, because the magnetic fields now seen everywhere we look in space can only be created by electric currents -- subtle, yes; but unquestionably active even on the largest scale we can observe with radio telescopes by their radio emissions.

www.thunderbolts.info...


reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



That's because there is no coherent theory and no evidence. If you ask to see a circuit diagram of the electric sun you get nonsense, there is no circuit diagram. It's an incoherent theory. And even electric sun adherents admit that the current needed to generate the sun's energy has never been measured.


What a wonderful way to avoid any rational discussion. Just claim the theory is incoherent and there is no evidence case closed.
The fact is there is a huge body of evidence gathered over several decades peer reviewed and a growing number of respected scholars and scientist are researching studying and embracing it. The other fact is pseudo-sceptics such as yourself are to lazy to actually learn and understand the principles many of which have been proven or simulated in the lab unlike black holes, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, magnetic "reconnection", or other fictions, and so you can't give a coherent answer and we get non-sense like this with quotes from a site of more pseudo-sceptics who do not bother to even try and understand the actual principles of an Electric Universe and then you say there is no answer for it... Sigh!

Here is just a small taste:



Magnetic fields are predicated upon electric currents. In The Simplified Case for Cosmic Electrodynamics, readers learned that electric currents and magnetic fields are intimately related.

What Are Electromagnetic Fields?

Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.

Electric currents spawn magnetic fields. Magnetic field strength depends upon the strength of the electric current. That is the principle behind the modern electromagnet, Phil! Magnetic fields are also diagnostic for electric currents in the lab, when it’s impossible or inconvenient to interrupt a circuit and insert a measuring device directly.

Ignorance of this basic physical fact, or claims to the contrary (that electric currents don’t flow in space or "don’t do anything"), should embarrass Plait and his cohorts in the astronomical community who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the role of currents in space. They sorely need the counsel of a qualified electrical engineer and/or plasma physicist before the good name of the "queen of the sciences" is tarnished any further.

The simple fact of the matter is that the standard model of cosmology prefers not to deal with electric currents if at all possible and thus artificially creates its own blind spot. It speaks of magnetic fields as if they are a sole cause and not the byproduct effect of another process.

Ignorance of the work of Maxwell, Ampere, Faraday and Lorentz cannot be allowed to stand, if astronomy wishes to make any actual advances in our understanding of how the universe truly functions without reference to unproven, unobservable ‘new physics’ such as ‘dark matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ ‘inflation,’ etc.

In a prior Thunderblog, it was revealed that the Milky Way’s stellar halo is composed of "star streams" (filaments of stars). The standard model claims these filaments somehow survived intact or were created by the merger of one or more dwarf galaxies with the Milky Way, and were gently woven around it. From the Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe point of view, such filaments are an expected feature of currents threading the plasma universe, wherein plasma and electrical processes scale from the smallest to the largest.

Now it would seem that NGC 1275 is yet another poster child for filamentation in cosmic plasma. In fact, it demonstrates the scalability of plasma processes and the fractal nature of the plasma filaments.

More here:
www.thunderbolts.info...


I do not claim to be an expert on Electric Universe or the standard model, and anyone here who does should post their credentials. I simply researched the reasonable questions and found reasonable answers even to the unreasonable questions. Does this prove or debunk either? No it doesn't however it does show there is enough hard well researched evidence to warrant a real investigation of the EU by anyone who is truly interested in the truth and expanding scientific knowledge for the betterment of all.

The sad part is that pseudo-sceptics want to jump on these type threads and dismiss everything out of hand and try and discourage others from even trying to understand the principles. This kind of tit for tat can be interesting but it quickly devolves when the so called debunkers cant even present the actual theory they are trying to debunk, but instead present a straw-man argument based on some other pseudo-sceptics argument they read on the net somewhere. The number of non substantive "this is bunk" type posts on this thread is shameful! What happened to deny ignorance?

I have no problems with scepticism, however when one theory challenges another the best way to see which one is more plausible is to understand both by looking at the evidence of both as much as possible so one can make an accurate comparison.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
What a wonderful way to avoid any rational discussion. Just claim the theory is incoherent and there is no evidence case closed.
The fact is there is a huge body of evidence gathered over several decades peer reviewed and a growing number of respected scholars and scientist are researching studying and embracing it.
What a totally inappropriate response. I didn't just claim there's no evidence, which by the way you didn't address. Where is the evidence for the current that's the whole foundation for the electric sun theory? It's never been measured!!!

And I went on with specific evidence against the electric sun theory, which you also chose to not rebut. So it is YOU sir, who are avoiding rational discussion, not I. Either address the points in my post, or don't, but don't ignore the points I made in my post and don't misrepresent my post as not addressing specific issues, namely:

1. Where is the evidence for the current that powers the sun? Everyone admits there's no evidence.
2. Why do coronal holes not display current of electrons flowing into the sun?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
I have read several of your posts in this thread and they all follow the same tactic as you use here. You claim to have watched the video and that it is crap but never once have you taken any premise in the video specifically and refuted it. Take for instance sun spots. The fusion reactor model cannot account for cool spots nearer to the core in fact if the sun was a giant fusion reaction sun spots would be impossible because it would be hotter near the core...


Do yourself a favor and look up sunspots on Google and/or Wikipedia. There are perfectly normal explanations of this phenomenon which is due to magnetic fields but in no way connected to "EU" etc.

The video you linked to is heavy on ambient music, sound effects and pronouncements like "Sun is an electrical phenomenon" but sadly light on substance, and I'm being generous here.

Indeed, WHERE IS THE CURRENT?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



What a totally inappropriate response. I didn't just claim there's no evidence, which by the way you didn't address.


It was quite an oppropriate response since I quoted you claming there is no evidence and addressed it by posting evidence and several links to more evidence.


Where is the evidence for the current that's the whole foundation for the electric sun theory? It's never been measured!!!


Why am i not surprised you obviously did not read through my whole post and just knee jerked reacted to me exposing your non substantive answers. I addressed current, it has been measured with radio telescopes and now you must show us how you can can have a magnetic field without current. But then you would know that had you actually read my whole post.


And I went on with specific evidence against the electric sun theory, which you also chose to not rebut. So it is YOU sir, who are avoiding rational discussion, not I. Either address the points in my post, or don't, but don't ignore the points I made in my post and don't misrepresent my post as not addressing specific issues, namely:


Ah the mark of a true pseudo-skeptic just repeat non-sense over and over and claim it has not been addressed...



1 Everyone admits there's no evidence.


Really prove it! Did you read that on wikipedia? Wait a minute I thought you said that you didn't say there was no evidence??? Sigh!. Again I just posted evidence and links to more. As I have said it would do you well to actually research it and understand the decades of evidence for it before trying to refute it. Other pseudo-sceptics at least try and postulate a straw man to knock down, but not you, you just claim there is no evidence and ignore it all...




2. Why do coronal holes not display current of electrons flowing into the sun?



The negative solar wind does not attract electrons, therefore the wind-emitting solar surface - the so called coronal hole - seems to be black in X ray. Small coronal holes emit wind of the same velocity of 750 km/s as the large coronal holes. www.the-electric-universe.info...


Now your turn, tell us how you can have a magnetic field without current? How can you have a cold spot known as sun spot nearer to the core on a giant fusion reactor where the core is millions of degrees hotter then the surface?

reply to post by buddhasystem
 


What a surpirse another non substantive post asking the same questions that have been answered on the post you did not read... Sigh!

And Wow I did not know wikipedia was a reliable sources of scientific data. I'll have to inform all the scientific community they are missing out on a very good source...



edit on 7-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

The negative solar wind does not attract electrons, therefore the wind-emitting solar surface - the so called coronal hole - seems to be black in X ray. Small coronal holes emit wind of the same velocity of 750 km/s as the large coronal holes. www.the-electric-universe.info...



This link of yours is peddling ignorance. CRTs have focusing systems, there is no automatic focusing of electron beams that would eliminate the need for focusing.

In addition, if you calculate the magnetic field due to the HUGE current that would need to power the Sun, it would do all sorts of things to the photosphere well in excess of the sunspots. The individual sunspots are featuring only a fraction of total energy generated by the Sun, so a current sink would feature a field which is tremendously larger than anything existing in the sunspots.


Now your turn, tell us how you can have a magnetic field without current?


You need to look up Maxwell's equations to realize how this is possible. It is.


How can you have a cold spot known as sun spot nearer to the core on a giant fusion reactor where the core is millions of degrees hotter then the surface?


We observe sunspots on the surface of the sun, what's your point? Did you even know that the temperature difference was not that great?


What a surpirse another non substantive post asking the same questions that have been answered on the post you did not read... Sigh!


I did read the post and even wasted time visiting the crap-science links you provided. There is no current sink on the Sun that you were able to demonstrate.


And Wow I did not know wikipedia was a reliable sources of scientific data.


Sadly, this is not the only thing you are missing out on... Did you notice that wiki's article on quantum mechanics are actually quite good as a starter or refresher material? Did you see a large number of links on Wikipedia you could use to re-check the articles?

edit on 7-3-2011 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


This link of yours is peddling ignorance.

CRTs have focusing systems, there is no automatic focusing of electron beams.

In addition, if you calculate the magnetic field due to the HUGE current that would need to power the Sun, it would do all sorts of things to the photosphere well in excess of the sunspots. The individual sunspots are featuring only a fraction of total energy generated by the Sun, so a current sink would feature a field which is tremendously larger than anything existing in the sunspots.


Really now? And of course your answer has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. Also we should just take your word for things? Where is the evidence? And why do you assert their is no focusing system? Perhaps you should study plasma physics... The calculations have been done and I referenced the material they are in which of course you ignore and ironically label as ignorance. If the site is peddling ignorance why is it you will not take any specific claim on it and show evidence against it? Oh you claim it is wrong but fail to provide any evidence of your assertion. This is what you have done in every one of your posts. Which is why I call them non substantive. Nope sorry you are the one peddling ignorance here.


You need to look up Maxwell's equations to realize how this is possible. It is.


No you need to look it up and provide the evidence of your assertion on how it supposedly refutes the laws of physics on how magnetic fields are created AND MUST HAVE AN ELECTRICAL CURRENT to exist, in which Maxwell, Ampere, Lorentz and Faraday agree.


We observe sunspots on the surface of the sun, what's your point? Did you even know that the temperature difference was not that great?


Again you make a statement with nothing to back it up. Prove it!


I did read the post and even wasted time visiting the crap-science links you provided. There is no current sink on the Sun that you were able to demonstrate.


Ah pseudo-scepticism at is best. The site links are crap and then an incoherent line about not being able to demonstrate... Sigh! AND STILL we have not one single specific item postulated on any of the sites that has been dealt with much less refuted with any evidence. It appears I am the one wasting my time with these crap responses...


And with that I am done responding to ignorance and pseudo sceptics such as yourself since it is obvious you have no intention of any objective study of the growing mountain of evidence for the Electric Universe model.




edit on 7-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Where is the evidence for the current that's the whole foundation for the electric sun theory? It's never been measured!!!


Why am i not surprised you obviously did not read through my whole post and just knee jerked reacted to me exposing your non substantive answers. I addressed current, it has been measured with radio telescopes
No I just reread your post, you don't cite any specific observations or papers showing a current flowing into the sun...because there aren't any (except for the little loops of current that just left the sun)



1 Everyone admits there's no evidence.
Really prove it! Did you read that on wikipedia? Wait a minute I thought you said that you didn't say there was no evidence???
Let me clarify. Your response indicated I made a broad claim of no evidence and my claim for no evidence was very specific, meaning there's no evidence for electrons flowing into the sun from a source outside our solar system. And my source is professor Don Scott, a big promoter of this theory:

sites.google.com...


Conclusions:
....
5. 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.
Let me translate "difficult to measure", it translates to "has not been measured" meaning there's NO EVIDENCE! This is an admission from the guy promoting this theory!!!
edit on 7-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix tags



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by hawkiye
Now your turn, tell us how you can have a magnetic field without current?


You need to look up Maxwell's equations to realize how this is possible. It is.
Or just look at a refrigerator magnet.

Where's the current generating that magnetic field?
edit on 7-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix tags



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   


sites.google.com...

Conclusions:
....
5. 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.


Let me translate "difficult to measure", it translates to "has not been measured" meaning there's NO EVIDENCE! This is an admission from the guy promoting this theory!!!


Thank you for showing once and for all what kind of person you are, willing to be deceptive. This quote was taken from a list entitled: "A casual reading of this mathematical attempt [by Juergens] to FALSIFY the Electric Sun hypothesis reveals several misstatements, and unsupported assumptions" of which of course number 5 is what you quoted...


Or just look at a refrigerator magnet.

Where's the current generating that magnetic field?

Wow just wow! And this seals the deal that you have no clue what you re talking about. Those magnets become magnetised using what? Ah gee, ELECTRICAL CURRENT!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye


sites.google.com...

Conclusions:
....
5. Juergens’ model implies...


Thank you for showing once and for all what kind of person you are, willing to be deceptive. This quote was taken from a list entitled: "A casual reading of this mathematical attempt [by Juergens] to FALSIFY the Electric Sun hypothesis reveals several misstatements, and unsupported assumptions" of which of course number 5 is what you quoted...
No you have demonstrated a problem with your eyesight and reading comprehension. See the number 5 at the beginning of what I quoted? There are only 4 numbered items in the list you refer to, there is no number 5. The section I quoted from is called "conclusions", a separate list further down the page. Take another look.




Or just look at a refrigerator magnet.

Where's the current generating that magnetic field?

Wow just wow! And this seals the deal that you have no clue what you re talking about. Those magnets become magnetised using what? Ah gee, ELECTRICAL CURRENT!
Please provide a source for this claim.

Or how about I provide a source: Refrigerator magnet


A paramagnetic compound (usually ferric oxide) is mixed with a plastic binder and then extruded into a sheet. It passes on a conveyor belt over a line of high-permeability cylindrical permanent magnets. These magnets are arranged in an alternating (...) stack on a freely rotating shaft. This impresses the low-permeability plastic sheet with the magnetic poles in an alternating line format. Note that no electromagnetism is used.
What does "note that no electromagnetism is used" mean to you? Does that mean electric current was used?

If that's what you think, that's not what it means, they are going out of their way to say there's no electricity used.




top topics



 
55
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join